Did you see today's changes on search/surname pages and invitations?

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

A few minutes ago we released a round of significant changes.

First, we improved our search engine: results now appear in a table, instead of a list, so they can be more easily scanned and sorted. You can sort by privacy level and last edit date now, in addition to first name, birth date, or death date. You can reverse the sort order, and add a secondary sort. These search results can include everyone with a surname.

In the past, you needed to use surname pages for this functionality (e.g. SMITH). The user interface on those pages was complex and our back-end methods for maintaining them were becoming unsustainable. Now, these pages are not intended to be used by members for any practical purpose at all. They're intended for:

1. New visitors, to showcase the breadth and depth of what our community has to offer related to a surname that interests them.
2. Google, to help make sure that our most-recently added and edited profiles appear in Google search results. 

Please note that we are planning further design improvements to search results and surname index pages, along with other pages. As many of you know, we are working on a complete website redesign.

Today we also released what we believe are major improvements to how we invite family members to join us on WikiTree. The way to invite someone is to add an email address to their profile. But our privacy policies became more conservative over the years, especially after 2018, and we established a rule that said you should not create a profile for a living person without their permission. So, you were essentially supposed to ask them if you could invite them. That's unnecessarily complex. It discouraged what should be one of the primary usages of WikiTree: sharing family history with our loved ones.

Now, we are again whole-heartedly encouraging you to invite living family members. If they don't accept the invitation, the profile you created will become an anonymous placeholder that helps protect their privacy. To understand this better, see the sample invitation on Help:Invitations.

Today's changes touch a lot of different systems. If you spot what could be a bug, whether or not you think it could be related, please post an answer here. (Comments at the top will be moved or hidden once read.) Thank you!

Onward and upward,

Chris and the WikiTree Team

Answer 1

Also, what's the difference between an anonymous placeholder and an unlisted profile? Is the difference that an anonymous placeholder is visible to those outside the trusted list?

Comments

The new Help: Living People does allow an exception to the rule Jillaine cites:

If your family member does not use the internet and has given you permission to manage their profile for them, or is your dependent, you do not need to send an invitation.

Here "does not use the internet" seems overly restrictive. Almost everyone in countries where WikiTree is popular now uses the Internet, even children and the aged. It should probably say "does not wish to join WikiTree".

---

I have seperately answered this post, and am now carefully reading all other answers, so I will restrict this comment to the discussion.

I went into my my Mum's profile to see what the banner looks like (which doesn't appear to be mentioned in any other communication about this policy change). The banner gives a link to the practice around invitation but does not make it clear that changes will happen to the profile if an invitation is not sent. May I suggest that the banner is updated to make this clear. (I also think a message should be sent to all managers of living profiles about this change as it is not often I look at my Mum's profile).

---

The changes appear not to be retrospective. Jamie wrote in this comment:

Profiles that were already created aren't going to be anonymized automatically.

So while we are encouraged to invite living relatives who already have profiles, it sounds as if nothing will happen if we don't.

---

Natasha, I don't see the banner on the profiles for my children, but I do see it for my grandchildren. 
As I've said already, none of my living relatives, for whom I have created profiles with their permission, have any desire to become members. 
I will be quite upset if the very minimal biographies I have added to those profiles get removed because I do not obey the instruction:

 Please invite this person to join WikiTree.

---

I'm glad that it sounds like this won't affect existing profiles, but I'm worried that this will draw away new members who have living parents, grandparents, and great grandparents who either aren't interested or who they don't want to bother by inviting. I do not think I would have joined WikiTree if I had to invite all my living parents, grandparents, and great grandparent in order to connect to my ancestors. (Note that according to the living people and anonymous placeholder help pages, you should not create a profile for a living person, even an anonymous placeholder, under any circumstances if you don't plan to invite them unless they don't use the internet or are your dependent. No exceptions are mentioned for when the person in question is your own ancestor.)

---

Good points, Tessa. Even when someone does join WikiTree, from now on they will not be able to connect their own profile to the main tree unless at least one of their degree–1 relatives (not unmarried childless offspring) either joins WikiTree, agrees to have an anonymous placeholder, gives up the Internet, or dies. That will be quite a high bar in many cases.

