FamilySearch Wiki:FeedbackEdit This Page

From FamilySearch Wiki

A call for Feedback!


We need your feedback! We are eager to hear input and feedback from you because the FamilySearch Research Wiki is a community driven, community maintained site. Our goal is to make the FamilySearch Research Wiki a friendly, welcoming place that is easy to use and make contributions to, for both experts and beginners alike. Please leave your comments regarding any suggestions, solutions, or any of the following issues you may have encountered.

We want to hear about the good, the bad, and the ugly.

  • Was the wiki easy to use and figure out?
  • Could you can find what you were looking for?
  • Was contributing to the wiki easy and explained appropriately?
  • How hard was it to find the help needed to navigate the wiki or to contribute?
  • Did you find the help you needed and if you did, where did you find it?
  • What were your wiki experiences and how can we make them better?
  • Can you explain what challenges you face in doing your genealogy research?

Please provide us with any comments on other subjects related to this wiki, its community, its functionality, your expectations, or your wish list. We want to build a better wiki.




Contents



Written and verbal feedback already received has been posted below. Please feel free to sign your comments or leave them anonymous. Thanks! Kara aka CK Whipple 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Feedback


This feedback page is being reactivated so please "Get Involved". (2015)
Use the talk page for comments.


Below are some comments from years past so if these issues are still relevant today please repeat or restate them on the talk page so that the issue will be re-evaluated. Use the information below as guide to the type of issues raised before and that may possibly still be important today.

If you feel comfortable editing this page, you can add a response to one of these existing comments. Please use use indentation by putting a colon ( : ) in front of your comment so the new information is readily apparent. New feedback can also be added to the talk page as well as any other comments if you prefer not to edit the article itself.




Current issues and responses log

Feedback comments Submission date Preliminary status Acknowledge date Response Response date
I am updating a series of Facebook lessons for beginners. At present I am developing a lesson on use of the wiki for research. I have left two comments on talk pages of articles that are woefully out-of-date. And most of the pages for new to the wiki are geared to recruiting people to contribute to the wiki, not helping them use it. I found some comments from Janell in 2011-2012 stating the same and suggesting that there should be more of an emphasis on helping people use it. I make the same plea now. We have been working with hundreds of 18-22 yr old LDS Missionaries, and they are lost with the orientation given here Ken Knight 04:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Help talk:Tour The Video Tour is 2-3 years out of date--it begins by telling people how to get to the wiki years ago--not using the present FamilySearch pages. Not only will this not help newbees get on the page, but it will confuse them. Ken Knight 04:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Help talk:Wiki Basics Under “Navigation Boxes (right side of page)” the second item “Share Your Opinion” says it is the second box on the left side of a page. However the second box is “New to the Research Wiki?’ Apparently the purpose of the box has changed. This confusion needs to be clarified. Ken Knight 19:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Help talk:Wiki Help
RE The Family History Research Wikli home page

This is confusing. You have 2 "New to the Wiki" statements (in the "chick" box & in the getting started box (left column), which take you to different places. And they are very similar to the "New to the Research Wiki" in the top left box, which takes you to the same place as Getting Started New to the Wiki link does.

Also, when you click on the chick box, "how to use the wiki" you go to the "Help: Wiki Help" page. The "Wiki Help" tab is confusing, because all but 1 of the 8 topics are about contributing/editing the wiki. This should be made clear--perhaps changing the "how to use the wiki" to "how to contribute to the wiki" and move the Browsing the Wiki and most of its content to something like "Searching the Wiki" And is it reasonable that someone who is "new" to the wiki is interested or capable of contributing to the wiki?

As I stated on a previous page, the organization of the wiki will drive a novice researcher crazy. Clearly delineate the content that will help a researcher (especially neophytes) find information that will help them grow their branch of the family tree. And then put the information that is directed to those who want to contribute, edit, and administer the wiki into a box labeled Contributing to the wiki.

MAKE IT VERY CLEAR that there are TWO SEPARATE UNRELATED THEMES/PURPOSES in/for the wiki Ken Knight 01:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

15Feb2015 Forwarding to appropriate personnel 16Feb2015

Help talk:Wiki Basics (Fixed)

Response to Help talk:Wiki Help

I have eliminated one link on the right side bar and made the other one go to the same page. This main page is being reworked, so more changes will be made over time. Thanks for your suggestion User:Giuseppemartinengo 19 February 2015

19Feb2015






The Research Wiki

General

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
You really need to dumb it down.  It is like computer geeks don't know how to talk to everyday people. Add a condensed How-to section at the beginning of the current help articles which only provides the "easy as 1-2-3" information in "non-computeriese" language Also see note below.
People are intimidated by it. see note above. Also see, as a possible solution the "Easy as 123" section in the Help:Navigation Basics, the Help:Image maps, and an article example.
Too complicated and circuitous. Need to better utilize "hub" pages that provide a guided tour.
Sorry, I just find it a pain to work with and postpone it as long as I can!!!

Communications

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status

"There's no way to know if my feedback is heard, so why bother?"

