We’ve heard from many of you telling us that the link to the Classic FamilySearch site no longer appears on the home page. This was not intentional and we apologize for the premature removal of this link. However, after careful consideration we’ve decided not to replace it. The reason for this is because in the very near future, we will remove the Classic FamilySearch site entirely. When that happens, the link to that site will no longer be needed. The shutdown of the Classic FamilySearch site will take place after we have completed the addition of some of our improved and new site features. We also need to finish transferring all of our data to the new site. Until we make that move, you can still get to the Classic FamilySearch by typing classic.familysearch.org.

Comments (282)

Post a Comment »


  1. Marilyn Cranford, Thank you for your insightful response. Indeed, the new FamilySearch has many good features that will make research comparativley easier to do as the FamilySearch database continues to grow by hundreds of millions of new records each year. As you indicate in your comment, education will be the key to a good experience. Learning to use filters properly and rethinking search strategies will help researches enjoy enormous benefits. Education will make a big difference for the user experience.

    AndersonSF 14 February 2012
    10:17 am
  2. When trying to do a Batch Number search on P007153 (Saint Peter, Bolton Le Moors, Lancashire, England), if I use the “classic” site I can view a single record if the search finds one, but when I try to do a search on the whole Batch No to see if there are any other relevant records, it redirects the search (as they all do) to the new site but then fails to list any records with the message “No records found for Batch Number P007153”. I emailed FamilySearch about this and got a very confused response from them but they did manage to reproduce what I had told them - but they suggested I go and order the films instead Only trouble is that my local LDS Center has closed. Its a bit frustrating as I have a key record in that batch and I would hate the evidence to disappear for ever so that it can not be verified in the future. Searching on P007152 and P007154 causes a similar message. To quote FS P batches are our oldest extraction records. I dont know if they are finally being replaced by collections.. Im sure there are a few more too which fail to show up on the new site. Worried that we may be losing access to records. Stuart

    Stuart Phethean 14 February 2012
    4:27 am
  3. Please, please do not completely disable the link to the old site. The new site is difficult to use, even when locating results you know to be there. I have tried to work with the new search but it is frustrating and difficult. The old site was amazing, Ive used it almost every day and recommend it to others. It would be a real shame to see such a useful and valuable resource disappear.

    Gwem 14 February 2012
    3:02 am
  4. I have used Family Search for years and find the new sight not as friendly - especially looking for children for a set of known parents. The new site looks nice and clean but is not as easy to use, so could we keep both sites please?

    Paul Challice UK 14 February 2012
    2:44 am
  5. Please please please keep the old site - the new site is just dreadful. The old site was so logical to use & made it easy to find the list of children of a named couple.

    Robbie Richards 14 February 2012
    2:12 am
  6. I agree with about 200 other people that the old search site was most useful. it created a visual picture which made searching easier and I dont think this site is as user friendly. Please keep the old site link it is most useful.

    Margaret Laird 14 February 2012
    1:31 am
  7. Very disappointed to learn I can no longer access the old site. It was so much easier than the newer version (which I find extremely difficult) and can no longer find things which I could so easily find on the old site. Seartches now take much longer than previous. Doubt very much that I will be visiting this site again.

    Rochelle Edwards 14 February 2012
    12:28 am
  8. I have been researching my family tree for many years and find this new site very unhelpful. Numerous Ancestors found on the old site do not appear after searches on the old site. I know they existed because I have documents associated with them. As a previous message says the new site is user-UNfriendly and it does not follow step by step stages to the logical route a researcher would follow. I would not recommend this site to anyone.

    E Nicholas 13 February 2012
    11:20 pm
  9. Now that you have removed the older FamilySearch site with the link to the FHL Catalog and links to the IGI for direct access to it as well as the Pedigree Resource File Disk numbers, HOW can I look up the info on these things from home before making a trip to the FHL??? Please give me an answer to solve this problem. WAQ

    William A, Quigley 13 February 2012
    10:46 pm
  10. Please keep the old site as well as the new one. I use the 2 in conjunction with each other as I find the new site very user UNFRIENDLY and at times down right confusing. It takes a lot longer on the new site to find all the details you are looking for as the records are repeated for each person and you have to go through repeated information as you search.

    Julie Baker 13 February 2012
    10:02 pm
  11. I dont like the knew site either and always go back to the old one.

    Sandra 13 February 2012
    7:54 pm
  12. Im disappointed the classic search link is no longer available as I wanted to double check an entry on the IGI

    Diane Taylor 13 February 2012
    4:31 pm
  13. Having tried the new site on and off for the last 3 months+ i find i always check the results found on the old site. The way you have to enter the info and the results found will never be as good as the old site. The new site is so unfriendly. Please bring back the old site. If the old site is lost for ever i doubt i will continue using the new site.

    J Adams 13 February 2012
    4:08 pm
  14. Absolutely Keep the link to the old site Maybe if you perfect the new site and we manage to navigate it, you can ask us again, but for now, please keep the old site Please?

    Ros 13 February 2012
    3:50 pm
  15. Please keep the old site in conjunction with the new site, at times the new site can be very frustrating especially when trying to find children for parents, many thank yous, Annette WATSON

    Annette WATSON 13 February 2012
    3:25 pm
  16. I have been researching my family tree for twelve years and being an ICT teacher I am quite conversant with technology but I find this new site user-UNfriendly. It does not follow step by step stages to the logical route a researcher would follow. I now teach a course on genealogy and sadly this is no longer a site I would recommend to my students.

    thomas 13 February 2012
    3:18 pm
  17. I wonder why, when I enter a death date of 1855, I get results from the 1880 census? I would not enter the death date if I did not know it. All results for people who were living after 1855 are irrelevant for my purposes..

    Lorraine 13 February 2012
    3:04 pm
  18. I am in agreement with those people who find the new site very frustrating. I thought it was me doing something wrong so I welcome the comments about keeping the old system in place until the new one has been fully revamped to be more user friendly. I frequently do not find records I know are on the site.

    Delna W 13 February 2012
    12:32 pm
  19. Please dont get rid of the old site. I use it more than the new one as I find it alot easier to find the information I need. The new site is more confusing. I think you will lose alot of searches if you do this.

    Hilary Flynn 13 February 2012
    12:09 pm
  20. I loved the Old Search Site, and was so disapointed to see it gone.. I couldnt find anything on the new site, and I dont like the way its displayd. Please keep the Old Search Site, It would only enhance this site, which Ive used for numerous years and am sure many more would continue to use in the years to come.

    Cathy Roylance 13 February 2012
    11:51 am
  21. Old search much better for my purposes. New site totally useless.

    David Hall 13 February 2012
    11:31 am
  22. The new search facility is AWFUL. Why on earth did you change it when the old one was perfectly good I cannot fathom the new facility - it throws up random results that I then cant refine by further searching. Awful, awful.

    Claire 13 February 2012
    11:09 am
  23. I fully agree with the many users requesting that the old original site be retained. The new site produces far too many results and is extremely difficult to use. The IGI was/is fabulous and is worthy of retention. The IGI was greatly improved with the removal of patron submissions, and the ability to do batch searches was of considerable benefit. The new site is far too difficult to navigate, and has put at least one octogenarian plus off from using Family Search. KISS - keep it simple, stupid

    Les Shephard 13 February 2012
    10:46 am
  24. Please, please leave the old site.... New is not always better What were you thinking.??

    Richard 13 February 2012
    10:18 am
  25. The Old Site search is much more efficient than the new. If you want us to continue to use your site, keep the Old Search.

    Jim Parsons 13 February 2012
    9:54 am
  26. I do not participate any longer in surveys from Ancestry, or Family Search as they will do what they want, no matter what we subscribers/users suggest, or think about changes, etc. And now the price for film rental is $7.50. Please. The LDS is becoming less and less useful to me as I find the FamilySearch site difficult to use and will not pay $7.50 for a film rental that could possibly be put on line in the near future.

    Sharon Roesler 13 February 2012
    9:51 am
  27. Please leave the old search system, it was so easy to use. If it insnt broke, why mend it.

    F.SKINNER 13 February 2012
    9:38 am
  28. I find the new search much more time consuming to use, you need more filters as not everyone is doing USA based research, if you could include the option for multiple filters on the first search page it would be much improved.

    Dot Holden 13 February 2012
    9:19 am
  29. I have used Family Search for the past 15 years, and find it extremely useful. When the new search was established, I started using it, and often wondered why my searching was less effective than it had been in the past. Then someone told me to try the old search site, which is not readily apparent to most users. Going back to this search was very rewarding and I usually use it, in preference to the new search. Does it really cost you too much to maintain it for the many users who find it so helpful? Having the two different search sites is the best of all worlds.

    John Cholette 13 February 2012
    8:28 am
  30. The previous respondants are correct - the new site ( however pretty) does not facilitate discovery.Please leave the classic available untill such time as you find it has no traffic at all - probably 3 to 4 years - thats not terribly difficult to do now is it?

    wendy 13 February 2012
    7:52 am
  31. The new site allows for too many results when I check for results from Westmoreland, England, it even brings up U.S. records and censuses. The old site had the advantage of listing the children of a couple in a particular parish (batch) - an advantage the new system does not allow as far as I can tell. Please allow the flexibility of using the old and the new.

    BarbaraJA 13 February 2012
    7:31 am
  32. Please, please leave the old site, it is so quick and easy to use.

    Jilly 13 February 2012
    7:24 am
  33. As a Family History Tutor I have always endorsed the Family Search site as being one of the best for quick searching and results, the IGI is a wonderful source of information and if used in the right way gives excellent guidance as to where the information is likely to be found. The new site however seems to concentrate on American records and it is difficult to filter just UK and parish records. Why do so many sites change for the sake of change, I take the view if it aint broke dont mend it Please reconsider and keep the old site going until the new is as good.

    Patrick Williams 13 February 2012
    7:24 am
  34. Please listen to your users - and keep the old site until you improve the new site to contain the same degree of functionality.

    Andy Micklethwaite 13 February 2012
    7:24 am
  35. forget about the old site, the new site allows much better used defined search parameters, I find what I want not what the old site allowed me to see + the bonus of no patron submissions

    mike fisher 13 February 2012
    7:19 am
  36. The new site is worthless, it does not provide the information that was available on the old site.Bring back the old site so I can find the informationb I am looking for.The new site does not fill the bill.

    George D. Hack 13 February 2012
    7:19 am
  37. I have spent many years happily using the old site and the only criticism I have of it is the amount of submitted entried which are rarely accurate and do clog up the results somewhat. I was very disappointed with the new site, I find it hard to work through masses of results. I dislike the fact that there are only a few results per page as opposed to a list of hundreds which could be scrolled through quite quickly. There are far too may repeated results, ie people entered as the parents of a child for the childs christening and then this entry repeated with the child as the main name with the parents appearing as related names. Too much duplication. I have tried to use this site, when using batch numbers there is no choice but to use the new site but it is not as efficient or user friendly as the old format. Results for searches are numerous with no way for the user to narrow the results or to change the amount of results per page. Please keep the old site as an option. Without it this is not a site I will continue to use as it is not helpful, just time consuming to the point of uselessness.

    Angela 13 February 2012
    7:04 am
  38. This is probably my last visit Iive just spent t ages searching for information that I know was was on the old system I couldnt agree more with all the negative critism.Thanks for all the help I used to get.

    13 February 2012
    6:33 am
  39. I do not like the new site, I liked being able to see the entire household for the 1881 census not just the person I was interested in, When I used the new one I only get the person and cannot find out how to see if there are any siblings etc.