It would have been worthwhile for this major policy change to have undergone the Developing New Rules process, where all of these questions and potential drawbacks could have been discussed before implementation.

Edited to add: Also, for the most part it will no longer be possible to connect notables to the main tree if their parents are still living, because creating profiles for the parents will not be permitted.

---

Jim, at current, there is still an accommodation for that situation --

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Living_Notables#Living_Family_Members_of_Notables

      Generally speaking, you should not create a profile of a living family member of a notable unless they themselves meet the eligibility requirements for notability or you have their explicit permission, as described in our Privacy Policy.
      However, profiles of close relatives of notables may be created if their identity and relationship to the notable has been made public and you can reasonably assume the subject has had the opportunity to have their name removed from your public source. For example, acceptable sources would include obituaries, interviews, and other reports where the subject has a right to have their name removed. It would not include official records if the subject does not have that right.
      Even in these cases, the profile must remain Unlisted and be managed by a project unless the subject creates a password.

---

Thanks Melanie. The point

• There are some additional restrictions regarding children under 16 and limited exceptions for notables (famous people).

at

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Living_People#Creating_Profiles_for_Living_People

should therefore be amended to say

• There are some additional restrictions regarding children under 16 and limited exceptions for notables (famous people) and their relatives.

It still doesn't cover the case of a living notable whose parents have not been publicised anywhere except in unrevokable official records. Such notables will no longer be able to be connected to the main tree.

---

I asked Chris for clarification on the policy, and he adjusted the page to read:

If a person is your legal dependent, or has given you explicit permission to manage their profile, you do not need to send an invitation.

---

Thnak you. That's an important clarification.

Answer 2

Chris, a lot of the features you describe sound great, and I understand the need for engineering changes. But the new format of a box per name takes up a lot of space on the page and makes it hard to scan for the person you seek. I have a LOT of people with the same name and density of presentation is a plus. The new space-consuming format makes it much harder to scan the results.

Comments

A "display density" option, similar to what is available other places on the site, is now available on the search page. Hopefully, that will make things a bit easier to scan.

Edit: oops, it's not live yet, but will be there shortly.

---

Jamie meant to say that is something we are working on restoring.

---

You could do a Ctrl F find search on the new name search engine to find the person you seek.

Enter the first name of the person and the search results will have the quantity of people with that first name, they will then be highlighted on the list.

Or you could do the same search for a location.

---

If a more dense view option is coming, that would be great. As it is now, we have to do a whole lot more scrolling than before to get to the end of each page's list.

Answer 3

When I go to the Bradley surname index (for instance), it says, "Here are the 200 most-recently added or edited Bradley members, cousins, and ancestors. Click here to search all 24232." However, when I click on the link, there are 32,460 results because it by default includes people with supposedly related surnames such as "Bridle" and includes LNAB, current last name, and other last names. Based on the text of the link and the content of the old surname indices, I would have expected it to only include people with "Bradley" (spelled exactly like that) as the LNAB. I feel like when you click on that link from the new surname pages, it should have the options "only last names at birth" and "include first name variants, only exact last name matches" checked by default. Maybe there could be a setting or something in the browser extension to do that if some people would prefer for it to include everything. (Note that I am only referring to when you click on the link from the top of the surname page and not to all searches.)

I also wish that there was a button you could click to hide the gigantic search form at the bottom of the search results page to make it easier to scroll through the results uninterrupted.

Comments

I noticed that clicking on that link from the surname page now makes the search default to exact spelling and only last name at birth. Thank you so much to whoever fixed that! Not having to select those radio buttons manually makes the process of searching for a surname so much easier!

My point about a way to hide the search form at the bottom of the results page still stands. If there was a way to hide that, the search results page would be easier to scroll through and feel a lot more like the old surname indices.

Answer 4

Hi Chris,

I like the revamped surname search. It looks a lot like a watchlist.

Can it be tweaked to have a display density option as a watchlist does?

It would reduce the amount of space required as commented by Jaci.