I can totally understand! What if I created a page where users can view the progress of issues that have been submitted.  At least you will be able to see what is in progress and the date things are finished.  Communication isn't communication if it isn't two-way.  I will do my best to get information out to you.Kara aka CK Whipple 02:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Need to re-activate and publicize this page
  • BUT still need mechanism wherein comments get reviewed (not by just one person)
  • also need a way to move comments forward (up the chain of command) so that they are properly addressed (by the GC or CC or Support or engineering) and not just forgotten.

Each comment should have a response or solution posted on a single Feedback page.

Talk pages need to be template and threaded and make it easier to add and respond topics for discussion. There is a template now available, {{Discussion Conventions}}, which contains a "start a new topic" box which then only requires typing to make an entry.
Luccagenes 19:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
fixed
The wiki is not very friendly - how do you connect with other contributors or see if someone else is working on what you want to do? This is still an issue. Any suggestions?
Requests for fixes are not responded to. There is serious lack of communication. See page Known issues for the status of fix requests, although it must be kept up-to-date better.
You need a place on wiki for feedback. An attempt to reactivate this page is underway.
Luccagenes 19:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
fixing






Site design / organization

Sign in

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
Why do we need forums separate from the wiki? And a separate sign-in? Forums no longer exist na
Don't like having to sign in again to link to the forum. Forums no longer exist na


Design / color

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
The Community Portal is too cluttered. Is it even being monitored? Portal pages have been eliminated. na
The front page is very cluttered - need specific places to go.
The colors are bland.
LDSphilanthropies.org has more color. It is a church website.
The first screen (home page) needs to be more user friendly and inviting.
The wiki is beige and boring.
Wiki is bland - it needs to look more creative.
The wiki needs a "Here's what you will love" opening matrix, if possible.
The site needs color.


Organization / navigation

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
I'm discouraged by the complexities: talk pages on multiple levels, forums, creating columns/tables, importing images, placing signatures on a talk page is different than doing so in forums, sandboxes, user pages, why there can't be one editing tool instead of two that do two different things.
What value is the wiki? It doesn't seem organized. The home page needs to be simplified, attractive and clear.
The site is too crowded and disorganized. I have to scroll to find the navigation. Home should be on top.
The wiki has incomplete and cryptic information and unsure lead-in to it. Needs to open with 10-15 research categories to stimulate and direct the user.
Need clear meaningful categories of real interest up front. Step-by-step, simple and attractive. Don't bury links in sentences or paragraphs.
The countries are good, especialy USA but general and incomplete.  The map to the States is great!
Wiki needs to start out with a better opening. What should I do once I get there? Once in a country or category it gets better.
When I first tried to explore the site I got lost or was refused entry. Still too easy to "get lost" and not find what you are looking for although "locations" seem straight forward.
I had a hard time finding "Home". Most sites have it on top center or left to easily get back to the home page. The "home" link should be the very first thing on the sidebar. The new version may correct this issue
Home is hard to find. see note above
It's hard to figure out if something is already there. Need better search options or instructions to find topics (to prevent page/topic duplication)
Where does a particular piece of information go. It is hard to figure out. Categories don't ensure you have located all relevant articles. It is unreasonable to have a user scan through a thousand of categories to identify the right one to use.
Where is the 'creative' team? A real Home Page is needed to attract people to this web-site.
Put buttons on there that help people navigate or find instructions on how to input their own information. In English please and not computerese! Also a 'contact' button where people can send e-mails and have them answered! For the second item: Numerous help options are available, see Find help and there is also a submit form that is responded to via email.
For every country have a file where people can put copies of pictures in (plus the link where it was taken from), so that when they want to add a picture they can go to that file and copy and paste it instead of having to follow so many steps to add a picture - that will also assure that people can check on the copyright of that picture.
When you minimize your screen on your monitor, the navigation on the right side of the page (or anything that is on that side) should not disappear to the bottom of the screen where people can't find it. This is a known issue with the current software version (must have zoom set to 100% or more). The upcoming new version should eliminate this problem.
Great application!!! Fun to use. Keep text on the left instead of RHS. Better to scroll to navigation rather than for every line of text. It's time to nail down the place naming policy. Glitz and colour are unimportant.


Search

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
The wiki is hard to use because it is hard to figure out the best way to search. Perhaps add a few tips on how to search.
Have to hunt for things. They are buried. Can't find what I'm looking for.
Hard to find "how to topics"
It's too hard to figure out what to put in the search box without suggestions.






Content

What's missing or needed?

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
.
.
.

Help and training for users

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
Need to be able to connect with someone that can help me. Numerous help options are available, see Find help
There needs to be a place for people who don't know how to do it.
I don't know what to put in there so I use information from others. You need a format that we help fill in. It is too hard to create it ourselves.
I would like to contribute but it is so hard that I resent the time I have to put in on it. People around me don't want to be intruded upon.
If I have trouble on other sites I write them and they respond to me. There is a submit form that is responded to via email. You can use it to suggest or add content as well as using it for questions.
We need contact with a person who knows it to help us learn.
The help feature on the home page needs to stand out. Currently it blends in with all of the other material on the Home Page
Too much training required to even start - discouraging. Needs to be 1 2 3 done.
You need training to use it.
The "Help" needs to be more visible and more helpful.
I couldn't figure out the rules and was afraid to contribute and break one.
Editing is hard. I couldn't find training or support. The wiki really needs quick guides on how to edit.
The wiki could use a video to help train on how to use it. The Learning Center does have several videos specifically for the Research Wiki. fixed
If I want to contribute but it is too hard, could I email the information to someone and they could enter it for me? There is a submit form that is responded to via email. You can use it to suggest or add content. fixec
To introduce a new person to this wiki, if you are familiar with computers, this is still a problem. It takes a long time to learn how to do this program. Originally it was a little easier with the portal pages. Now, as I introduce others to this program, they still have difficulty finding what they want. A specific research problem, or area both involved.