    Valerie 13 February 2012
    6:04 am
  40. Whilst many of us have used the old site for many years and have some affection for it the new site is so much better. It is well thought out and easy to use. So I have no regrets about loosing the old site - we must move on and meets tomorrows challenges.

    Gerry 13 February 2012
    5:59 am
  41. new site,awful,it was so much easier on the old site.Please keep the old site.

    L. WRIGHT. 13 February 2012
    5:47 am
  42. Searching on the new site brings up enormous amounts of material that does not fit the search parameters sorting for someone born between 1740 and 1760 i get information on people born as late as the early 1900s but then perhaps family search software developers feel they are relevant. With the old search you got what you specified and treated the information as a good guide from which you could verify information. I agree some submitted data was figments of the submitters imagination but a lot was useful as to where to look.

    Tony H 13 February 2012
    5:43 am
  43. Why oh why does no-one responsible for the changes reply to the valid concerns expressed below? I have used the site for years and been grateful for the leads it gave me to microfilms which I could then order from Australia. My local LDS will be without a source of income as I willl simply go to my local library which has Ancestry & Findmypast & other resources free of charge. Very disappointing as I enjoyed seeing the old Parish Registers with signatures and the interesting comments in the margin

    Dale 13 February 2012
    5:16 am
  44. I have to agree with the requests for the old search site to be retained. In selfish mode, I could simply shrug my shoulders and tell myself that most of my research is done so why should I bother, but I do feel some duty to researchers following on the old site was easy to follow and had a clarity / simplicity that made it eminently usable - especially to those who come new to the joys of family history research. In particular, finding siblings was so much easier with the old site. Please leave the old one available as an option.

    Steve Brain 13 February 2012
    5:15 am
  45. Please keep the old site active as an alternative. Certain types of search are far easier on the old site (children of given parents for example), while the new site has other advantages (e.g. being able to narrow the search down stepwise). Different people like to be able to search in different ways, and there is also value in having two different ways to search the same information. Please, please keep the old site active as well

    Karen 13 February 2012
    4:32 am
  46. Please bring back the old site, I cannot use this new one. I have been using the old site for many years and found it extremely useful. Since the new site has been operational I have found nothing.

    A Walker 13 February 2012
    4:11 am
  47. I am appalled with the lack of user-friendliness with your new system. I have been using Family Sraerch since it first went on line and, while it had some hiccups, it was generally user-friendly in enabling hte searcher to find other members to a family in the same parish or nearby parishes without having to wade through lots of irrelevant rubbish. I am particularly annoyed when I ask your new system to find a marriage at a particular place and country (eg England) and your new system insists on giving me pages of details for people with one of the names in places such as the USA in a range of censuses which makes me waste so much data allowance on my broadband connection as well as hours of my time trying to (perhaps) find the info Im looking for. If your idea was to make it easier then just throw out your new system and let us go back to the system which did work very well, even for rank beginners. Youre losing us totally if you persist

    Alistair Wylie 12 February 2012
    9:14 pm
  48. I agree - please make the old site available for years to come until you guys figure out what is wrong with your current search engine. The one on the NFS See Me & My Ancestors page, Duplicate Search tab, is just as bad. Ive been trying to work on that site since it rolled out in AZ (circa 2008) and kept hoping it would get better and improve, but it hasnt. Who is field-testing these new sites?? A bunch of yes men? People afraid to criticize and give authentic feedback? People vaguely familiar with researching family lines? I have found ancestors using Household and Next Household on the 1880 census. I cant do this on the new site. I wont be able to find near relatives with the Batch numbers on the new site because of the poor design. The Mocavo site seems to have a better search feature than your new one. Please, please, please put the old one back up.

    Melanie F. 12 February 2012
    9:04 pm
  49. Have to say, I am not a big fan of this new site. PLEASE bring back the old one. I can not seem to find anything on this new one, where I did find things on the old one. Consequently, I do not use this new site, and have opted for ancestry.com instead. I do implore you to bring back the old one.

    Janice 12 February 2012
    8:07 pm
  50. I use the old site for library patrons who cannot afford Ancestry.com or other database programs to create family trees using PAF. Not sure how this change will affect that ability.

    IHampton 12 February 2012
    7:20 pm
  51. The new site seems to mostly be an advertisement for Ancestry.com. I like to search the census, but the new search wont find anything else easily. Fine I dont mind logging in, but I write down my passwords and have had my family search one for years and now 3 times out of 3 times it is incorrect and I have to get an email?????? I am really upset that you felt that pretty is better than functional. Why dont you retain the old site until you see how many people you lose with this one? You lost me.

    Chris 12 February 2012
    6:20 pm
  52. I too sorely miss the classic familysearch. Please bring it back. It offered information that is not available on the new site and it offered an easy check for information. Please return it. Too many of us still like to use it.

    Dennis 12 February 2012
    5:36 pm
  53. PLEASE do NOT remove the Classic Family Search The new search is not anywhere near as effective in narrowing down and locating miss-spelled erroneous census transcripts, and hundreds of other older records. I will be LOST without the Classic Search option. It has been my go to when Im totally stuck for over a dozen years. And has solved and resolved many difficult mysteries Please PLEASE reconsider Sincerely, Paulette Angove

    paulette (GREER)angove 12 February 2012
    4:51 pm
  54. Why did you want to change a good thing? I cant find information that I had once found on the classic search. Please bring back this site..

    phyllis brownfield 12 February 2012
    4:22 pm
  55. Ive worked at my local Family History Center for several years and ordered hundreds of microfilms. I vastly prefer the old Family Search site because its much easier to search the catalog using keyword search, place search, author search, etc than it is to locate the information on the new site. I do appreciate that many of the films are coming online, but itll be a long time before everything is online. And if youre searching for records for someone with a common surname, its virtually impossible to find her unless you already know the information you are seeking I STRONGLY urge that the old search be retained. It may not be pretty, but its a lot more useful than the new.

    Betty Jack 12 February 2012
    3:46 pm
  56. Apart from adding more records how can the new site be an improvement on the old one? All these people who have posted comments cant be wrong. The new site is an absolute pain to use even when you have a good idea of the place, date, etc. If you dont have this information then you could be stuck on here for hours searching for something you could have found quickly on the old site. PLEASE listen to what people are telling you and take onboard their suggestions.

    Judith 12 February 2012
    2:59 pm
  57. Im so glad there are so many other posts in need of the old site. The new site has most of the same information as Ancestry. Ive been using your site for years and have found amazing information. Now I cannot even go back to double check my older work. Unless all the original information is available with the pedigree charts Id request that both systems be retained. Jane

    Jane Case 12 February 2012
    2:27 pm
  58. I have mostly stopped using Family Search because the new search is too difficult to work with. I still use Classic Family Search from time to time, but I avoid the new version. I would much prefer you retain the classic version, but if you must jettison it, please give some thought to revising the new version so it is not so totally frustrating, time consuming, and over-the-top annoying to use. Other than that, bless you for providing all the great data I just wish I could maneuver through it.

    Helen Jordan 12 February 2012
    1:56 pm
  59. Your new website takes far to long to find relevant information Please put the link to the old website back - it was much better.

    S Jones 12 February 2012
    1:38 pm
  60. Ive continued to use the classic search page What will I do now? the newer version is SO much harder to use, SO much less efficient This is a terrible choice on their part

    Carol 12 February 2012
    12:48 pm
  61. The new site is incredibly difficult and tedious to use. Please do not remove the old site or please improve the new site so that it is useful.

    DebbieG 12 February 2012
    12:13 pm
  62. I am a pensioner so access to resources at minimum cost is essential. I found the former site extremely useful when searching the 1881 Great Britain Census. The new site does not have any facility to carry out the type of search which I was used to doing, namely scanning forward and backward through a town or village trying to locate people especially when the transcriber had perhaps misread the name. Now I have to resort to finding a friend or acquaintance who has a subscription to Ancestry (or some other site) to do the same search. I find it particularly galling that LDS sponsored the 1881 transcription but is now removing it from the Internet. I am concerned that people are volunteering for indexing projects and giving their time and resources to projects which are then being given to commercial organisations who charge for access.

    Richard Shreeve 12 February 2012
    11:22 am
  63. A complete disaster All that wonderful information disappears at the click of a switch. Why cant we have both formats?

    Jean 12 February 2012
    8:28 am
  64. What a disasterous decision to close the classic search. After 40 years of research including going back to using the IGI on microfiche and sending to Salt lake for copies,I am so disappointed. TOO MUCH INFORMATION

    Val Williams 12 February 2012
    7:37 am
  65. Please please please let us have access to the old site. It is impossible to find anything on the new version.

    lynne sanders 12 February 2012
    6:14 am
  66. I have used the old site many times to find children of my ancestors easily and quickly. If this feafture goes it will resort to time consuming effort. Please leave this site on line or incorporate the children finding feature into the new site.

    geoff 12 February 2012
    5:15 am
  67. I agree with nearly everyone who has posted a comment the old site was so much user friendly, one thing with the old site if you put in a country that you knew your ancestor had come from that country would come up and only that country now we get too many countries coming up even though I have put in the country I want in the new info section they all still come up, I once bought a book on family history when I was in Edinburgh and that even taught me more interesting ways to use the older FS. I loved the old site please bring it back I found most things I wanted. The new site is not so user friendly as someone commented it may be good for the younger ones however they are not interested in family history like us more mature adults.

    Val 12 February 2012
    4:07 am
  68. On reading that the Classic site will go Someone (maybe several someones) needs a full head examination. The Classic site was the way to the Census Records. Are these going? If they are, then what is possibly the single most useful resource for the UK with regard to the late 19th C/early 20th C will vanish. Obviously, this does not matter to people who do not do research in this area themselves. Please, listen to the users

    Geoff Hone 12 February 2012
    3:24 am
  69. Best when we had the option of using either site - come on folks...be real - people have different tastes in their research.

    Jeff Record 12 February 2012
    1:50 am
  70. The idea of closing off the familiar and easy to use older style front end would seem rather pointless. Most comments below seem to support this view. The new front end does not return results anywhere near as accurately as the older front end. How when searching for Suffolk, England I can be presented with 200 hits from the USA before the first UK listing has got me completely confused. The intention of the new site was probably good in that you were trying to remove duplicates etc, however did you consider putting the olde search engine on the front end with the new data behind. Seems somewhat logical to me but i am a simple user. If this new front end becomes the standard I am sorry to say that i will not be returning to this site to solve me genealogical brick walls. The search features that were offered previously provide a much better result, you need to reconsider your ideas before closing off a very useful resource and replacing it with this rubbish

    David 12 February 2012
    1:35 am
  71. I am deeply dissappointed at the lack of interest to listen to pleas from people around the world to keep the classic search form. We used to put high the name of this church because of its efforts to make available records to any person. I know changes must be done, if not we would be still looking to records the old-fashioned way. I now technology must evolve. But do understand that change must be good, efficient, and supposed to make things easier. An effort to modernize you search system should not mean to make things difficult. Then what is the use for change and modernization? Technology as a tool for genealogy should smoothen things... not make it impossible. Please listen to users around the world. Retake that pride that made this church stand up above all other organizations and churches. If you want a new search system, please do a better one, but dont make it harder. If it is hard to find genealogical data, what use to put human and resources to collect such data around the world? If you keep this new search system, is just the same as stop collecting genealogical data.

    Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas 12 February 2012
    1:34 am
  72. I agree with all the comments about the new site, and regret that I can no longer go to the previous site. I have been doing genealogy for 30 years and visit Salt Lake City annually to research in the library. The new site may be wonderful for beginners, but it is not useful for experienced genealogists. I particularly miss the ability to enter parents names and find their children, particularly if the children are born in different places. I also like being able to make lists of unusual surnames, particularly in England, to use as clues as to where an ancestor may have lived. I understand that many of the listings in the IGI may not have been accurate, but the extracted records were invaluable.

    Ruth 11 February 2012
    10:30 pm
  73. I can only echo the comments here that I do not find the new search and information layout user-friendly. I have been using Family Search for 14 years now. Please listen to your users

    Susan Regan 11 February 2012
    6:08 pm
  74. I have to spend a lot more time looking or info on the new site. The old site was WAY faster and easier. I dont want to spend a half hour trying to figure out how to narrow a search to find someone. The new site has some nice features, I like that I can put in a womans surname (and forename), and search an area, and at times have great success finding the person Im looking for, and her children and spouse I didnt know. However, the older site was better, and simply removing some of the restrictions on the search would have done the same thing. I think, familysearch and all the users would benefit if you just keep both sites running. Why get rid of the old, some people like it one way, some the other. The two sites would go together well

    Tammy Mitchell 11 February 2012
    6:00 pm
  75. I can only think that the people responsible for designing the New Site have not had any personal experience of searching their own family trees and ancestors especially pre-censuses. The Classic Site is/was so much easier to navigate and find ancestors on the Batch Number Search with a surname when different generations would appear under each other on one or two pages. It was so much easier to put families together with the same parents at the same birth place than the cumbersome New Site. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE run the Classic Site alongside the New Site. It has provided the best source of results from parish records for my ancestors for many years. AND PLEASE LISTEN TO YOUR USERS

    Mary Withall 11 February 2012
    5:18 pm
  76. Hi leave the old site alone i as other have said only use igi and have brought in in 2003 on cd and then moved to this site the new site does not give you any way of seaching one parish you only get a whole county which ish is no good for anyone i have got back to the 15 centry and do this need one parish to start off with james

    james Francis 11 February 2012
    4:35 pm
  77. The old Search Site is still an easy way to find people. Please dont remove it. I find it better than the new.

    Laura Gould 11 February 2012
    4:32 pm
  78. Ditto to the other comments. The classic site was a perfect way to find out siblings in a family by punching in the names of the parents. NOW we have to trawl through a lot of extraneous stuff. Definitely NOT an improvement. I trust that the IT gurus will reconsider and not close down the Classic site.

    julia pannell 11 February 2012
    3:59 pm
  79. Terrible website. Bring back the Classic search. It is quicker and simpler. Please leave it on the site. Thanks, Mariann Laughlin

    Mariann Laughlin 11 February 2012
    3:46 pm
  80. Shame on your removal of Old Classic Search. Your new format is terrible

    Rev. Christopher 11 February 2012
    2:21 pm
  81. Not keen on the new site, although I used both. Will miss the old site terribly Please please keep the link. It seems that a lot of your users feel the same. Do listen

    Lesley Lunt 11 February 2012
    1:59 pm
  82. I am very disappointed that you have closed the old classic search site. I cant begin to tell you how valuable it was to me as I did my family research in the past few years and how many answers I have found to questions that we as a family had been looking for. I can only hope that the new site will become more user friendly as I continue my research

    Marsha 11 February 2012
    1:30 pm
  83. Why have you taken a perfectly good thing and fixed it? I HATE the new search. Persons I have called up before now say no match. So what happened to all your records? Please, please unfix this mess.

    Martha 11 February 2012
    1:26 pm
  84. Please keep the Classic Family search site. It is far superior to the new one.

    David Kermode 11 February 2012
    11:31 am
  85. I agree entirely with Karens comment above on 9 February, and am quoting it as she said it so well On your old site, if I found an extracted christening record of an ancestor, I could immediately click on the batch number at the bottom and then easily search WITHIN that batch (within that parish) for others with the same surname, or browse through that whole parish, and that parish ONLY. This was an invaluable resource Now, even if I find a christening record on your new site, there is no batch number at the bottom, so how am I supposed to search within that batch? I can search within England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975, but that category is way too broad to be of any use

    Rebecca 11 February 2012
    11:23 am
  86. Please try to keep the search page as close to the old site as possible Myself, being a silver surfer have great difficulty with change, especially when it is totally different from previous pages

    Tykess 11 February 2012
    11:22 am
  87. It was so handy on the old site to be able to restrict the results to what you were looking for. They were presented in a way which could be kept as a useful record. The new site brings up too much clutter to wade through.

    Hazel Walter 11 February 2012
    11:16 am
  88. I have all but given up on the present site. It is difficult to navigate and not user friendly nor does it provide half the data that the old site offered. It is extremely disappointing and discouraging. Frequently I am directed to Find My Past if I want more information that once was available . Not everyone can afford the luxury of joining a pay to view site.

    Ann DIrks 11 February 2012
    11:05 am
  89. All these above negative comments are somewhat senseless. The updated FS. org contains so much more information twice the info. on Anc. File & Ped. Res. File loads more census records billions of the extracted/indexed records, and more. We all should keep up with improvements without whining.

    K. C. Lucas 11 February 2012
    11:03 am
  90. The best thing about the new site is that it has new information and records. But you cannot find the old information on the new site very easily. For instance, you cannot sort through masses of microfilm BMD records for making a list of one surname. And you cannot quickly link up several persons in a family as the old site can. And it is not clear how you can access the Family History Library film holdings from the new site. So I do advocate keeping the old search site and methods along with the new.

    Ed Everett 11 February 2012
    11:03 am
  91. Your Classic site worked very well (albiet, not as pretty as your new interface). It was quick, easy to use and produced great results. The new site is difficult and produces way too many possibilities to be useful. I cannot even throw in old data found from the Classic site and get the same results as information is now LOST Probably forever. This is NOT an improvement. This is NOT helpful to genealogy and your long-time users. Please reconsider these hundreds of comments and at least allow the Classic Site to be used as an alternative to your far less helpful new site which is far from useful. The Search function just doesnt work right You cant sort by batches and you cant get the original source of the data (ie the church from which the info is taken. This is NOT at all helpful Who created this site? Was user input included or just a pretty site proposed by developers, not understanding what Users wanted or needed in a good site? Please consider your users and bring back and KEEP THE CLASSIC SITE Thank you.

    LydiaLouise 11 February 2012
    10:47 am
  92. The updated FS.org has nearly twice a many items in Ancestral File & Ped. Resource File as the Classic version plus all the indexed records, many more census records, and other pertinent links too Go to the bottom right of the Portal page and you will still find the link to the Classic.

    K. C. Lucas 11 February 2012
    10:47 am
  93. I am horrified by the change. I have relied heavily on the old site for both US records and foreign records. I find the new site impossible to use. Since its inception I have found half a dozen useful new records, after frustrating entry of a variety of data to attempt to limit the search. I will no longer go first to Family Search. I can do better with broad internet searches.

    Carol Storke 11 February 2012
    10:05 am
  94. Being an elderly citizen I find your new site difficult to use. When a similar situation occurred with Ancestry, they appreciated our comments and took them into consideration, keeping both old and new sites running together. If it is possible for them to continue, why cant Family Search do the same? Why take a backwards step?

    Joan 11 February 2012
    10:02 am
  95. I would like to add my comments to those of the many other users of your site and request that your classic search remains online. It provides a very quick and easy to scan listing where irrelevant names can quickly be discarded, an especially useful feature for preliminary searches or where little information is known. Your new & improved search now only gives me a very hard to scan/read listing, with few names on each screen page and with a poor print feature. It now seems much more like the subscriber family history sites which seem so keen to give me their largely irrelevant recommended search results from any and all the regions/databases on the site instead of a no frills IGI listing option for each event that I wish to search. Even if I key in BIRTH on your new & improved search, I still get loads of results from USA or Canada censuses or death records. I dont understand why, when I try to search for a UK baptism/birth, I am presented with USA census results that I dont requre. On the classic search, I could search for the database I wanted I do hope that you take note of all these comments posted here by some of your site users and rethink your plans to remove the classic search link. After all, if it aint broke, dont fix it.

    Karin 11 February 2012
    10:00 am
  96. Do not like the new site at all - maaged o.k. when you altered the old site slightly - this one is dreadful. Please put the old one back

    M Brown 11 February 2012
    9:07 am
  97. Sorry to say but the new site is terrible. The old one was great, i got lots of information, it was quick and easy to use. It was the first site I turned to. So far I have not found any of the people Im looking for on the new one and unfortunately it will now be the last site I look at.

    Annie Greenlees 11 February 2012
    9:05 am
  98. You have no listening from the User Group. Classic site worked much better. When both sites were up, I would search using the NEW site and nothing came up. Went back to Classic site and BINGO, BINGO, BINGO the names came up the children up, search options for other names simiar spelling came up. PLEASE BRING IT BACK

    Connie Roberts 11 February 2012
    9:03 am
  99. Please DO NOT DELETE THE OLD SITE. I have found that information is available there that is not on the new site. For example, I used to be able to find Pittsburgh Pennsylvania births on the old site, but not on the new one. I was hoping that this was just a transition issue but until it is resolved I would be sad to loose this information.

    MAB 11 February 2012
    9:01 am
  100. Well I am finding people and more data on the new site better than the old, as the records have dates and the old site was deemed with mistakes via submitted entries. Only one problem at the moment for me is finding all chidren of a marriage as on the old site you could put both parents names on and it would bring up their children, but this is my only complaint with the new site.

    Roger Brown 11 February 2012
    8:52 am
  101. The new site is unbearable- it is useless for me The old format was so useful and easy to use. I could type in a surname and a country and get pages and pages of easy to view results that were relevant. Now I type in that same surname and country- and I get NOTHING No results found. You have taken away a massive database of resources that were invaluable to me in creating my family tree. I have tried to use your new site for months now, each time gleaning ZERO useful information. I am so angry and upset that you have replaced the old site with this new, un-user friendly, time consuming, annoying and apparently all the previously accessible information is now completely GONE. This is a huge setback. I spent many hours doing indexing for you- translating Italian records... only to find that youve taken away any access to meaningful Italian records that no longer exist on the new site? WHY on earth would you do this? The new format is terrible

    Cristiana 11 February 2012
    7:41 am
  102. Despite the more trendy look of the new site, I ALWAYS end up back at the old because it is more user friendly and reaps more results. I cant believe you are about to remove access and ask that you reconsider the decision to do so. We are about to lose one of our best resources - searching by Batch numbers,

    Elizabeth Ipsen 11 February 2012
    6:55 am
  103. There is an old saying if it aint broke, dont fix it, youve fixed it and broke it. Surely all the new information could have been entered in the old format, the one we could all use and understand. Sherlock.

    11 February 2012
    6:44 am
  104. NO NO NO Do NOT close the former site - do you know how many people still have to access the Internet on Dial-up?? People do not begin to look for their family history until they are in their 60s, and many have Dial-up because of where they live. My experience with the new site is one of frustration with having to plow through so many not-connected people or dates, and I will not use it again. The CLASSIC site should NEVER, NEVER be shut down....

    Patricia Brown 11 February 2012
    6:42 am
  105. Please dont close down the old Classic website. I find it very user-friendly, and like to use it in conjunction with the new one. I so much appreciate all you do for us genealogists, and am finding the extra material on the new website extremely useful, but I do think theres still a place, if at all possible, for the old website.

    Patricia Wightman 11 February 2012
    6:41 am
  106. A famous author once said, If it aint broke, dont fix it The apparently desperate need to make changes to software, websites, etc, purely for the sake of making changes is, in the end, an exercise in futility. Surely the site is for the researchers -- not for the programmers to show off their questionable skills.

