Hi there, it is possible to add search for year under "find person" in tree? It should be easy to add? Had been very helpful when searching for people in your tree. etc. when you try to find DNA matches . Is not always the same surname or names are used etc. when people immigrated to other country. They often change names and surenames. I have seen this many times when they immigrated to USA and needed a more English name. So year/date search In your tree would be very helpful and should have been there already.
I would like to enter birth and death dates for ancestors who lived BC, as I can trace my roots to ancestors who died in 8 BC, but can't enter the information correctly, so I have to enter the year of death as 8. Even being able to enter -8 would be better.
NOT pleased! I have just wasted a lot of time trying to find a way of making a quick enquiry on MyHeritage and gone round in circles via Help Center and Contact Us. I have paid for MyHeritage service, yet there seems NO way to make a complaint. I don't have time to phone one of the numbers offered and also, its more efficient to email the query so that I can cite page references/urls. Also, it's better to have a record of the discussion, which you have by using email.
My original question is now less important, and my question now is what kind of company doesn't allow a way of sending complaints without phoning?
I would like the ability to add unrelated folk to a family.
For example we often find people mentioned in the census who are listed as visitors / boarders etc.. and at that point in time we may not realise they are related. It would be handy to be able to include them on the tree or to have some indication there
I've been enjoying your site and have seen progress on MyHeritage DNA pages, but one problem I have is simply seeing the pages. I thought that was just because I'm looking at them with 'mature' eyes - but now several people that I've encouraged to upload DNA to MyHeritage - 10 to 30 years my junior have told me things like "the pages are washed out" or "the screens make my eyes hurt" or "I can't work on the site nearly as long as at Ancestry.com".
If the pages could be moved from a pastel to a more vivid color and to increased contrast. I realize you wouldn't want to change a color scheme to suit one old dude - but - I've noticed that many of the people I encounter on genealogy-related sites are more my age.
When I look at the family tree of a DNA match, there is no way to get a quick look at their ancestry. A horizontal pedigree view is essential for this. And, when I zoom out to see the most tree displayed and to look at surnames, you show me only the first names!! Really? It has been like this for so long and you still haven't fixed it. Please get this fixed!! -Trina Haines
My wife and I have just received the results of our DNA tests. I can now say that this exercise has been the most disappointing waste of time and effort we can remember. The results lack detail, are unprofessional and are clearly inaccurate. A few colourful 'blobs' on a map of Europe with percentages hardly constitute a satisfactory an comprehensive response to what is undoubtedly a fascinating new field of research.
Is this ALL? Or was something missed out? How were these results arrived at? Where is the analysis? No details are provided at all! And who can one communicate with about the results? There appear to be no adequate facilities within the MyHeritage website to enquire about or explore the process through which the DNA results were arrived at.
I for one have many North and West European ancestors and can even trace my ancestry back directly to William the Conqueror (my 24th great grandfather!). And yet there is no 'blob' in that part of the map in my results. But, stangely enough, there is one East Europe, which is another mystery as that region is not supported by any of the percentages provided alongside the map! So, what is happening here? Can anyone explain?
I intended to write this appraisal to MyHeritage but, as a can find no adequate response channel for my email, in desperation I have posted it in this Forum in the hope that others who may have had similar experiences with their DNA kit results may be able to explain how they managed to squeeze any more information out of the system! Or am I the only one who has been disappointed?!
How much postage should I put on the return envelope? It is very frustrating that I cannot find this online. It is a bubble-wrap envelope which varies more than a quarter inch in thickness. So it's a package? It has only the two swabs inside, but the label on the plastic bag reads "Hazardous Material" which puts a simple first-class postage in question. Why don't they simply supply a postpaid envelope and save what has probably added up to thousands of hours of their customers trying to figure out the appropriate postage?
It would be great to have a choice on a persons profile page to print the whole profile as a PDF document. That printed record could could be used to make a hard copy archive binder. Also to share with someone who doesn't want to or cannot use the computer / mobil applications.
Thanks for considering this. I look forward to seeing it soon ! (LOL) Marlowe
I can’t begin to calculate how much time I have wasted checking Smart Matches only to find that I have already confirmed them at some point in the past.A new Smart Match and an old Smart Match look exactly the same throughout my tree.This is very poor programming.If they went away once confirmed or rejected it would be better than what you have now, but it would not be my first choice.
I would much rather have them remain but with a color change to see at a glance if they are new or old.
Bright green when new, dark green when all are processed, either added or rejected.
Back to bright green if a new Smart Match becomes available
I brought this up with one of your people in a conversation on the phone back in late June or early July but have not seen anything change
When doing research it is very easy to forget which tree you are on, your own or one that you are a member of but not the site creator.
It’s not uncommon to have several windows open to different sites to compare and copy information from another tree to my own.
Several times I have edited information only to find afterwards that I was editing the wrong site and that I changed someone elses tree by mistake.
The addition of a color banner at the top of the page to keep you informed of which tree you are on would go a long way to making sure people don’t edit the wrong tree by mistake. Instead of the generic Grey banner you have now why not make it green for the home tree and a different color for the sites of which I am just a member? Green for my own, yellow for member sites and grey for sites I am just investigating?
I would even be in favor of changing the background of the main page from white to a very light green and yellow to make it that much more obvious.
I set up separate trees to make quick checks of people in different branches of the family. I also create temporary research trees to investigate a line I suspect might lead somewhere but want to keep isolated until sure.
The problems here are that anything I do on a separate tree ends up affecting my main tree. If I import photos into a temporary or research tree they end up in my photo album and I have to spend time deleting them.
I would like the ability to keep each of these totally isolated from the main tree and each other, people, biographies and pictures. Ideally they can look out and find matches, but nothing can look in and find matches. Until I export finished material out to my main tree they are in an isolated area that nothing can be taken out of by others.
I know I could just create a new login name and create the tree using that login but this is not an ideal solution for several reasons.
If I have more than one line of research going on do I create a new account for each one?
If only 1 out of 10 people were to do this it would end up creating how many new accounts on your site?
How many Smart Matches would be generated based on information in these trees, which by their very nature probably contain inaccurate information.