Editing

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
The wiki is not easy to use and it is a complicated editing process with wikitext.
There is a steep learning curve to editing the wiki. Tools need to be simple. Adding photos easiers.
I would like to see more edit options on the tool bar and less working in wikitext. (techie person)
Adding to the wiki - some of it is straight forward and some of it is hard to figure out.
Columns - an absolute nightmare!!!


Contributing

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
What information can be added from where? What about copyright issues?
Creating columns is sooo hard. I try to avoid them.
I'll be honest, I feel like contributing to the wiki is boring. I have passion about genealogy but can't see how that translates to contributing to the wiki. For some the passion goes beyond researching one’s own family. This passion could include the desire to help others achieve the same passion that you have. Contributing your knowledge to the wiki about how you found, organized, verified, and documented your family history is a worthy pursuit in and of itself. If you located information that is generally not public knowledge, this too could help others find their families or knock down someone else’s brick wall.
I liked how easy it is to edit what other contributors have done. But it is hard to make brand new contributions yourself.
Wiki needs easily creatable formats for new pages. Pre-formatted simple startup page (under consideration and is being evaluated)
Why 'wiki-text' and not just the 'copy and paste' possibility? Wikitext (plus some HTML) may be needed for more complex pages that include highly structured tables, precise positioning or grouping of page objects, and creating many of the templates used in the wiki. For the most part, a typical wiki page will not need sophisticated coding although some familiarity with the coding may be helpful in recognizing and understanding what you are seeing if you edit an existing page. The VisualEditor that is coming with the new version is a “what you see is what you get” type of user interface so that the complex coding stays behind the scenes, and always remember that help is happily offered if you need it.


Referencing

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
It would be nice if there was a central "bank" from which we could copy and paste references when we edit. Many are used frequently and the only format that I've found is within
"footnotes"--which doesn't work.






Needs by experience level

Needs of the beginner (limited genealogy and or computer experience)

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
.
.
.


Needs of the novice (new to wiki - with genealogy and or computer experience)

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
.
.
.


Needs of the researcher (genealogists and family historians)

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
.
.
.

Needs of the contributor

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
.
.
.


Needs of professional genealogists

Wiki Feedback: Then and now
This is collection of Feedback from 2009- 2010.
Determine if feedback is still relevant today
THEN NOW input level status
If professional genealogists are allowed to advertise their services then it should be mandatory that they have a track record of sharing (with the wiki) their knowledge and or experience at least on a quarterly basis or their "ads" should be removed.
Since familysearch.org (the wiki) cannot endorse such professional services there should be an option to provide feedback from the users (consumers) for each of these listings so that others will know if they are truly professional.

If the wiki truly wants to be a trusted and responsible entity then, like any consumer product, there should be a list of contact names for "satisfied customers". (a can of worms)

I'm embarrassed to suggest that my professional colleagues contribute. Is this still true today. What would have to change.
Professionals won't be drawn to the wiki unless there are tools that we need to use. Are they drawn to the wiki to contribute?
Genealogy tool like soundex, dictionaries, word lists, census forms perpetual calendar, age calculator, relationship calculator, and calendar converters or a tool for autocitations would be useful. Put all of this under tools. Need space and images more and less lists.(prof)
Professionals want to make money and not have their articles edited. If we publish we want credit for our work. Since the Research Wiki is about sharing knowledge, obviously they will not like the wiki. Creating an article using their own citations might get around the "credit" issue.
Is the wiki mature enough to be valuable to people? Why would I, as a genealogist, care the wiki is there?
As far as foreign language research goes, other websits are more thorough like genealogy.net. Most serious contributors are outside of the USA and are not capable to contribute in English. Societies or individuals who want to contribute something usually have their own sites or contibute through societies.





If you feel comfortable editing this page, you can add a response to one of these existing comments. Please use use indentation by putting a colon ( : ) in front of your comment so the new information is readily apparent. New feedback can also be added to the talk page as well as any other comments if you prefer not to edit the article itself.





Under review:
Some of the following links or statements in this box may or may not be currently accurate.

To post comments for the answers you recommend, please go to What New Users and Contributors Want to Make Wiki Easier. Then, please add your "Vote" for what you feel is most urgent and important at Newbies Priorities. Experienced user/contributor feedback on early, new user experiences is also needed. This page is not placed on forums.familysearch.org to simplify access for newbies.
  • This page was last modified on 22 February 2015, at 03:15.
  • This page has been accessed 12,889 times.