    Harry Jacobs 11 February 2012
    6:39 am
  107. I fully support and agree with all those who have pleaded for the return of the link to the old site. The new site just does not do the job.

    Geoffrey Horner 11 February 2012
    6:31 am
  108. The newer version of FamilySearch contains vastly more information than the original family search. It makes no sense to spend all your energy lamenting the change and none learning how to make use of the wealth of data that has been added.

    Bobbie Snow 11 February 2012
    6:30 am
  109. Please do not remove the old website. Whether people prefer the old or the new, the old site contains information that is not on the new site. I went to check on the information held on some ancestors and no matter how I searched the new site, I could not find them. There were and are still are on the old site. Give people a choice - and half will want the old site and half will want the new, but my concern is that not all the data from the old site has been transferred to the new site so please keep the old site so people like me can go back and check their data in the future. When I first started my research, as I am sure everyone does, I did not write absolutely everything down and, yes of course, I forgot to put in my references. I am now going back checking data and putting in references and sources, but I cannot do that if the old Family Search site is removed. Many thanks

    Gill 11 February 2012
    6:17 am
  110. I was most disappointed to find this site has changed beyond recognition - I dont seem to be able to find anything now. I used to enjoy using the classic search site - it was so straightforward and easy to use but the new site in my opinion isnt user friendly - sorry.

    pam 11 February 2012
    6:06 am
  111. Please keep PAF available - either on the old or new site. Many of our FHC patrons do not have genealogy software. We start them on PAF in the center so they start out organized and able to see what they have accomplished. Having it free, simple to use and easily available gets the newbie started off right.

    Betty Jo 11 February 2012
    5:36 am
  112. It is a gross mistake to eliminate the classic site unless you are going to update the new site to include all of the old sites features. I have used both because as others have reported, the old site often gives information not found on the new site. This makes NO sense as the NEW site should b be an upgrade not a dissolution of materials for users. Just as the search feature on Ancestry is often too broad to be useful, your new search is often cumbersome rather than helpful. Find a way to make the oldsearch available within the parameters of your upgrades and you will not receive such dissent. Thank you

    Beverly Walker 11 February 2012
    4:57 am
  113. I was so disappointed to find the old classic Family Search site had gone. I have used it for years and found it very good. I have tried the new version with some success.

    Diana Ford 11 February 2012
    4:52 am
  114. You can still get to the old site by going into google and then typing in one of your family that you know is on the site and it will bring you in...I am rapidly trying to do some research before they take it away all together...too bad...listen to the people and the ancesters....

    theresa cuddy 11 February 2012
    4:51 am
  115. After reading some more comments Even though the same data may be on the new site it doesnt mean we dont need the old site... Different information at hand about our ancesters may be available and used only for different searching methods...on one site we may be able to bring something up with certain data but not on other and vice versa...so both sites are currently needed...due to way in to the information... I dont think I could find siblings of a family on the new site with info I had but did on old site???? Goodness that I already used the old site before it was gone. \ What a lot of work to put that old site up just to take it down when it is still needed....all for naught...why do that at this point...will we have to go to paying sites to find this data now if not found on the searchable way on the new site???

    theresa cuddy 11 February 2012
    4:46 am
  116. I need both sites....I am a retired librarian....the more resources gone, especially good ones like these, are a terrible loss to humanity...why take something away...I found all my Gr Grandfathers siblings in Ireland in Roscommon County in Ireland. in the old site..I also check the new site everyday...i went to check something on old site today as back-up to the other and it was gone...so disappointed.... Sometimes resources are like friends....One is silver and the other gold but you want to keep them both... theresa

    theresa cuddy 11 February 2012
    4:40 am
  117. absolutely..keep the link...why not? my whole family tree is there tha ti worked so hard on theresa

    theresa cuddy 11 February 2012
    4:36 am
  118. The Old site is much more user friendly - especially for finding children. The new one will need alot of imporvement before it can compete and meanwhile you will have lost a great many users. Very disappointed that you dont leave it as an option.

    JULIET S EVANS 11 February 2012
    3:41 am
  119. I cannot understand why the old site is being removed. I have tried the new site on several occasions but find that it is not as good as the old one. The new site lacks the crispness and precision of the old one. I would ask that the old site be restored.

    Geoff 11 February 2012
    3:33 am
  120. This is terrible news. The old site is very good and easy to use. We all learnt strategies for getting the most out of it and have been extremely grateful for this splendid resource. Like many others I profoundly dislike the new site. It is harder to navigate and produces much irrelevant information. Please listen to your devoted users and keep the old format going. You are going to lose many friends and admirers if you do not.

    clive boyce 11 February 2012
    3:14 am
  121. I am extremely dissatisfied to find that the Old Search site is being removed. But even that had changed from what it was previously when you could go to a proper list of the entries from that Parish Record. Please keep the Classic Search open for the Genealogists amongst us.

    Anne Chapman 11 February 2012
    3:02 am
  122. Please consider restoring the old site. I use both but prefer the old one. Thank you.

    Lyn McCulloch 11 February 2012
    2:59 am
  123. Please still keep a link to the old front end of the site as like many well seasoned genealogists I find the new front end difficult to use.

    Mick 11 February 2012
    2:58 am
  124. Why could you not have just added the new records on to the old site instead of creating this monstrous new site which, according to 99% of your users, is totally frustrating and user unfriendly.

    Patricia Salter 11 February 2012
    2:57 am
  125. If you dont like it simple DONT USE IT

    Ingrid Billings 11 February 2012
    2:57 am
  126. I totally agree that the site does not seem as user friendly as the previous one. I was unable to find some info I was after, so to check, I then searched for a marriage that I had previously found on the old site only to find that the new one does not show it I always used the IGI facility & found it very useful. Now Im looking for marriages in Oxfordshire England & I get christenings from Connecticut Please listen to your users, this new search facility is NOT an improvement.

    Karen Cox 11 February 2012
    2:15 am
  127. There are many records on the old site that are not now accessible on the new site. Why is it that people persist in upgrading things and improving things and then they make a total mess of it all. I have bene a genealogist for 55 years now - I began when we trawled through musty old papers and books, in the days before even microfiche Computers have made it so easy by bringing the world into ones office BUT now I dont think I will be using Family Search any more. So the alternative is to pay a huge amount of money for Ancestry or Find my Family, both of which are excellent sites and ones that I can use in conjunction with your site, to enhance by genealogical experience. The big turn off here is that I am on a pension now and I have to watch my money very carefully. Your site is the only reliable free site online, and while there are big holes in it (as in all human generated transcriptions), it gives a clear and in depth lead into where to go next to confirm ones research. PLEASE dont scrap the classic search - run them side by side as you have bene doing up to now, then one can toggle back and forward between the two. Have a heart, Family Search.

    AEnone McRae-Clift 11 February 2012
    2:02 am
  128. Please do not discontinue the old classic view, it is far more useful than the new site, and so much quicker to find the information you are looking for, such as children born to a particular marriage. The new site is just too slow and takes ages to go through all the results unlike the classic view, plus it brings up useless results from the USA when you are looking ONLY for results from a particular county in ENGLAND. I think you will lose a lot of customers if you take away the old site, me for one as I never bother to go to the new site any more.

    Patricia Salter 11 February 2012
    1:54 am
  129. I find the new website design most unsatisfactory to search and use. The old site allowed for quicker and more clear entry of information, plus the returned results were easier to read and more plentiful per page. The Batch Search is useless which is HUGELY AGGRAVATING as most of the time, this is how I have searched the website Ive been using for years. This has really been a bad move for the LDS which is such a great shame, given how highly esteemed the organisation is to us genealogy researchers.

    Sally Roberts 11 February 2012
    1:51 am
  130. After a good many years of researching family history, I have always seen difficult-to-find ancestors as an exciting challenge - and am now experienced in search techniques to overcome Ancestry mispellings, illegible census entries and the like. But I confess that the new Family Search site has turned out to be one of my biggest disappointments - transparency and immediacy of information, building up sibling lists, sifting through specific geographical areas, discovering possible spelling variations - which is so easy on the old site - all seem to have disappeared on the new site. I have now reduced my recourse to this new version to a minimum. Please, please keep the old version up and running as a more intuitive and user-friendly option. It would be such a loss to us all if it was taken off line. Hopefully yours.

    Gill 11 February 2012
    1:47 am
  131. Please keep the old search link. My research life in genealogy is due to this wonderful tool . Please review your decision to terminate, please. a wonderful tool

    David 11 February 2012
    1:14 am
  132. I agree that the new site is virtually useless for searching in pre 1800 England. Even when a record can be found, what are the souces for it? What the devil is England-ODM? I want to know what the exact souces is, other wise the information is useless. Please fix this At least with the IGI you could quickly skim through the results and eliminate the unreliable submitted entries, just by the way they were typed. The extracted entries told you which parish & film to look at for verification. It wasnt just easy to use, it was RELIABLE. What is going to happen to all of the extracted parish records? They must be made available Now when using the new site, if it cant find a record for a specific name, it brings everyone up that had that surname. Also pages of census records, even when the timeframe to be searched was 1580 - 1660. What good is this? No-one born in 1660 is going to appear on an 1841 census, so why does the search bring them up? There is no rhyme or reason to the records brought up in the new search. The order is not alphabetical, nor is it numerical. The results were ordered intelligently on the old site, the same can not be said for the new. Fix this please I dont mind change when it is for the better. I update all my software and keep most of the updates. I dont care how an object looks as long as it works well. Unfortunately, this is one that doesnt. (unless the extracted parish records are still in the process of being made available) Please listen to these comments before you throw away the only good reliable records you had pre 1837 in the UK.

    Lyn Wolf 11 February 2012
    12:35 am
  133. The old site is still active so use till they (in their wisdom) decide to can it completely http//www.familysearch.org/eng/search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp&clear_form=true PLEASE LEAVE IT ACTIVE

    David Hall 11 February 2012
    12:22 am
  134. The new site is most difficult - and time consuming. Please keep the old site going.

    jferreira 11 February 2012
    12:08 am
  135. I am very disappointed you are closing down the old site as I found that one a lot more useful in my search. The new site has lots of good things, but there are far too many possibles to troll through to find who you want, and often even then they are not found. Please seriously consider keeping the old site as an option as it was previously.

    Nan 10 February 2012
    11:24 pm
  136. Bad idea to close the old site. The strength of your databases were offering both. I have used it for years and will not be using the new site much in the future.

    KNadler 10 February 2012
    10:41 pm
  137. I dont like the new site at all. Please leave it as it was

    janice nevill 10 February 2012
    10:37 pm
  138. I have used both the classic and the new with very few results with new version. On the classic version I get lots of results and when I enquired about this I never got a reply. PLEASE PLEASE keep the classic version so that we can find our families.

    Colin 10 February 2012
    9:45 pm
  139. Please keep the old site which was easy to use and would give intelligent results for the searches made. The new search is awful and pretty much useless. For example, if Im looking for a marriage 1800-1820 in London, I want a list of possibilities and being told these dont exactly match but you might find them useful is ridiculous when these names which dont exactly match occur (for example) in the 1900 US census - thats just rubbish and not helpful or useful at all. Why would I consider someone who married c 1820 to be even alive at the time of the 1900 census ??? Stupid Another example where the people setting up the software arent listening to the people who will use it. I used to use the old site a lot but rarely touch the new site as its become dumbed down to the point of uselessness. (11 Feb 2012)

    Alison 10 February 2012
    9:39 pm
  140. I too wish that you would keep the old site accessible to those who wish to use it. I often use the old site for searching particular areas, and for that purpose, I find it superior to the new site. However, the new site has a variety of records that I also appreciate, so I am not saying that the new site is not good - I just would like to be able to use either one, depending on the specifics of the search I am making. Please do consider our requests to keep the old site also available.