Comments

Hi M., we're on it! Adding the display density option, like we had on surname pages before, is in the works.

---

Good!

Answer 5

In the discussion on changing the purpose of the surname pages, Jamie mentioned that there would be a shortcut to produce the same results from the new search page, with a "*" wildcard in the first name field, "only exact name matches", and "only last names at birth" pre-selected (https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1713885/do-you-use-wikitrees-surname-index-pages?show=1716373#c1716373). I haven't yet been able to spot where the shortcut is located, so could you tell us where we can find it?

Comments

Hi Paul,

If you go the main home page or look at the top of most WikiTree pages (but not here on G2G) you'll see a search form. If you just enter a surname, with no first name, it will search for everyone with the surname.

... oh, wait, I see that you mentioned the name variants. We don't currently have that option set, but will be adding it.

Chris

---

I use search from a page frequently, it works well, and you do have name variants etc with checkboxes for options at the bottom of the page, just like it has been since I joined. 

yes, include both first & last name variants
 include first name variants, only exact last name matches
 include last name variants, only exact first name matches
 no, only exact name matches

Answer 6

Just noticed the change was a bit of a shock, might take some getting used to (as with any change) could be helpful in the long run - I have an open mind at the moment.

Answer 7

I very much like the way the search results are displayed now. SO MUCH more easy for old eyes to read. I clicked on the "more details" button and was pleased to see that the resulting table included separate columns for location. Does everyone have that or just people who have the WikiTree Browser Extension installed? I think once I get used to this new display, perhaps I won't miss the old "surname" pages.

Comments

The separate columns for location are just for people with WBE.

Edit: Or BEE. When it comes to the browser extensions, listen to Ian 

---

Ah!  That button is on BEE.  I forgot about that one. 

It seems that some people would like to have filters, location columns, and a sortable manager column.  I should have thought of that earlier.  I'll see if I can add something to WBE soon.

Answer 8

I was totally thrown off earlier today when I discovered I couldn't access orphaned profiles, etc.,  as I was in the habit of doing.  I found those profiles very helpful in finding profiles in need of sourcing.  I hope this will become easier, because  As a member of the "Sourcerer's" Project, I can truthfully say that this will slow me down a lot in finding profiles that need sourcing.

Comments

There is a whole page with Unsourced Profiles. This page is my fast lane to them.

---

Thanks for being a Sourcerer, Vicki.

What was your habit for accessing the orphaned profiles?

You can still go to surname pages such as https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/KENNEDY and there is a link to https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special%3AAdoptions&cln=&order=&s=KENNEDY

But getting to the surname page might be harder, if you were using the search form.

---

Thanks, Chris! I would put a surname in at the top of the page, (I'm not always good at explaining things.)  Click on the search button.  The surname choices for that name would come up and I'd click on "orphaned," or "unsourced."  Sometimes I'd just go down the main list because a lot of surnames aren't sourced and not listed that way.  Hope all that made sense..

---

Understood, Vicki. I'm sorry to say that with the coming redesign, navigation will be shaken up again. But for what it's worth, another way you can navigate to orphaned and unsourced profiles is through the pull-down menu.

---

I will just have to figure it out, Chris.  I will try all your suggestions and hopefully I will soon be back on track with my sourcing.

Answer 9

I was wildcard searching first and last name and keywording a location in order to find everyone  in a particular village in 1841.

I was then sorting by last name and checking everyone off alphabetically. Is there still a way of doing this? I.e. sorting by last name?

Also the table isn't looking great on my phone, I preferred the list view, but I generally prefer tables so will get used to it!

Answer 10

I have seen the changes and like some but I was just in a profile for someone born in about 1926. In this case I happen to know they aren’t alive but I don’t know when they died, fairly recently though. Even if they didn’t chances are they probably aren’t necessarily that computer literate. My Mum certainly wouldn’t be able to participate and she’s not quite in that 100 bracket either. (I actually look after her email address for the occasions she needs one). I suspect the invite is probably more relevant to a slightly younger audience than those approaching 100.

