Thanks so much for your feedback and suggestion. I will be sure to forward this information to the appropriate department for consideration as we are always looking to make our product more user freindly.
Please let us know if you have any other ideas as we do value such input from users.
Why can't Heritage find a happy medium in their security settings? I have received at least 1700 "Smart Matches" which needed to be confirmed or rejected. My problem is getting the proper information on which to base my decision because of many individuals, their spouses, sibling or children who have long passed on, are marked as "Private". This then demands that I do a tree comparison between the requesters site and mine for those individuals. This is very time consuming and I am not prepared to do many in this manner.
I have recently sent emails to a number of people advising them that I refuse to do the smart match confirmation / rejection process on their smart matches because of their privacy settings. In a few instances I have received replies saying they don't know what the problem is that they want the info to come through. I think that unless there is some legal reason why "all" individuals in the tree cannot be seen, especially by the webmaster who is doing the confirming / rejecting, I would request that MY Heritage add a couple of security options with an explanation to all users of what they mean. It seems many users do not understand the security options as they stand or are afraid to even go into the settings etc to see what is available. Not all users are computer geeks so will need more instruction.
This problem has been one of my pet peeves with this program and another is getting too many smart matches at any one time from any one site. A maximum number of 50 smart matches from any one site should be a mandatory number as some of the larger sites are requesting over 200 at a go. Multiply that site by 100 and you can imagine the work involved. Then if they don't receive their matches back in a week or so, they resubmit and an individual ends up with say 400 from that person on their site. This must be limited.
I can only agree. I have worked one week in the evenings and weekend and published my changes which added about 500 people to my tree. It took one week to get it thru and I ended up with 1000s of new matches which will take me more time than I spent with my own tree.
Recently this problem with private on allmost every person cant be a new setting people have made and must be a glitch in the system. People I have had many matches and common ancesters with is suddenly showing up with private on almost all new matches.
Together with a poor handling around confirming and rejecting makes work almost futile. Each confirmation/rejection take me 5-10 seconds and multiply that with 3000 new matches. That makes it 5-10 hours work just clicking. If I have to research the match you can probably multiply that time with 5 or 10 times.
Do we want to work with our trees or do we want to work with smart matches????
I suggest that next update of the WEB system should be in the smart match handling. New functionality is less important than that. Simple filtering, within the matches of a person ,where I can select a name or date where I then can confirm or reject all would be the best function you could add to the smart match handling. Another function would be to confirm/reject all in one page. As it is now I can only confirm/rejet all, even those matches I dont se.
This is perticular stupid in the Need to confirm/reject page where I only can see maximum 20 matches and if there are more I will confirm/reject also the ones I cant see at all.
The release of Super Search was a project that took all the team resources we had available. Now that Super Search is up and running it won't be long before everyone will get back to their regularly scheduled duties - such as revamping Smart Matches.
We're going to "smarten" them up a bit.
I know that functionality like confirm or reject multiple matches is a big feature request.
Also cleaning up the matches you get so there will be less, higher quality matches is on the list of improvements we're working on.
We'll probably also implement something that will allow you to set a certain percentage of match and hide anything below that. Another request that many people ask for is to color code the Smart Matching icons, so if a match has already been confirmed it will be a different color in the tree view so you'll know you don't need to check matches for that person again.
There are many more improvments, mainly to the algorithms that process Smart Matches that we plan to work intensively on in the near future.
Calendar Alerts is a helpful reminder of important events coming up for people on your tree. But, as well as "Send a greeting", I would like to see a box to click on which we often see elsewhere, "View in Tree".
My reaction to one of these Calendar Alerts is (only too often) "Who?". I am sure most of us don't remember who the person is or where they are in the family tree, except in the case of the closest of relations.
One, I do not have a premium account because I can't afford it.
Two, I can't confirm matches because I don't have a premium account.
Three, unless MyHeritage fixes the visual problem it has with Macs (which I've talked to several people about), I may never get a premium account.