    Rosemary Cairns 10 February 2012
    9:33 pm
  141. I am shocked. I continually use the Classic site, particularly for the Family History Library Catalog for locations and to check film/fiche numbers. I do not see anywhere on the new site where I may access the catalog. And yes, I do agree with the majority concerning the new site - it does not work very well, seems to jump around and put stacks of names in from all over the world when one has specifically entered a location. e.g. England. Famiy Search s certainly doing a disservice to thousands of genealogists by removing the old site. Keep both

    Graham Price 10 February 2012
    8:55 pm
  142. just found out the old site has gone. Very disappointed as it was the best site I have used in my family research for pre 1837 material in England- has a deal been done with Ancestry and the now excluded material and extra family info you found on a batch number search will be subscription based only in future via another site - or is it just lost for ever as an online resource?

    Jo Archer 10 February 2012
    8:30 pm
  143. Im sorry to say your site is no longer my first port of call. I am really disappointed that you are determined to lose researchers to other websites and it doesnt seem to bother you. With the amount of negative feedback surely you would be doing something about it.

    Pam 10 February 2012
    8:10 pm
  144. I am really concerned about the discontinuance of the old interface so please excuse me for posting once again. I am in the midst of a regional tree for the Nairnshire area in Scotland and would like to post an example of the reason for my concern. New Interface – search for M*intosh and Rose, b. between 1790-1805 Inverness returns the following results Hugh – 7 May 1792 – Inverness C11098-4 Alexander – 29 Sep 1794 Daviot and Dunlichity C11095-2 William – 4 Aug 1803 Croy and Dalcross C11094-2 James – 9 Aug 1805 Croy and Dalcross C11094-2 Old interface – search for William Mackintosh and Elspet Rose returns two additional children *Isabel Mackintosh – 4 Mar 1797 Croy, Form submitted batch 7419703 *Ann Mackintosh 0 16 Jun 1799 Croy, Form submitted batch 7419703 The GROS (scotlandspeople) has the following images indexed Hugh 1792 Alexander 1794 *Isobel 1797 *Anne 1799 William 1803 James 1805 To do away with an interface that accesses these entries is crazy at least until you are able to incorporate the form submitted batches into the new interface, I respectfully request that you keep the link to the old interface open as I have run into this type situation numerous times since I started this tree in July of last year. The other issue, just as important, is that when you discontinue the old interface, you will wipe out a source citation that exists in more than a “bazillion” family trees. As I stated earlier, I very much appreciate the contribution that the LDS has made to our family histories, this cannot be stated enough. Kind regards, Sherry

    Sherry 10 February 2012
    6:00 pm
  145. This new site is worthless for finding information as well as endlessly frustrating. The old site was marvelously easy to use to find tons of information. Now I cant find anything. What a sorryassed development this is. Im sure that no working genealogist, either professional or amateur, was involved in, nor was asked for opinions, about the change in the site.

    chinga tumadre 10 February 2012
    5:54 pm
  146. PLEASE, PLEASE RESTORE THE OLD SITE. The new site is VERY CUMBERSOME........I cant seem to find records that I used to access with ease. LISTEN TO YOUR USERS. I have discontinued use of this site until the old site is up put as an option.

    Jan Catalogna 10 February 2012
    5:44 pm
  147. I worked on indexing, hoping to use the census records, I spent this afternoon trying to find someone in the 1880 census. With the new system they would not show up - I MISS THE EASY CENSUS RECORDS OF THE OLD SYSTEM.

    Marilyn Powell 10 February 2012
    5:37 pm
  148. The batch numbers will not work for parents names. My Mexican research has almost come to a halt using the new web site. I just want to cry. Hilda

    Hilda Saldivar Shepard 10 February 2012
    5:34 pm
  149. Classic familysearch might be back in spirit but there is no link to the Extracted church and civil that made up the Batch information. DARN Do you want to tell all those wonderful people who extracted all those documents along time ago, so we could do Batch Search that the work was kept from sincere but irritated researchers. This was a priceless gift from all those faithful souls who spent so much time serving in a worthy program that helped many by helping put families together. Of course everything can be forgiven after we think about the time we did have to using the batch number information while we could. I guess.

    Mary Ellen Gilbert 10 February 2012
    5:19 pm
  150. I totally agree. What has happened it was so easy before Why has something that worked changed.

    Lynne McDonald 10 February 2012
    5:02 pm
  151. Ive been using your sites for many years now and I must say that I found the old site much better. It was much more user friendly. Youve taken a huge step backwards in my opinion.

    John Salkeld 10 February 2012
    4:44 pm
  152. Why change a perfectly good site that has been used by many many people with great satisfaction for a new site that is so much more difficult. I always recommended your site to friends who were just beginning to search their family tree, but not any more. I requested a marriage and was shown a lot of births although I had ticked the right box. Also for a whole lot of the census years to appear and then be told we have to go to Find My Past, which we already know. It seems that you are not listening to all the comments sent to you but insist on going ahead and so depriving us of a very helpful site that we have relied on for many years. SHAME ON YOU.

    gladys 10 February 2012
    3:31 pm
  153. Please bring the old CD Family Search back. I am not talking about the PRF. I am talking about the CDs in Family Search. I could do a gedcom on a desendent search there and that isnt included with any of the up dates.

    Carolyn Gardner 10 February 2012
    1:51 pm
  154. I will miss the old site a great deal. I am in the process of trying to finish a course that instructs me to check something on the IGI and Ancestral File. There seems no way to do that now. I am a volunteer at the local Family History Center and many of the clients and the volunteers far prefer using the old version of the site and will take longer to find things now - if indeed they are even searchable. Most groups increase ways of searching --- but dont then block off ways that people are used to searching. Ive questioned the rational of taking the old site down for ages now and am very disapointed that it is suddenly gone.

    Kathy Wallace 10 February 2012
    1:47 pm
  155. Please dont get rid of the classic site. Like many others I find it easier to use. Also how can I see the source information which is so valuable and easily found on the classic site? Perhaps I have not found it yet on this new site... or perhaps you need to put in a link. I find that your new site throws up too many results and is more difficult to refine.

    Andrea 10 February 2012
    12:43 pm
  156. Old site was better Clientele knows best...Listen to them

    Ann Archibald 10 February 2012
    12:26 pm
  157. Please bring back the old site. It was much easier to use. Easier to navigate and easier to find matches to your search.

    M Davis 10 February 2012
    12:09 pm
  158. I agree, it is impossible to find anything on the new site. Why fix something that isnt broken? The new site front page might look pretty but thats all. Please please please re-instate old site.

    Theresa Boland 10 February 2012
    11:28 am
  159. Bad Bad Bad Bad Choice to drop the Classic Site. What a DUMB thing to do

    Unhappy 10 February 2012
    11:27 am
  160. I agree with the vast majority who say the new site is horrible I will go over to other sites as I cannot find anything now. I used to find the old site so easy to check for children. Now I haven,t a clue how to get this sort of info.Bring back the old site PLEASE

    Angela 10 February 2012
    7:55 am
  161. The classic family search site provides the ability to browse large amounts of information very quickly. The new front end also has its uses. Please listen to your users and retain the old interface as an option.

    Gerry Roff 10 February 2012
    6:51 am
  162. I spent my career designing, developing and testing software, and was very disappointed in the changes made to the site, so continued using the old front-end. I suspect that user requirements may not have been gathered prior to designing the new front-end, and that if formal, end-user acceptability testing was used prior to release, something may have gone wrong in the gathering of user feedback, or the process of reviewing the feedback for needed corrections. Its pretty unbelievable to me, that you would move forward with sunsetting the old front end, with so great a proportion of negative, user comment. This isnt a case of the users not wanting to move forward, and just being used to the comfortable, old shoe. Its a matter of the developers missing the mark entirely, on the need. I think you should seriously revisit your decision, and consider working on an a new release, with the USERS providing the requirements, rather than the tech staff, which I assume is where things went off the rails. What would be the harm in spending another 12-18 months in making the new version acceptable to the users?

    Judy H 10 February 2012
    6:17 am
  163. The new site is not at all good. The old one was very good. The parties are responsible for this change have set back the progress of genealogical research by a long way. I hope they have a revelation and restore the old site.

    Graham Woolgar 10 February 2012
    5:17 am
  164. I am clearly in a minority, but I found the old IGI site hard to use with masses of unreliable information. I never found anyone I was looking for. I used the new site from the moment it went beta and found a whole raft of folk and connections. Of course FS is only one source & I made sure I verified the data, but a lot of it was spot-on. Ive also watched Family Search tutorials and have found these to be excellent & illuminating. Genealogy is moving on to fantastic things (RootsTech2012 gave hints of this) & we will all benefit if we can grasp the scary nettle that is change.

    curlsdiva 10 February 2012
    4:32 am
  165. There are too many people who only know how to use the old Familysearch site, to abandon it so quickly. It may be that all the data, for example from the IGI, is available on the new site, but how to find it? It is NOT obvious Please restore the link and maintain the old site. In the meantime, if you wish to remove the old site, then please provide adequate training on how to find the contents of the old IGI.

    Rosemary Morgan 10 February 2012
    3:55 am
  166. The old site was easier & quicker to find people

    Bruce Parker 10 February 2012
    12:15 am
  167. I posted eariler with regard to the current topic but have posted a few times regarding form submitted records (in Scotland) that can only be accessed with old search. These are not to be confused with member submitted entries. 99.9% of the time are legitimate entries with regard to Scotland. I have looked at actual films and many entries were ignored but covered in these form submitted entries. No lessons (as someone on this topic suggested) are going to recover this data if you leave it out. I echo the sentiments of those on this subject. Far too many results returned and it almost appears that whomever sold ancestry on their new and improved search engine sold the same idea to familysearch. The cool thing about the old is that the filters were effective at the start of a search. Now you get a bunch of irrelevant results in the mix. I really appreciate your being there and sharing this information for free, but I wish you would find another programmer. Kind regards

    Sherry 09 February 2012
    6:54 pm
  168. Sorry but I cannot find hardly anything on the new site. Please bring back the old format. PLEASE Also I dont like being sent to Ancestry.com, if I did I would have renewed my membership with them, but I didnt because I was not happy with all the information that is free elsewhere on the web that I was paying for on their site.

    Mj 09 February 2012
    6:52 pm
  169. I understand from a document in the Help Center that the Classic FS site is NECESSARY to find the CD# for any Pedigree Resource File entries, so that further data can be accessed (submitter contact, sources, notes) that is not on www.familysearch.org or with the merged data at new.familysearch.org. Only the PRF data in www.familysearch.org/eng has all the information needed to access the original discs for information that was not posted on the new www.familysearch.org site. We assume that the old classic site will remain until that data is moved over to www.familysearch.org?

    Pat 09 February 2012
    4:40 pm
  170. I agree. The charges are not user friendly. Please keep the old search format.

    Sandi 09 February 2012
    4:19 pm
  171. i AM SO GLAD TO SEE ALL THESE COMMENTS AS i THOUGHT IT WAS MY INCOMPETENCE ON COMPUTERS AS THE REASON I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO ANY GENEALOGY WORK...EVEN ON LINES THAT I HAVE ALREADY DONE BUT TRYING TO PLUG HOLES W/TEMPLE WORK. PLS, PLS PUT THE OTHER ONE BACK SO WE DUMMIES WILL BE ABLE TO WORK FROM HOME.