Comments

Hi L, there is an exception for those who don't use technology: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Living_People#Creating_Profiles_for_Living_People

If your family member does not use the internet and has given you permission to manage their profile for them, or is your dependent, you do not need to send an invitation.

---

So am I right in thinking that ANY profile born after ? 1924? that doesn’t have an email address associated with it will have all the information removed from it in 30 days time?

Will there be any warning to the current profile manager?

What about people who rarely visit the site? I know I’m waiting on a 30 days for a merge for someone who is currently not doing WT because of a current health issues, I wouldn’t want him to loose lots of information because he doesn’t feel well enough to be active currently.

Is there a way for me to see all profiles I manage that may fall into this category? I don’t tend to create profiles for anyone such as my siblings/children etc, but I have for some elderly relatives that I think have died or have died recently but I currently haven’t entered the date so they don’t appear on lists. I’m not sure I’ve ever created a profile for anyone born in the last 40 years.

I’m just a bit thrown by it all and not wanting to loose information so feeling a little panicked.

---

Important question, L! If that happens, won't it disconnect a lot of members from the main tree because their living parents have profiles but are not themselves members?

---

I read the Help:Living People Jamie mentioned above, but I think it should be an allowable option to just create an anonymous profile for a living person as a placeholder (and not invite the family member).

Many new members will need to add profiles for their living parents/grandparents to connect to their ancestors. Many will not want to invite their family members, especially not when they're just getting started on the site. And some members might not be on speaking terms with a living parent/grandparent.

I think creating an anonymized profile for a living person should be pointed out as an option, with quick instructions on what to enter in the data fields to anonymize the profile. And the rules about living people should pop up if it looks like a person is trying to create a profile for a living person. Right now a field to enter the e-mail address pops up when creating a living person, but I don't know if this is a required field now (I don't want to create a living person profile to test it). Maybe an email address should only be required if the first name is anything other than "anonymous", blank, or perhaps an initial?

---

I have worked out 1924 is the cut off date so I’m going through my watchlist giving those who I think are dead, a DOD of before 2024 and Red Privacy, since they are often fairly recent deaths and their living relatives may not want the dates on display especially when it’s not the correct date.

Answer 11

This new format opens the search result list in the same tab as the search instead of a new tab. THIS IS EXTREMELY UNUSEFUL! When I am entering a new family in my database, I have to scroll up and down the generations, meaning I now have to go to the Find/Search option instead of being able to enter another search for comparisons. And that action eliminates the result of the first search! PLEASE at least give an option to put the results of a search in a new tab (or just go back to the old new tab format).

I am also concerned by the comment below that orphaned profiles no longer show up. If this is true it is a BIG problem. I sometimes adopt such.

I've done enough programming to understand a need for streamlining, but you need to be careful not to eliminate features that users depend on. By the way, my search parameters are not just for surnames.

Comments

I totally agree that search results should open in a new tab. Now I have to go back to Windows and open a new tab for WikiTree just to do another search.

Answer 12

The new result format appears to be a table. However, for me the WikiTree Browser Extension table filters are not appearing on it.

Is this something special to my setup (Safari on iPad), or are other people not seeing the table filters either? (My Menu is present, so WBE is running on the result pages. I am using v1.16 stable.)

The filters were very useful on the old surname genealogy table pages.

I agree with comments by other people that we need an option for a compact format like the old one with one line per profile, to make it easier to scan through the results.

The Manager column includes ditto marks. It would be better if the manager name were repeated in full each time, to facilitate WBE filtering if it becomes available. Sorting on the Manager column could also then be enabled.

Edited to correct typo.

Comments

The page Help: Search hasn't been updated since 10 December 2022, and parts of it now appear to be out of date, for example "The second option on the search page simply jumps you to the surname index page."

---

On the new search results, the WBE batch categorize option only adds a checkbox to the first profile in the list. Shouldn't it be adding a checkbox for each profile?

---

There is currently a bug with the WBE batch categorize option. The UI was (mostly) finalized on Friday and due to scheduling we needed to release today, so there wasn't a ton of time to update WBE.

Also, thank you for pointing out the Help page needs to be updated.

