Thursday, March 23, 2017

The New and Improved Find A Grave Shown at #RootsTech

Peter Drinkwater at RootsTech 2017At RootsTech 2017 Peter Drinkwater showed off a late-alpha prototype for a new Find A Grave website. Fearing the worst, he was quite happy when the presentation didn’t devolve into a lynching. Find A Grave diehards are that passionate. Peter asked for a show of hands of those who use Find A Grave. Every hand went up except for one older gentleman who had, apparently, fallen asleep. He asked for a show of hands of those who have contributed to Find A Grave. I think up to half of the attendees raised a hand. This was a crowd to be feared.

Peter Drinkwater is the general manager for Find A Grave, a website owned by Ancestry. While the session was titled “Getting to Know the New Find A Grave,” Peter first helped us get to know the old Find A Grave. Find A Grave was created in 1995 by Jim Tipton. “Jim Tipton lived here in Salt Lake and he had a hobby of collecting dirt from famous people’s graves,” Peter said. “He created Find A Grave as a place to document that and let other people share the locations of [famous] graves.” In 2000 he added the ability to document the graves of ordinary people. In January 2017 there were 157 million graves. For all those years, the website looked almost the same.

“It is with great trepidation that I even think about touching this,” he said. Why would we make a change, he asked? The code is quite old and there aren’t many developers who are comfortable in it. Modernizing the code will make it more secure, easier to work on, and make it possible to use new tools to improve the site.

The second reason to change it is to make it usable via a mobile device. More than 30% of visits to the site are on a tablet or phone. The ability of a webpage to adapt to smaller screen sizes is called responsive design.

The third reason to change the site is to internationalize it, making it available in a variety of languages.

The goal of the initial project is to convert Find A Grave to new code, not to add new features. That effort is well along and Peter showed off the new site to us. Peter expressed gratitude that there were no pitchforks and flames.

The new Find A Grave home page appearance

It can be found at www.gravestage.com, although a password is required to see it. Peter shared the password with us, but I didn’t get permission to share it with you. What say you, Peter? Can I share it with people?

The biggest change is immediately obvious: the search form is available on the home page. I think that is a great change. Entering the location has been simplified. Rather than selecting state then county, you start typing the name of the location (cemetery, city, county, state, or country) and select it from the list.

Search results look as shown below and can be sorted in various ways.

Search results on the new Find A Grave alpha site look like this.

An individual result looks like this:

An individual grave record in the new Find My Past website will look like this.

Peter told us the rollout plan is to follow these stages:

  1. Let people play with the beta of the new website. It operates like a sandbox. You can do anything you want, but everything you do will be thrown away. Nothing you do will effect the real Find A Grave website.
  2. Once it is ready, launch the new website as an option. Users can choose which one to use. FindAGrave.com will take you to the old website. Both show the same data and changes in one appear in the other.
  3. Once users are ready, switch and make FindAGrave.com take you to the new website. The goal is to be to this point by the end of April.
  4. I can’t remember what he said about end-of-life for the old website. Perhaps it will be kept online for a little while after the new website becomes the main site.

Any bookmarks or copies of URLs (website addresses) to the old website will still work with the new. However, going forward all new URLs will be simpler.

89 comments:

  1. Great article introducing us to the new Find a Grave site. I am excited by the updates and changes!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, I am one of those die hard fans. I guess I have no choice but to go with the flow.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When you click through to the Beta page the "password" is available to access the site. Think I'll have a look around. -eb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Used the password ~ was able to view the pages, but not able to sign in or see what is available in edit mode. The site did not recognize my registered email address.

      Delete
  4. I absolutely HATE IT. The main profile picture is cut off, the bio is cut off, etc.... it sucks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup. Another website ruined by people who don't use it.

      Delete
    2. Wish there was a way to "like" comments here because Diane Gould Hall hit the nail on the head. The ones creating the code are not users.

      Delete
  5. Everything should still be nicely located on one page, as it is now. Now made so you have to click, click, click to find things. The photos are put into that little box, just like on the new and horrible Ancestry site. I understand updating code. I don't understand a complete new format that makes this beloved website more difficult to navigate and ugly to look at. By the way, the part about mobile users does not ring true. I access this website on my iPad, daily. No problems viewing anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I access Find a Grave on my Kindle, no problems.