    COLLEEN MOORE PETERS 09 February 2012
    4:01 pm
  172. Jack, I think you may have got it wrong - or I may have who knows in this asinine world where folk invite comment and ignore the deluge when it doesnt fit what they want to hear. A lovely new eye-candy interface always seems to appeal (actually, can I be mean and not a little shallow and say that even from an aesthetic point of view the new wrbsite is DULL-looking) but, given these wonderful folk (and more importantly all the truly wonderful folk who gave their time to transcribe and submit the records) give us this huge genealogical resource totally free, you wonder why they would seek to enhance it at all. To be sure, IFF, the extra search facilities you suggest are present on the new interface is true then it would be a welcome enhancement BUT, I think the main cause of all the perfectly valid negative comment is that access to the underlying records behind the new eye candy has been obfuscated, if not entirely lost in some cases. And if the issue is about some IGI submissions being deemed dubious (I dont think it is) then at least they give you a lead and - provided you do your own checking - no harm will come of it. I have filled in various branches of my tree by verifying suspect Patron and other submissions considerably quicker than plodding through every candidate Parish at source (which I do anyway - but the IGI helps me target areas quicker). If you want to see the sort of frustration that is being expressed by all those other bloggers (or better still tell me what I am doing wrong with the new interface, if it is me - but I am the computer generation of 79 and still going strong) just try this as an example. 1. Go to the old classic website and search and under the IGI tab search for for Martha Beer birth/christening 1826, exact year, British Isles, England, Devon and click search. 2. Select the Membury Devon Martha. Click on the Batch Number 7223416 You are then taken to the old interface where you can fill stuff in. Now once upon a time you could just click search/press enter without filling anything in and you would be off into the batch. Just to prove there is a whole lot wrong with the new front-end interface enter Beer in the surname field (we know there is at least one in there dont we - otherwise why in the hell would we have got to this point anyhow?) and click search or press enter. 3. Voila Zilch. MEGA FRUSTRATION. (I can tell you that once upon a time you would see an awful lot of records - oh yeah and I have personally verified at source that they were correct even though this batch could be viewed by some as suspect). Oh yeah. A lot of people using this website have probably been doing so for going on 10 years or so now since it first went live (and fell over with the demand) so it might be a tad condescending to sugest they will get used to the new interface with a bit of training blah blah.

    DavidBeare 09 February 2012
    3:50 pm
  173. Please bring back the old connection to records. It was much easier to find the records. This new format shows too many unwanted records that do not pertain to my searches. Life is too short to waste it searching through junk

    Cindy M 09 February 2012
    3:40 pm
  174. I find it disingenuous that you accidentally removed the link to the Classic website and then, coincidentally, decided not to relink it Ive used that FamilySearch website for some 15 years and now, with your new front end, cannot go easily to a E & W parish to browse for pre 1837 births & marriages. Given I teach family history reseach, my own published family history is cited by both the Smithsonian and the Getty Institute and Ive been doing FH research for over 35 years, trust me, I know what Im talking about. Youve made a bad decision which will alienate many experienced researchers

    Barry 09 February 2012
    3:26 pm
  175. One thing I havent read anyone say is this thanks to the new and improved site, I wont be using FamilySearch as a resource for my genealogy research. The new format is not user-friendly, not clear and frankly, has become a waste of my time. Thanks for all the information and leads I have found in past years wish you hadnt decided your site needed to be fixed.

    Kathleen Miller 09 February 2012
    1:39 pm
  176. Thanks for adding new databases, but why not keep the old site as well? You are throwing away years of work by thousands of people in the EXTRACTION program, also discarding valuable sources such as records of deceased LDS members showing their birth & death dates, parents, and spouse. Everyone knows your old site contained lots of errors as well, but the extracted IGI records were excellent and highly accurate Its true that your new site includes a feature where one can search by batch number, but the relevant batch numbers arent easily found now. On your old site, if I found an extracted christening record of an ancestor, I could immediately click on the batch number at the bottom and then easily search WITHIN that batch (within that parish) for others with the same surname, or browse through that whole parish, and that parish ONLY. This was an invaluable resource Now, even if I find a christening record on your new site, there is no batch number at the bottom, so how am I supposed to search within that batch? I can search within England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975, but that category is way too broad to be of any use.

    Karen 09 February 2012
    1:37 pm
  177. I have found a few relatives by clicking on next household on the 1881 census. I will not be able to do so on the new site. Surely I will also not be able to find brothers and sisters on the Batch numbers. I would be much happier if the two sites ran side by side. I wish I had a pound for every new and improved website which isnt

    Joyce Armstrong 09 February 2012
    1:33 pm
  178. You have made a mess of a perfectly wonderful search tool.

    SDK 09 February 2012
    12:54 pm
  179. I must agree that the loss of the old site is totally frustrating. I cannot find IGI records for people I know were on the old site. When I enter the batch number and name, no record is listed...but I know they are there...now the whole family and my future reseach has disappeared. Living in a remote part of Canada with no local church to get microfilm from I am at a loss as to how to proceed. Please put the old site back.

    Hilary Eade 09 February 2012
    12:51 pm
  180. I fully agree with what seems to be the majority. I dont like the new site - its more difficult to use, and more confusing. There was nothing wrong with the old site 0 so why tinker with it?

    P J Thompson 09 February 2012
    11:52 am
  181. Well I also agree with everyone who has written something here. Its not as easy as before to find family now. Please listen to us users and dont change it not everything is the better for changing it.

    sharon 09 February 2012
    11:41 am
  182. I am in agreement with the about comments. Please restore the classic Family Search option. I find this new one to be very frustrating

    Judith Barrett 09 February 2012
    11:27 am
  183. PLEASE LISTEN TO ALL THESE COMMENTS AND STOP THE MOVE TO THE INSANELY USELESS NEW FRONT END.

    David Beare 09 February 2012
    11:23 am
  184. The new search is much more highly functional if you know how to use it properly - I suggest FamilySearch publish some tutorials for beginners to understand how the new search works. It is not perfect, but the old search was much further from perfect. There was no ability to enter place names (only batches, one at a time), there was no way to enter partial info (i.e. just fathers name and not mothers), there was no way to narrow down the date more precisely than the drop-down ranges. All of these functions are available on the new site. People will adapt to the new search - I think it is all for the best to cut off the old search that contains thousands of misleading and downright false records. Yes, people will be outside of their comfort zone for a while, but it will all be okay once people get used to it.

    Jack 09 February 2012
    11:12 am
  185. The new site is only an imrovement if you wish to search new location databases as they come on line. If you want to do a general search the new site is next to useless compared with the original site I rarely find anything this way.

    vigggars16 09 February 2012
    10:38 am
  186. By removing the classic site you are losing a huge amount of data. Alright, some of it was dubious, but on the whole it acted as a useful search tool. It is criminal to deprive us of all that information. The quantity of entries on the new site is really limited and so disappointing.

    Sue 09 February 2012
    9:58 am
  187. I really prefer the Classic search. I find more of my family this way. You need too much information the new way, especially if Im looking for someone from the International Countries. I can put a last name in and it brings up all the names with that last name or similar last names. Please let us continue to have it either way. Thank You in advance.

    Janet 09 February 2012
    9:57 am
  188. I have to agree that the new site is difficult, if not impossible, to use. I needed to check up on notes I made a few years ago & now find it impossible to locate records that I KNOW are there ... somewhere. So I have bascially given up using the new one. How do I get back to the Classic search?

    Joyce Ellis 09 February 2012
    9:48 am
  189. I definitely found the old site so much easier and better to use. It seems a shame to change something that worked perfectly well, I think you should reconsider your decision to scrap the old site completely.

    Emily7 09 February 2012
    9:45 am
  190. Your improvements are a waste of my time and effort. The required info is too narrow to get a hit, useless

    chris garner 09 February 2012
    9:43 am
  191. cant find anything. where is what i found before? please fix?

    09 February 2012
    9:39 am
  192. I can only echo the comments. It takes forever to get anywhere compared with just being able to type in the country and county there is so much junk that comes up its not easy to find what you are looking for the lack of the cut and paste ability etc. The new site is a fine supplement if you cant find what you want in the classic site, but no substitute

    Alison Leedham 09 February 2012
    9:36 am
  193. Well, youve just told me that the most useless website on the Internet will stay that way permenently. You are aware that the search format is broke ... and you deliberately refuse to fix it. So mote it be.

    Mike 09 February 2012
    9:07 am
  194. New site impossible to use Searching the UK Census used to be so simple (and fun). Could search for a name and a place of residence (cillage/town/county). Im disappointed. Please listen to your users and reinstate the old site.

    Gwendy 09 February 2012
    9:04 am
  195. I much prefer the old site and am not happy with the exclusion of the old site - please bring it back

    marion smith 09 February 2012
    8:58 am
  196. I am sorry, but I think the new site is horrible. It is as someone said above, useless. I can not find anything I like about it. Please return to the original method of searching. You have been very helpful to my research in the past. I have had a lot of success. I see no reason to continue and try to use the new site. Why would you not show families in the census?

    Jennifer Wade 09 February 2012
    8:18 am
  197. I will add my comments to those above and implore you to take notice. PLEASE KEEP the old classic site it was comprehensive quick and easy. Along with the old batch nos site it was great, this new site is so long winded and slow and at the end of your search you are never sure if the information you get is correct, for the information is not as expansive as it was under the old classic system. AS THE SAYING GOES IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT.

    Michael E Claydon 09 February 2012
    5:36 am
  198. Even after a lot of perseverence I find the new site difficult to navigate and the search results confusing to read (and frequently, they are not the results I asked for, e.g. including US information when I asked for a UK record). Frequently I cannot even bring up a test record which I know is on the system it tells me the information is not there Ive used the IGI for 20+ years, but no more - fortunately I am an Ancestry subscriber and will use their records from now on.

    S Jones 09 February 2012
    5:33 am
  199. What are your plans for the form submitted batches that are currently only available on the old classic. These records can also be found on scotlandspeople (GROS). It is going to cost me a fortune to finish the regional tree that I am doing for the Nairnshire area in Scotland if I am not able to access these. If you could wait a while longer to remove the link to the old site, it would be very much appreciated.

    Sherry 09 February 2012
    5:32 am
  200. I too use the old site on a daily basis and I am sorry to see it go. The thing I am going to miss most is the BMD records before 1538. The old IGI records could take you much further back and a great help. What is going to happen to the BMD information before 1538?

    Eve 09 February 2012
    4:52 am
  201. So disappointed that you are closing old site. The new search is really hopeless - the old one was great. I cant even find records I know exist now. It is very sad that the only decent site for older records especially will basically be gone forever.

    Ann Clark 09 February 2012
    4:49 am
  202. The Classic Search is now gone What we now have is neither simple or as easy to use as before. Think again Family Search ... this is going backwards not an improvement . Very disappointed

    John Trott 09 February 2012
    4:48 am
  203. Please bring back the old, easily used, site and trash the new site

    Mike 09 February 2012
    4:46 am
  204. The new site is much more complicated to use than the old site. It is totally frustrating. Please bring back the old site

    MGF Wilson 09 February 2012
    4:44 am
  205. Please leave the old search as an option. It is a purer tool to work with - sometimes less is more.

    Naomi 09 February 2012
    2:53 am
  206. Please leave us with the old site - the ability to search the IGI easily is invaluable and I have found numerous members of the family through this which I would otherwise not know about. The old site works really well for so many of us - please keep it up running in parallel with the new one.

