The search function does not seem to work correctly, e.g. Type birth, matches condition below, and Date matches Mar 3 1917 gives dozens of incorrect matches. For example one of them has a birth date of Oct 6, 1928. There is actually only one correct answer in my database.
New installation of FTB 220.127.116.1105 and freshly imported GEDCOM.
Wow... you call the ability to search various databases 'SUPERSEARCH'! Seems like this is an oxymoron similar to Military Intelligence. Having just conducted a 'Supersearch' on my dead ex-mother-in-law, it appears there are 6,467,033 results in 3,102 collections for her and this is by entering her FULL name, full date of birth, full date of death and her sex!
I never knew she had been a) so popular, b) been reincarnated under different names so many times or even c) lived in so many different countries.
YOU GUYS HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING AND YOU WANT PEOPLE TO PAY FOR THIS HA HA HA HA.
The software you are now producing is, in one word, DIABOLICAL. If I had to release software like this to users within the various companies I have worked for I would not have a job for very long.
I was hoping that version 7 would have been far better, errors resolved and customers beginning to be happy. Instead I am utterly disillusioned and very disappointed in what you have produced. IT STINKS!
Unfortunately you have taken my money again for a further two years but this will be the LAST TWO YEARS you get out of me.
I shall now be transitioning my data across to another product, ONE THAT ACTUALLY WORKS and where Customer Service is taken seriously.
Unless you guys get yourselves sorted out, it won't matter how many companies you buy up to boost your customer base, they will all start to leave.
As always I do not expect to receive any sort of response out of you despite being a Premium Plus member. Just another example of the contemptuous attitude you hold for the people keeping you in a job.
Thank you for what I think is the quickest response I have ever had after I have posted a query. The response you refer to I gave up on as the search DID NOT return anywhere near the records I expected. This latest one is after I hit the 'Research' button on the record in question. No entry was made into the search, it automatically took the details out of my record. For your information the details were:
Name - Cynthia Moreen Taylor
Sex - Female
DOB - 9th. March 1916
DOD - 13th. Feb 2002
As I have mentioned before, the results your Search Engine returns are crazy and are not of any value whatsoever.Why have a 'Research' button if I then have to go in and alter the details?
I also echo a lot of what other members have said. Your communication regarding problems, fixes, concerns, upgrades and customer care are appalling at best and non-existent the vast majority of times. Whatever happened to Quality Assurance and Alpha and Beta testing?
I am sick of having to repeat myself and still getting the company line back at me which is basically 'DO NOTHING'.
Thanks for your fast response again. I tried your URL, which by the way did not copy across at all, and the search gave me 8 results in 4 collections. However this was done WITHOUT using the Date of Death which, when entered, resulted in ZERO records.
The trouble I have now of course is that if I do not use the available data to narrow my search down I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONFIDENCE in the returned results. In this instance where no DoD is used I get one record to look at that has a name of Cynthia M. Taylor but no other identifying data with it such as Place of birth, DoB, Mothers maiden name. For me to get at that data you now want me to pay an extra £58 reduced at the moment from £90 per year for the first year and then the higher amount for the following years.
The quality of data I will get for that extra amount is not exactly pristine or even possibly correct due to the Search Engine you currently have. I get far better results using Ancestry than I do with yours and even though the cost of Ancestry is marginally more expensive than yours, the quality and confidence I have in their data is far higher than I have in yours.
I want to use the facilities within the product that you offer but there is absolutely NO POINT in using them if I have to go in and do major changes to the searches and indeed they should not even be offered if they do not work.
As for testing, well I can only assume that you felt that the comments returned by the Alpha and Beta testers were incorrect and therefore they were ignored.I cannot possibly believe that a release with the number of changes involved did not have a proper and serious Change Plan implemented otherwise you would not be getting such a large number of complaints.
By NOT keeping your customers informed of the various issues affecting the product and what you are doing to resolve them, you are very quickly alienating the people you need to keep the product viable.
As a rule I recommand searches that are broader so you'll be able to find information from more resources.
Not all documents has all the information on a person, and sometimes it is not correct (either in the documents or in your research).
I am sorry that you're not happy with the data that we have, and if you feel that you don't want to use our site anymore, please write to firstname.lastname@example.org and ask for me. I will try and see if I can help.
The selected person is always shown in the middle of the page so that both ancestors and descendants are displayed. Is it possible to have the selected person at the top of the tree so only descendants are displayed?
Is anyone aware of a way to assign a unique reference to a person, that will remain the same number for this person, no matter what? I have additional software that reply on external references, where I cannot use the gedcom INDI ref, since FTB reassigns these numbers whenever persons are deleted.
0 @I135@ INDI
1 _UPD 6 SEP 2011 15:51:32 GMT -0600
1 NAME Abel Baukes /Nauta/
0 @I134@ INDI
1 RIN MH:I135
1 _UID 18DBC62E-8F2C-4CD7-8586-DB1F3499CC01
1 _UPD 04 FEB 2013 21:35:41 GMT 1
1 NAME Abel Baukes /Nauta/
For unchanged persons, the numbers are identical:
0 @I1@ INDI
1 RIN MH:I1
1 _UID 3E65660B-7F50-4634-BA47-6AF8AD887FFF
1 _UPD 18 JUL 2011 19:08:14 GMT 1
1 NAME Barry /Nauta/
The old reference is still available in the tag RIN MH, but until the next update? RIN is a unique reference, MH probably stands for MyHeritage, but what are the guarantees that this number will stay the same? Why did they change this to start with?
I tried to assign reference numbers, but I can only assign numbers to them using the description, which is a description in the gedcom file with a 'foreign key'. I assume the FTB reassigns these numbers as well whenever notes are deleted, so this does not help
I cannot believe that the numbers (INDI IDs) are reassigned, this is like changing primary and foreign keys in a database. You might be able to have a functioning program, but all external applications that rely on those keys are foobarred. In this case; my document generation. Manually reassigning is not an option, I have almost 6000 persons in my tree.
At this moment, I am strongly hesitating to drop FTB all together :-(
I personally don't see how integers (that is what they are) cause confusion, if they are only internal to the program.
Regardless of that, what about the
1 RIN MH:I1
tags? Are these stable? Can I use these as unique reference to the persons in my tree, knowing that these numbers will never be changed? Is this some sort of primary key representation of the internal database?
Yes, it is something I developed myself. Basically, I use the export to generate a LaTeX based file, that includes external information (images, anecdotes, etc). An example (a few years old, but it will give you an idea of what I am doing): http://www.nauta.be/stamboom.pdf
The reason why I chose not to use your API is that I prefer to work with standards over APIs, to keep my document generation portable and not bound to a specific product