---

Thanks Jamie. I hope that applies to the WBE filters too, which as I had said are for me a big issue.

It's important that WBE developers have read access to pages on a development or test server, so that WBE can be ready when there are major core changes. It will be a disaster for advanced users if parts of WBE break when the new front end is released. An even better approach would be a beta version available to anybody who would like to try it.

---

Many of the developers do have access to a staging server, but there wasn't much time between when the staging server was updated on Friday with the new UI and when the changes were made today.

Answer 13

Great that you're working on improving search! It isn't easy.

My challenge for you: could you enable 'equivalence classes' for locations?  That means that a certain list of place names could be mapped together, so they are treated as 'the same place' for search. In the present situation, I cannot use the boxes for location of birth/death .. as I'd loose all matches.

My problem is that my ancestors are in the following places:
South Africa
Republic of South Africa
Union of South Africa
Cape Colony
Cape of Good Hope
Dutch Cape Colony
Cabo de Goede Hoop
Kaap de Goede Hoop
.. possibly more(?)

.. and all of these are basically the same 'place'. Just different names used through history.  I'm sure this problem doesn't only exist for South Africa.

Of course, you would probably have to delegate the definition of these 'equivalence classes' to the projects working on such a region/country.

Comments

I think this would be a useful addition. I don't use the geographic search location as the county in England I am interested in (Yorkshire) can be written in several different ways too, and birth places don't always include the country either so I can't even narrow down to that without risking losing options with a shortened birthplace.

An alternative could be to have the option to eliminate geographies. So, for example, removing those profiles which do use United States or Canada, would reduce the number of profiles I was reviewing without losing those which might contain a differently phrased jurisdiction.

Answer 14

Please tell me that the old surname pages aren't going away. I depend on them heavily for my monthly surname reports, for things like links to One Name Studies, Unconnected Profiles, and Unsourced Profiles, which aren't on the new search pages.

I'm also confused about numbers:

https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Crozier says that there are "About 2354 Croziers." This is the number I've been using in my reports up to now. But https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:SearchPerson#searchForm lists 5,166 Croziers, or 2,430 if I scroll to the bottom and set it to include only exact last name matches. So are the "About n Surnames." numbers updated manually, and lagging behind the numbers on the search page?

Comments

Hi Greg,

The surname-related links aren't going away, though it is possible they will move around during the coming redesign.

We are working on how the counts are displayed. What you see on search results, with your chosen settings, should be correct. The number you see on surname pages isn't exactly "updated manually" :-) but it is from a reference table that we have attempted to maintain for efficiency.

Chris

---

In the past the top of the page displayed pertinent useful information

About 368 FRATTAs. Related surnames: PRATT (20255) FRITH (1562) FRIDAY (791) FRADY (569) FREETH (379) FRUTH (221) PRATTE (219) FRETT (201) FREETHY (187) FRADD (140) FRUIT (137) FRETHEY (126) FREETO (93) FREDA (69) FRETTE (86).

Now I get this result (with the apparent default setting of yes, include both first & last name variants)

Search Results: 20,161 Matches for fratta

No indication of what surnames have been added to that tally....

Once I reset the parameters to no, only exact name matches and search again I get

Search Results: 368 Matches for fratta

 but again no indication of related surnames...

---

I do like the related surnames, hopefully that can be still available with the linked One Name Study.

---

Following on from what Greg has said, I use the surname pages to follow the feeds for my One Name Studies. I may be missing something obvious, but have those feeds moved or disappeared? I'd hate to have to adopt all my ONS profiles. My watchlist is big enough already.

As for the placeholder profiles, is it OK to have them for parents you have never met? I have never met my biological father for example but he currently has an unlisted profile on WikiTree so that I can build out my branches. I'd hate for him to disappear completely and lose half my tree just because it would be impossible for me to invite him.

Answer 15

I fail to get the point of the new invitation process, and for the record, I will stick to the rule of not sending any invitation before having a serious conversation with the person I would like to invite about the whereabouts of WikiTree, and make sure they have understood the basics, and are interested.