    Sue Knight 09 February 2012
    1:56 am
  207. I still download PAF5.2 as I teach others to begin their family research. Ive always had to go to the Classic site to find the link. I VOTE to keep the Classic site. Thanks Teresa

    Teresa Davis 08 February 2012
    10:10 pm
  208. Thank you for all the historical data your organization has provided me and the rest of the general public for all these years. Your site was unlike many other genealogical websites and was always the first place I’d go to research a surname etc. What I liked the most was when you located someone from a census report I was able to see the entire family listed along with all of the other essential details. I was so appreciative to have access to so much FREE information I guess this is why I feel a bit guilty about complaining, but the changes you’ve made have not been for the better. Enhancements are usually well received, but completely changing the format is pretty risky. If the classic version is on its way out, I hope your technical staff are working very hard to make some significant changes to the new version to have it mirror what your system was able to do and provide before (in other words, it was pretty darn good the way it was). I also hope someone is reading these reviews. The public is speaking

    Bruce T. 08 February 2012
    8:43 pm
  209. I REALLY DISLIKE YOUR NEW SEARCH FORMAT-CANT YOU PUT THE OLD WAY BACK UP?

    CAROL 08 February 2012
    8:24 pm
  210. I miss the old site. I even tested this new site with known information that I learned from months/years back on an ancestor, but when EVRYTHING requested was entered in the new site, the answers did not come up.

    Dale 08 February 2012
    8:21 pm
  211. The Family History Library Catalog must have Review Related Places. That is a vital function for searching and it is not in the new Catalog. Please add it

    maryevhill 08 February 2012
    7:30 pm
  212. I do not like the new site. I have not been able to find any information to help me in my search for ancestors. The former site was helpful and in the past I found a lot of good information there. The new site is frustrating and practically useless for me.

    Gloria Clark 08 February 2012
    6:25 pm
  213. I see that I am far outnumbered, but I like the new site. I havent used the classic site for a long time. Its true, it may take a bit of narrowing down to find what youre looking for, but there are lots more records to search now. You can begin your search with just a name, approximate date and place if you want, then narrow the field by adding more information. I especially like the locality search feature, which allows you to see what records are available for very specific places (San Francisco Funeral Records, for example), then search those specific records.

    Tamy Lee 08 February 2012
    5:58 pm
  214. Agree with all the above. Put back the classic or previous version as an option. Unable to find who and groups I need to. Fire the airheads who thought this one up. We are the researchers who use the products. NO need to make it more complicated and time consuming. Not happy

    Sharon McLean 08 February 2012
    5:23 pm
  215. I order actually certificates from the library and must know the exact microfilm the certificate is on otherwise I can not do so. I dont see anyplace to be able to search that detail. I dont need to search on the person. Ive already done that.

    Clare Gunning 08 February 2012
    5:02 pm
  216. With the new site have never had much success researching Catholic ancestors from the Offenbach, Hesse Darmstadt area, since the removal of the old link, NONE of them appear when doing a search. Quite disappointing. Please reconsider and bring back the old search engine.

    Mike 08 February 2012
    4:54 pm
  217. I read through many of the comments and most people seem to want the classic search. I use both the classic and the new sites and both have merit, however the classic search site seems to make it easier to find connected family members. Please reconsider before removing it permanently.

    Beth 08 February 2012
    4:05 pm
  218. If you shut it down, does that mean the search for all the newly indexed records will be available on new.familysearch? I think you need to remember, that a lot of us that currently do FS are not techies at this point and maybe the younger generation is, but who does the most research? I would have to say, by the looks at the FHC that it is the older generation. I think this would be a bad move at this point. I also dont think the new.fs has entirely finished the old IGI as I have found records that are just being moved over now that werent there a couple months ago.

    Jennifer P 08 February 2012
    4:02 pm
  219. Wow, in reading all the negative comments, I would think that FamilySearch needs to reconsider some of their changes. I do not think that searching on the site is as easy as it could be. I have been gathering names on my German ancestors and must type in each name many times to get all of the info. Just because some methods are technically cool doesnt mean its research easy. Does anyone consult with actual researchers before they do all these cool things? We need to remember,,accurate, easy, straightforwad.

    Diane 08 February 2012
    3:33 pm
  220. Why reinvent the wheel when there was nothing wrong with the original. Someone has wasted time and money on something that clearly isnt as good as the previous edition ... all the negative comments speak for themselves. Oh what a shambles.

    Elaine Davies 08 February 2012
    2:30 pm
  221. I want the old site back. The new one is so useless and I cannot find anyone. Please take notice of your users

    Linda 08 February 2012
    2:12 pm
  222. Cannot easily navigate this new site and totally would appreciate that you reconsider leaving the Classic Family Search as an option. This is a classic example of trying to hard to fix something that wasnt broken. Perhaps the time and effort would have served us better by improving upon the old system by family groupings and source call numbers which should be readily accomplished. This would be most helpful instead of feeding so much unecessary information which takes so much time to navigate. Thank You Kindly,

    Elizabeth 08 February 2012
    2:11 pm
  223. Just so frustrating With the Classic search I could search for all the children of a marriage, all the family members in a batch number, all the family members in one area. I used the Hugh Wallis website to link to the different batch numbers. I could use the printout as a working document for an individual, with all that space at the bottom for other biographical details. Now, just confusion. Please reinstate the Classic system.

    Irene 08 February 2012
    2:10 pm
  224. All of the instructors in the FHL teach, and I mean teach, that the new version is at least two months behind posting new books, films, etc. too the New version. What value is the new one when we cannot locate the books, films, etc. on the catalogue?

    K. H. Adams 08 February 2012
    1:59 pm
  225. i am so disappointed with your new site i loved visiting you but afraid i must try other pastures

    e christlo 08 February 2012
    1:51 pm
  226. Although I have found records on the new site and like the use of images, I must agree with the others that I do not like the old classic search being taken away. It was more user friendly and seemed to narrow down the searches better than the new one does. Yes, where did the IGI go??? It was very useful. Where does one find the catalog of films on the new site?? Why cant you just have both and let users make a choice?

    Judy M. 08 February 2012
    1:45 pm
  227. Until someone can search for Copenhagen and actually get results, this is a BAD move. Replacing a functional, updated catalog with the pile of garbage that is the new and improved catalog (see previous note about looking for Copenhagen) BEFORE the new catalog sees any changes is absolutely crazy. Clearly, genealogists have NOT been making these decisions.

    Daniel 08 February 2012
    1:23 pm
  228. I cannt find anything I want,before a whole page would come up and you could see all availabe for the name you were looking for,why do people keep changing it,its never for the better.Bring back a choice please.

    Beryl Westaway 08 February 2012
    1:13 pm
  229. I like the Classic Library Catalog ... the new one is horrible to use and takes forever IF you ever get to what you are needing and find it almost impossible to easily find the film numbers ... spend hours using new library catalog doing what took a very few minutes to find on classic catalog ... not fun folks ... and no one is listening or cares ... just push ahead without listening to what we need ... were square pegs in the round new system ...

    Lynna Kay Shuffield 08 February 2012
    1:02 pm
  230. Reading through the comments, it occurs to me that that the folks struggling with the new site have missed out on the how to training materials available. Its also true that there are growing pains as changes are implemented on the new site. Id prefer to see the link restored until things settle down. Id also love to see everyone who prefers the old site to the new to take advantage of the training materials. They are missing out on some powerful searching capabilities that are easy to use once you learn how and practice a bit.

    Mike St. Clair 08 February 2012
    1:02 pm
  231. Im afraid I agree with the other negative comments. Ive been using the old site very successfully and now get frustrated that I can no longer find what I know is there but cant be found. The IGI was a big plus feature and I really miss it. Ive been doing research for 40 years so I am not a novice. This new way just doesnt work well

    Darline Burke 08 February 2012
    12:46 pm
  232. Im not sure if this is the correct place to leave my particular comment, but here goes. When changes started being made to Family Search, I was unable for a while to get anything at all. Then I had a primitive search function, so called because it was just a form with blanks to be filled in, but I did get information returned. Then for a while, I couldnt get anything at all because entering information into the fields returned an error message. We were in England over Christmas (we live in Canada), and I tried again (using my laptop), and lo and behold, I was able to get in and do some limited searching. When I came home, I tried on my desktop computer, no joy, couldnt get anything but the primitive search document, and it wasnt working. So last evening, my husband was holding a meeting here, and I took the laptop upstairs away from their discussions, and lo and behold, I got in again. I am not going to complain, I am getting in, although I miss the easy use and functionality of the old site that I spent years searching. I really did enjoy having the parents (and their parents) and children linked, even though there were the odd discrepancies and some outright strange lifespans. Ill do my research using my laptop, wont look a gift horse in the mouth. My daughter (in England) and I have different resources that we are using, and are trying to keep each other abreast of what we are finding. This is such a fun hobby, and I hope that before the end of the year I will be ready to start paying back some of the help Family Search has given me by becoming an indexer. Thank you, and keep up the good work

    08 February 2012
    12:28 pm
  233. When I am getting ready for a trip to the Family History Library, I make up lists by family of books and films I need to look at. I do that by copying and pasting from the print version of the classic search and then I can delete the lines that I dont need while at the library. I cant do that with the new search - you are making my life unnecessarily difficult. I dont want to have to print out a separate page for every item - what a waste of paper, not to mention space in my carry-on. And why have you done away with the related places search. The new search is anything but an improvement. Please listen to us and dont make changes just for the sake of change. Sometimes older is better.

    Sharon Koleber 08 February 2012
    12:27 pm
  234. My biggest complaint with the new search is that you dont give the option to bring up a version suitable to copy and paste. When Im getting ready for a trip to the Family History Library, I make lists of the various films and books by pasting the needed information onto a Word doc. I dont want to have to print an entire page for every item - what a waste of paper and space in my carry-on. In the old search, after I paste, I can go back and remove any parts of the full item I dont need. You are making life unnecessarily difficult. Also -why have you done away with the related places. Bad calls. Cant find anything any more, I havent heard any of my friends say they like the new search. Dont change just for the sake of change.

    08 February 2012
    12:21 pm
  235. The old format was efficient, quick and accurate. Now I scroll through dozens of people with the same name and, generally speaking, come up with no positively certain result. What a disappointment that the old search has vanished. Continued access for those who want it, would be greatly appreciated

    Esme Russell 08 February 2012
    12:15 pm
  236. RIDICULOUS decision. Why replace something that worked with something thats *barely* in beta-testing? Im appalled at the inadequacy of the new and improved catalog--- and yet no one seems to care what the *user* wants. utterly ridiculous.

    D 08 February 2012
    12:10 pm
  237. Newer is not always better, we want people to use the site not to be frustrated with it. They will go to Ancestry for as much as they can instead - Please keep the Classic. My husband who is a programmer knows the new is not as easy to use, if he can see it from that side you know these fellow people are not just complaining to complain but there is a real issue to fix.

    Carly Phillips 08 February 2012
    12:04 pm
  238. I agree with all the previous comments on the loss of the old classic site My searching on the new version, on the whole, has been very frustrating. I miss the IGI in particular

    08 February 2012
    11:45 am
  239. I have just tried searching for a known ancestor using the new site. The results that come up are in such a haphazard order and have taken ages to trawl through, that I wonder why on earth you have ditched the old site, which had an excellent search facility that allowed you to select far more easily what you were looking for and ordered the results in a far more logical way. PLEASE bring back the old site. This new one is like searching for something in a thick fog The saying If it aint broke dont fix it springs to mind.....why did you change what was already an excellent facility????