Sorry. Just venting because I get "please verify" emails regularly, which I cannot do. I don't want to turn the emails off since finding other members with family names was why I put my tree here in the first place. Then, they went and made it harder to communicate with them. I regret putting so many hours into this site, and would recommend to others to find another more user-friendly site. :(
In my pedigree/kennel program there is a funktion that automtically removes trailing blanks when I have pressed the Spacebar too many times, such a function would be nice.
I know this one has been up many times but again...... MERGING family trees. IN the kennelprogram (again) I can merge pedigree fles (csv, txt ) and after merging ALL merged records are tagged (marked red) by pressing F8 I can go to the frst record and see if I want to keep it or if it's a duplicat. I can reccomend the staff at MyHeritage to visit
and take a look at the functions in a "family tree" program for animals. I KNOW there are a lot of functions to be implemented in Family Tree Builder.
I am anewuser ofMyHerritageand havejust upgradedto the PremiumPlusfor accessto, amongotherTimeBook.But I havea littletrouble gettingit to workas expected.I do not knowwhat I'mdoing wrongand hope thatthere issomebody in this forumthat can helpme.My problem isthe formation ofmultiple pages onthe same personwhodoes nothave the samepicture content.Itapplies to peoplewhohave multiplerelationshipseg.a biologicalfather, and laterget a newdador for personswho have entered intoseveralmarriages.In these casesformedseveralpages ofTimebook.Is it not possiblethat there are onlyformedone pageperperson, so thatwhen I chooseatidsbogfor the personorthe personchoosesin the TOCsogetall the picturesrelated tothe persontogether and notscattered throughout thetimethe book?When I've importedan image inTreeBuilderassignerIpicturethe charactersin the picture,is thiswrong?Thank you in advancefor your help.
Thanksfor Your feedbackand Yourhelp.I have had4relationshipswhere I'vebeen married tothethirdI have registeredasdivorced myfirst husband, whom Ihadadaughter.I livedin a relationshipwith another man, whom Ihad a son.That is to saythat myson isbornout of wedlock.So we havenotbeen marriedand Ihave therefore usedthe relationshippartners.Imarried mysecondhusband, whoadoptedtwochildren.Therefore, I haveregisteredmyself asdivorcedfrom him.I am nowmarried for thethirdtime.When I want tospendtimebook forme ormy childrenoccursbothchildren6-7 timesin the book on site names: Photos of xxxxxx.I do not understandcompletely.I loadedmy picturesto FamilyTreeBuilderandAssignedpicturesfor the children.In somecases,other familymembers inthesephotographsaretaggedon theWeb site. I expectthat it isme whois doing somethingwrong,as allother functionalityin FamilyTreeBuilderor on theWeb siteworks sogreat.
What can I do so each children are in the book one time?
I'motherwiseveryhappy to usethe programs andlook forward tothe familybookcomein my language(danish).Thanks foryour help.Sincerely
Does this happen only for your own children? Did you check the tree itself to see that each child is entered only once? Do the children appear in the correct context, with the correct set of parents each time?
I have checked the tree, each child is only entered once. The children appear in vorrect context.
I think the problem is thar it causes problems in the time book, when a parent has had multiple marriages og partners even if the children are not relatede to other than the biological parents.
When I use the time book with my children as a star the time book is correct. When I use the time book with myself as a star the same sections with my children appears 4 times - equivalent to the number of marriages/partners, ad I had.
When I use the time book with one of my former spouses as a star and the are also married again appears my kids 2 times.
It looks as though there is a bug in the program so that is shows the children of each marrigages/partnerships even though the kids are only related to me as a mother and theis biological father.
It would be graet if the kids are acting only 1 time in the timebook.
Can You give me a status on my question related to the Time Book?
I am amaized that I did not hear anything from You after more than 1 month. When I opgraded to Premium Plus, You wrote that some of the benefits were quick support and my requiries would receive high priority.