Receiving the invitation message as it stands without previous knowledge and preparation is just likely to trigger a (healthy) anti-spam reaction, like for any unsolicited message. The more so if people - like the ones I would be like to invite - are not native English speakers.

The last point being actually the most critical. I've been on WikiTree for 5 years now, and have basically ceased to send invitations to any of my French relatives. Either they ignore them, or they register to be polite, do nothing and I guess never log in afterwards. Or, worse, they are so confused by the interface that after creating a few messy profiles I have to clean up afterwards, they soon give up editing at all.

I don't see how the new invitation process could change that ...

Answer 16

I was trying to work on my watchlist to find the birth names of people that I did not know their name at the time I entered them.  I have tried and tried, and cannot get them to come up.  This is not going to work for me.

Comments

Rosemary, are you saying you are searching for "Unknown"?

---

Yes, like I have done as long as I can remember, but it is not working no matter what filter I put in.  I didn't need to put any filters in before.

---

Rosemary, you can still find them by going directly to your watchlist, unless you orphaned them of course.

---

There was a bug when searching for "Unknown" (it was showing ALL profiles), but it should be fixed now.

---

The "Unknown" search is working now, but I can only see the first page.  There is no "Next" button at the bottom to let me go to the next page.

---

Hi Rosemary. Are you sure? I see a Next button there, on the right below the table.

---

I have it limited to my watchlist, and that is when the next button is not there.  It is only there when it is not limited to my watchlist.  The name at the bottom of the screen changes when I fix a profile and it leaves the page.

---

Thanks for the clarification, Rosemary. Strange. I don't have any Unknown profiles on my watchlist, so I can't confirm. But if I search for Unknown not on my watchlist, the Next button is present, for what that's worth.

---

Thanks for the additional detail, Rosemary. I've confirmed that there is a bug.

Edit: The bug is not just for Unknowns, it's any query restricted to your watchlist that returns over 100 results.

---

Any idea when that is going to get fixed?

Answer 17

I just noticed the change. Very confusing to me is this text on top:

WikiTree is a community of genealogists [...] Please join us.

Note that I am logged in. When I click the link I get (on: https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup)

---

Join the Community: Create Account

You are already logged-in. Click here for your Navigation Home Page.

---

My expectation is to not see this link whenever I am logged in.

Comments

Where are you seeing it, Michel? On the updated search page? Could we have a screenshot? I don't see anything like that there, whether I'm logged in or not.

---

I see it whenever I click on a surname to get to the 200 most recently edited profiles. And I am logged in, so I obviously joined the community.

---

Thanks Jelena. I do see it, not on the Search page but on surname pages like

https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/SMITH

---

Hey Jim,

Yes, that screenshot shows the location.

---

I am seeing the same thing.

---

This seems now to have been fixed. The "Please join us" link is no longer there if you are logged in.

---

Yes, it is not there anymore. Thanks.

Answer 18

Hello, small issue here: 

When I click on the search icon right of the family name field, on top of a page, the page this takes me to now displays the profiles bearing this surname AND variants. 

I have to scroll all the way down the page of results to find the search form, find the three "Include name variant matches" radio buttons, and there I find that "no, only exact name matches" is already selected, although the results do include last name variants. I assume this is a bug.

If I hit search again, this time I get the answers without variants (which is what I wanted/expected in the first place, this is how it used to work prior to the change). 

For the record, I would be happy with the default search giving me the answers without variants, like it used to do, as the variants suggested for French names are mostly irrelevant. Barring that, at least the possibility of changing the setting at the top of the results page would be very helpful. 

As it is now, the new results page is less convenient (to me) than it used to be, unfortunately.

Comments

This is not quite what I'm seeing, Isabelle. Could you please give a specific example of surname?

I tried entering "Whitlam" in the "Last Name or ID" field at the top of a page. There are 410 results including variants like "Whittum". So far the same as your report. But when I scroll down I see this option checked:

yes, include both first & last name variants

So while it may not be what you want, it isn't a bug.

---

No. I seach for "Carton" I get people named Caron, Carden, McCartney (you name it), and as I spelled it out above, the "no, include only exact name matches" option is checked. Believe me, I double and triple checked before taking the trouble of writing this post. Yes, I'm sure of what I wrote.