    Helen Peters 08 February 2012
    11:40 am
  240. Please, please leave the old version as an option. I find the new one useful as a supplement, but extremely cumbersome for basic searches by type, date and area. I also used to use the batch numbers effectvely. I cant see any advantages in the new system other than that there is occasionally additional information about a person missing on the original site.

    P Hutton 08 February 2012
    11:40 am
  241. Im sorry, I have to agree that the new site though brilliant in a lot of areas leaves a lot to be desired when searching for information that was easily searchable on the old site but now is impossible to find even when Ive found it before on the old site. e.g.What happened to the house-hold search on the 1881 census? I know that you are trying to improve and simplify searches, but this site is not by any means an improvement.

    Dave Honneyman 08 February 2012
    11:13 am
  242. I have read with sadness the comments above - yes it is a new site with different ways of doing things which you have to get used to but the filtered searches are fantastic for finding children or spouces and there is more information on the new site -)

    Alan Johnson 08 February 2012
    11:09 am
  243. Taking off the old site is a big mistake. It very often had information that is not on the new site, and was, often, easier to use. You may believe that your new site is so much better that it is OK to dump the old one, but the comments indicate otherwise. Please continue the old site

    Carl Boyd 08 February 2012
    10:15 am
  244. You have setback research on your new site. Who dreamed it up. Put in a name, born Ireland, date, etc. Then hit the button and wait for it US census records. Wow how much better can it get. The person I was looking for never was in the US and I never ask for the search to get census records. Does any one that makes the changes use the site?

    Joan Peters 08 February 2012
    10:14 am
  245. This new site is bad. Put on a name to search for records, that were on the old site, nothing found. Not sorry to say new is not improved.

    Barb Nelson 08 February 2012
    10:03 am
  246. I had quit using the old site for many months. I find much more info on the new site. However, many of the negative/unhappy comments I have read are valid. It may be of value to have a link/shortcut to a page of how to get the most out of your search on familysearch.org. I, too, am reluctant to change from what I know works for me, to something that doesnt seem to work as well. I use our local Family History Center and they offer classes and training on how to use the site more efficiently. There are tutorials about how to use the new version of familysearch.org. Do many people know about them? Or how to access them? Keep up the good work, and I look forward to many more improvements/updates to make the site more user friendly

    Carol Hutchinson 08 February 2012
    9:03 am
  247. I love the new site - the classic one has a lot less information on it and was very static. Lots more to find, new ways to do things, but lots of good tools to learn how to make the best use of it. I learned a long time ago that most of my frustrations with change had less to do with the change than with me not wanting to learn yet another new thing. Once I took the time to really learn, things were much better. Keep up the good work and be patient with us who adapt slowly to change.

    L. Nelson 08 February 2012
    9:02 am
  248. We still do not have the ability on the new site to search for records that have information in the other category. There are hundreds of records that only have information in that category only and not being able to search for them on the new site means they are not found. That feature really needs to be added before the old site is shut down.

    Lynn Teuscher 08 February 2012
    9:01 am
  249. As a family history Tutor, I find the new site much too complicated for students who may have used the IGI in the past. Please restore the Basic site. Although some of us knew we could use the newer version and it is great for overseas records, it is not much use, in its present form, for those just requiring U.K. information.

    Janet Adamson 08 February 2012
    9:00 am
  250. Please put the old search method on as an option. The new one is nowhere near as good or easy. I have tried to find people who I know are on the old IGI search who I cannot find at all on the new search. Listen to your users

    Jean Jackson. 08 February 2012
    8:30 am
  251. I used to be able to trawl through the Norfolk parish records and find what I wanted. On the new site I fill in a form and get no where. Even those I KNOW are in the records come up as not found. Im really not at alll happy with your new site.

    B.Moore 08 February 2012
    8:08 am
  252. I too prefere the old site, have not used family search for a year and now i am researching again , the new site is not a patch on the old system, you get so much usless info on it

    taylor 08 February 2012
    8:08 am
  253. Your so called upgrades have made it next to impossible to search. I dont know of anyone that is happy with this version. This site is NOT user friendly at all Please hear us out

    Rita 08 February 2012
    8:03 am
  254. While it is great to have some of the new features, such as images for certain records, I found the old search site much easier to use and really do not like the new one very much at all Sorry

    Lynne McCubbin 08 February 2012
    7:33 am
  255. Please keep Classic Search It is far more useful to me than the newer version which I find very difficult to get any useful information from...

    Love Classic 08 February 2012
    6:22 am
  256. I am disappointed about the lack of ability to use the old site. The ability to find children of a couple easily is not as easy or convenient. Searches now take more time. So many convenient features of the old site are now missing and the new site is very dissapointing.

    William Wilson 08 February 2012
    5:28 am
  257. I do agree, on the old site I found my earliest ancestor and now I cannot find him anymore, his record is gone How is this possible?? I have been visiting your site many times in the past and I am happy about the information I found but not every change is for the better. I am really disappointed.

    F.Gentis 08 February 2012
    4:32 am
  258. I liked to use the IGI part of the site where you could put the parents names in and get all the children. Also some things cannot be found on the new site but were on the old one. I would like a facility where you can only search for the area you want and not be shown all irrelevant stuff from around the world.

    Barbara Hagan 08 February 2012
    3:27 am
  259. The old classic search was a good fast way tracker list and summary. Although new is good, the old way definitely had its advantages. Janet Heap

    08 February 2012
    3:02 am
  260. It appears that a valuable research tool on the internet has been replaced with a commercial enterprise - using data supplied by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which was freely supplied for religious use

    James Lackey 07 February 2012
    10:51 pm
  261. A great deal of information that was available in the IGI has been omitted from the new site. This is a cruel blow to Mexican researchers especially.

    Hilda Saldivar Shepard 07 February 2012
    10:51 pm
  262. Please re-instate the old classic search site. I find the new site not easy to use and I used to change over to the old site and find the information I needed almost immediately.Really miss the old IGI. Was very disappointed today to find connection to the old site had gone.

    Judy 07 February 2012
    9:35 pm
  263. Its too bad that the old site is gone. It seemed to have so much more information available in it. Please consider restoring it until you have merged to new and the old 100%. Thank you.

    Daniel Baumgartner 07 February 2012
    8:43 pm
  264. i loved having access to the other site, i often found more there than on the new one

    karen beaver 07 February 2012
    8:40 pm
  265. I liked the research giede and research helps from the classic site, also the research giedence lady.

    Carolyn Gardner 07 February 2012
    8:37 pm
  266. You should only shut down the access to the old site, once all the data has been transferred over. It appears that the old site just has more information.

    07 February 2012
    8:36 pm
  267. PLEASE FOR HEAVENS SAKES PUT THAT BACK ON. IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THE RECORDS WE HAVE BEEN GETTING FOR ALL THESE YEARS. I TRIED YOUR SYSTEM AND IT LEAVES SO MUCH OUT THAT THE OTHERS HAD. I AM NOT ABLE TO GET AROUND MUCH AND THIS HAS BEEN MY WORK FOR MANY A YEAR - - NOW I AM VIRTUALLY LOST EXCEPT FOR PUTTING MATERIAL IN GOOGLE AND I HOPE YOU DONT SHUT THAT OFF. I HAVE MADE MANY TRIPS UP THERE BUT NOT PHYSICALLY ABLE ANYMORE. PLEASE GIVE IT BACK TO US

    RAMONA L WILSON 07 February 2012
    8:08 pm
  268. I hope that the old version is not removed soon, as it has several features that are missinjg on the new site, most notably the ability to download Gedcom files of whole households in the 1881 English censys and a few other censuses. This saves a great deal of re-typing, and so until the functionality of the new site matches that of the old, I hope the old will remain accessible.

    Steve Hayes 07 February 2012
    7:55 pm
  269. Two years, The ONE feature still has not be fixed. The new catalog will NOT allow anyone to go back to the beginning at all, period Has to hit the logo to get back to the beginning. This was pointed out flat out two years when it first came available. I see engineers have NOT fixed it And theres NO page preview to control which page I want to print. I do NOT appreciate paying $$$ on ink or copies to print 10 pages long just to get to ONE page I want to print due to no page preview control. And the format of the catalog is not desirable, printing out excess ad nauseum statements are NOT wanted. The total amount of these ad nauseum statements amount to almost 3/4 page long

    dsammy 07 February 2012
    6:48 pm
  270. Agree with all above The old site was much easier to find what you wanted. Dont change what isnt broken. Give us the option.

    Vickie Foriest 07 February 2012
    6:39 pm
  271. Please reinstate the old site - I found it much easier to use and find the results I am looking for. I have tried the new site but always went back to the old one and found results immediately. Very disappointed today when there was no connection to the old site.

    Judy 07 February 2012
    6:25 pm
  272. I have been using your classic site for years. I like the new site, but not better than the old. For one thing being able to view a pedigree chart is very helpful, and unless I am missing something, that is not possible with the new site. Too bad you wont at least keep the link to the old site.

    Ray Sweeney 07 February 2012
    5:20 pm
  273. I suppose its too late, but just in case it isnt - please reconsider To quote someone else I just want to be able to enter Kermit MacMuppet, 1900 +/- 10 years, Midlothian, Scotland and search, not fiddle around with ticking boxes that only give approximations...

    J. P. Gilliver 07 February 2012
    5:00 pm
  274. I am sad to see the old site go. Like the others I found the old one much easier to navigate and one could find the material one needed very quickly. I didnt mind trawling through names - it is easier than now. There is just too many options I cant find an easy link to the 1881 census....

    Katherine ORegan 07 February 2012
    4:38 pm
  275. There was another on going thread on keeping the old site going. It is gone too, I guess Please keep the classic db around until all information available on that db is available on the newest and greatest site. For now it is not. Please

    fungdue 07 February 2012
    4:34 pm
  276. I guess I too will stop using your site as I find the new site to difficult and time consuming. The old one was much better and I am a genealogist with 33years experience.

    Pat Jones 07 February 2012
    4:33 pm
  277. I guess I will also stop using your site as I find it too difficult and time consuming.

    07 February 2012
    4:31 pm
  278. The classic search should not be discontinued EVER. I can find my family lines with so much more ease on classic search. I dont understand why you cant keep both concurrently. I agree with other comments that the new site is difficult to use----frustrating, no fun, more like work and may be the end of my genealogy hobby. Please replace and KEEP the classic search.

    Glenna Murdock 07 February 2012
    3:38 pm
  279. I too prefered some of the features of the old site and am very disappointed it is gone. I really wish I had access to it.

    Joel 07 February 2012
    2:45 pm
  280. Maybe its just because it is what I am used to, but the Library Catalog search in the old/classic familysearch is much easier for me to navigate and find the results I am looking for. I have tried the new catalog search and always go back to the classic version with much better results. I especially liked being able to print out ALL the films associated with a particular type of record (ie parish records a particular parish in Chicago) on one or two sheets. With the new listing each film prints on a separate sheet. VERY inconvenient and costly and cumbersome. You may have fixed this since I last tried it. I hope so. IF not, I will miss the old familysearch catalog features even more.

    Laurice Johnson 07 February 2012
    11:44 am
  281. You took the easy way to search off. There is so bad information on here I give up using your site anymore.

    Carolyn Shreve 07 February 2012
    9:54 am
  282. Very bad idea to close the old classic search. Please leave it as an option. The Batch Search facility is broken on the new search site. This works well on the classic search. Today 7th Feb 2012 the classic site is unavailable. Please listen to your users.

    robert ellis 07 February 2012
    9:29 am

Leave a Comment