      Delete
    2. I agree with everyone, I use my phone and don't have any problems....Why screw something up that's not broke

      Delete
  6. In #1 at the end of your post, you say "Find My Past." I am assuming you mean "Find A Grave."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bio and photos are critical, and this new format badly crops photos and pushes biographies below the fold. Stop,and think!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the photo credits are obscured, this is VERY BAD. The photo volunteers are IMHO the best thing about Find a Grave. We need to know who has had actual "boots on the ground" and we need to be able to contact them for permissions if we need to use a photo. And as Mary Jenson says, we need this information in order to write proper citations.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  8. Please show us how the Bio portion works. I didn't even see it on any of the pages you used to demonstrate. Thanks for answering this question. I use Findagrave exclusively. This is most upsetting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bio is mostly cut off, and the inscription is given a disproportionate amount of space, prominence even. The main profile photo is half cut off. Absolute s***!

      Delete
    2. It truncates the full bio so you have to click a "more" link like on a long Facebook group post.
      They don't care about what users think, they only care that it looks pretty and matches Ancestry.

      Delete
    3. As long as it takes up two pages their goal is met. No photo credit either. Any memorial I want to save from now on will be a copy paste just to get the information and get it on one page. I am SO glad I had a fit of organization this winter and copied a whole lot of memorial pages for my family.

      Delete
  9. The new site would not take my email and password. Is it a separate registration to try the test site? I don't want to mess with my "real" login info. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your current login won't work. It's mainly just to look and see as anything added won't cross over.

      Delete
  10. I think something should have been done about the number vultures who won't turn them over to family members. As it stands you have to make one before the body gets to the funeral home or the vultures get it. There are some good people who will turn them over but a majority who won't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or they should do something about people who refuse to read the website's policies and rules. Like complaining about an allowed practice.

      Delete
  11. It's still in Alpha so your comments should be more constructive so they can fix things instead of just bitching.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just what I expected! So disappointed!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ancestry strikes again. Every 2 years the wreck something that was working just fine. I WAS a contributor. I bet those days are gone.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anytime you change a web site, or a work related platform, there are going to be people who like somethings, and whole bunch of people who hate it. (Last night was my night to hate the Comcast remote, which did away with the ability to jump through the schedule via a ten key. Now the ten key only changes the channel.) People are going to have to adapt, its that simple. It isn't your personal convenience and haits that drives their development of new platforms. Its part of it, but not only thing. Don't like the site and only want to complain? Do that. Get it out of your system. But your whining isn't going to change anything unless you include fact based reasoning beyond what you are used to. And even then, it might not be heard. But if you act like a babyhead, no one is going to pat you on the back and say there, there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you suggest that we get out by deleting the memorials that we've contributed? We've all invested a lot in the site, and it's natural to feel that we have a stake in what happens to it. Cool Cookie is a fine name.

      Delete
    2. Please don't delete your memorials! For those of us who "complete" cemeteries, that's a huge headache. And you delete the work of other people-photos and links. Plus you destroy links people have made on their trees. It's a mean, lowdown thing to do.

      I hope the new site has a mechanism to prevent mass deletions.

      Delete
  15. I just tried the site, and unless I'm doing something wrong, I dont see an option to search just a single state. Every time I enter Massachusetts, I'm forced to choose a cemetery - BUT I dont know which cemetery my ancestor is buried in. Is this a beta-site restriction? or will this be permanent?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The beta site definitely needs more testing. :|

      Delete
    2. pjh If you go to the cemetery link you can just enter a state. When you enter Massachusetts, you do get a list of all kinds of choices, but you don't have to choose one of them. It would be nice if the cemeteries appeared in alpha order, but they do not.

      Delete
    3. Hi Lisa, I did try this and for me, it did not work. If I entered Massachusetts, the results pulled Kentucky, Florida, along with other states, and some international graves.

      Delete
    4. pjh maybe something strange was going on at the time you tried it? I just did it again and got all Massachusetts listings. No rhyme or reason to how they are sorted, but they are all MA.

      Delete
  16. I've been a Findagrave member over 10 years. Yes the site needs some upgrading in the functionality but the proposed new layout really isn't necessary. I use the app some but access the current webpage on my Android phone without any Findagrave problems. Leave the page layout alone please!!! The photos of the parents, spouse or siblings aren't an improvement from the current site links to these people.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Super excited! Look forward to the new look. I've been a Find A Grave contributor for over 5 years now and use it nearly every day. Seems to me that the goal of a change and an update is to actually improve the site, not to punish the users as some suggest here. I remember when Ancestry changed and people feared. I held out till the very end to change my view. I barely remember what the old site looked like now. There's always bugs to work out of the system. For a person to say they won't use the site anymore - that is ridiculous! If I didn't have my three favorites, Find a Grave, Ancestry or FamilySearch, I would quit doing research!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take a look at some of your memorials and see if all of the information from the old site has been transferred to the new site. I only looked at one of mine so far and it is completely messed up. See my comment below.