---

I see what you see, Isabelle, when I search from the little surname box at the top of a profile  page.

It works better (more or less perfectly) if I search directly from the search page, with the No Last Name Variants checked.

---

I still can't reproduce that behaviour. I always see as checked option

yes, include both first & last name variants

Something must be different between our environments. 

---

Thank you, Eva. Yes, from the search page it works... it's still more cumbersome to get there, than to get the results directly as happened before (I really resent the scrolling to get to the form).

---

I'm still not using any extensions whatsoever, that may be it.

---

I think I understand what Isabelle is talking about. In the old style when I searched for a surname at the top of a page->the result was defaulted to that single surname (with NO VARIANTS included). I used this function every day in my research. In the new style that I tried this morning, The default is set  to o yes, include both first & last name variants  (with this radio button checked). Instead of getting the results I wanted, now I must initiate the search-> scroll, keep scrolling, scroll some more->get to the bottom of the page-> click in the  o no, only exact name matches radio button, initiate the search again and I'm back to something usable for what I set out to do...

Is there a way for us to set the  no, only exact name matches as our default for all searches. I don't know how other people research/work--my method is to start NARROW->then go BROAD (if necessary). 

---

Ah, I started thrashing around and found the ''edit search'' at the top of the page...so now I only have to search->edit search->click the proper radio button->then search again to be where I wanted to start.

---

@Eva I do have extensions and get the same behaviour as you do...

---

Same here, I tried the new tool with the name "Cadet" that appears in my tree, first page of results is almost all "Gaudet", a few "Cadot" and "Cadotte." It may be relevant to have those as variants in some contexts, but I do not want them by default.

I also used to have a "limit to watchlist" button on top of the page (not sure whether it was native or from an extension) and it's not there anymore.

Also, that's not too bad I guess but a bit puzzling: I get different numbers when I change the sorting criterion. If I leave the default "first name", it gives me 3,002 results, I get 3,001 if I sort by death date, 3,003 if by relevance, birth date or privacy, and 3,005 if I sort by edit date.

---

Also, that's not too bad I guess but a bit puzzling: I get different numbers when I change the sorting criterion. If I leave the default "first name", it gives me 3,002 results, I get 3,001 if I sort by death date, 3,003 if by relevance, birth date or privacy, and 3,005 if I sort by edit date.

Oh, that seems like a bug. Thanks for pointing it out.

Regarding the rest -- we are working on making it a bit easier to get back to the genealogy page, and also fixing the defaults (variants were supposed to be turned off for surname-only searches, but for some reason that change got reverted). 

Answer 19

Under ''Search'' ; menu not displayed properly i.e. ''eople''. The 1 and the P are displayed top right.  This is on a MacBook Pro.

Answer 20

I miss the possibility to show up to 5,000 profiles on one page. When you look for a surname that has e.g. 16,000 profiles, you were able to look at three or four pages for a potentially fitting profile. Now you have to scroll through more than 30 pages. That is much more time consuming.

Also, the bigger the database gets, the more surnames will be affected by high profile numbers. That makes searching by surnames (which is important for example when one wants to connect loose branches) really hard.

Comments

I agree, Jelena. I used to get great value from the tables with 5000 rows, together with the WBE table filters I mentioned earlier. Although fetching 5000 results may have added to server load initially, you had to do it much less often, and you could run any number of subsidiary local searches using the filters, without bothering the server again.

---

Also, the bigger the database gets, the more surnames will be affected by high profile numbers.

That's the reason the old table/code was no longer sustainable. Names like "SMITH" were causing a lot of problems on the backend and the surname page would often not even load.

There was a bug with the search where searching for "Unknown" returned all 37 million profiles -- but it took less than a second, so I think search should be able to handle large surnames for quite a while.

 

---

Will we get the 5000 profiles list again? Because, as I said, with only 500 profiles on a page searching takes a lot longer.

---

Seconded! If there isn't a problem with server load for large searches, can Jelena's request for a return of the 5,000 row display be implemented?