      Delete
    2. Oh good Angela. I'm glad you said that.. I thought it was just me. You're right, the memorials are all messed up. Glad this is only a test program so far!!! :-O

      Delete
  18. Will it still be a free site? Or are they going to require a fee to be able to look at the information?

    ReplyDelete
  19. s o m u c h w a s t ed s p a c e

    ReplyDelete
  20. I like that it's faster than the old one. The old one has sooooo many ads that it's slow like a dial up. On the other hand, I don't like the way the pictures are distorted and you can scroll up or down to see a news article that was posted or a larger picture.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This sucks. The memorial number is clear at the bottom of the page. The pictures look terrible and the "read more" is ridiculous. The old version worked just fine.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I just looked at my great grandfather's memorial on the new site. It doesn't have his wife, children and parents attached to him like it does on the old site. It says there are no family members currently associated with this memorial. So that is not right and did not flow over to the new site like it should have. I also now manage his memorial as the lady who originally made his memorial transferred him over to me. It does not list me as being the person managing his memorial. The new site also says that there is no bio information on him but I added his obituary to the old site so it is not on the new site. I also left a flower on his memorial for the old site but he does not have any flowers on the new site. I don't like the new site at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 'new site' isn't actually live yet, so you wont see all the same information as whats on the current site. my guess is (from my experience in web testing) that the programmers pulled a copy of the database and website from a set point in time. When I did this, the data and code I pulled down to the test region was not updated with anything from the live site. You're probably just seeing old information that is being used for testing purposes. Try looking at the live site to make sure your updates were made.

      Delete
  23. I suspect that data in memorials that seems to be missing in this Beta version is data that was added by the contributor after a certain cut-off date used by the developers, yes? Hence too the absence of a lot of recent "flowers"? And the absence of memorials for recently deceased relatives of those who were added to Find A Grave some time ago?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Is there a link we can use to send our feedback and suggestions to Find a Grave?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, when you are on the page, there is a feedback link in the bottom right corner of the page.

      Delete
  25. Poor programming. Enter any letter or word for the password. A new box will appear with the actual password inside quotation marks. Do not include the quotation marks when entering the password in the text box.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I didn't read through all of these comments yet, but why... when I sign into my account and pull up a memorial (my great grandfather in this case) that someone had given to me to manage years ago, does it show the old bio that the person who initially created it, and not the one I changed it to after obtaining management of it? I was thinking that maybe it's just a glitch and that all that will change once it launches, but while it shows the old bio and photos the prior person created, it shows that I sponsor it $. I'm doing this backwards... posting before reading the long list of comments, :D so hopefully this has already been addressed and I'll find it as soon as I start looking, LOL! :p

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. my guess is (from my experience in web testing) that the programers pulled a copy of the database and website from a set point in time. When I did this, the data and code I pulled down to the test region was not updated with anything from the live site. You're probably just seeing old information that is being used for testing purposes. Try looking at the live site to make sure your updates were made.

      Delete
  27. Just from what I see here, the grey with white text is difficult to read, hard on the eyes. The pleasant colors on the "old" site with black text was very easy on the eyes, and pleasant to look at (why the ugly colors of death needed?). Understand the need for new code, but don't understand the need to change to ugly colors, hard to read text, and reformat of the page. Hopefully, the attached spouse, children, Bio, etc., will flow over in the "new." And hopefully, the name and date will continue to be on the photo's contributed, as well as Flowers contributed. Photo size needs to be large enough to see the text on the Headstones (as it is now,) not some little Thumbnail you can barely see. Name of person (with link) who manages the Memorial is important, unless FaG is going to "manage" all Memorials, which I don't forsee. The current page format is easy to use, easy on the eyes, and does NOT need to be changed. As someone else stated in their comment, it is obvious that the persons coding, and changing the platform/format, are NOT users of FaG!

    ReplyDelete
  28. There is missing data in the old website, I found a source attached on Family Tree from Find a Grave, but the page was for some reason either removed or the site is otherwise broken. It is probably scattered entries, but it may be worth it to check those to find any more like that and eventually fix the problem or someone get new data even though the old info is AWOL

    ReplyDelete
  29. Is it just me or does the Find A Grave logo look like a comic version of a Halloween graphic? I'd like to see it presented in a more straight-forward font. It doesn't "match" any of the other fonts which are all sans-sarif. Not liking that at all, but trying to keep an open mind as to the new functionality.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I presume it is because graveyards are commonly thought of as spooky places and a sans-sarif font just looses the spooky feeling.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The new site is not a pleasant one to use, at least in this beta version. Too much wasted space, too much scrolling, the photos look funny, and too much clicking around to see what used to be one tidy page with everything instantly visible.

    I hate that to search by a memorial number, you have to click on a drop down menu. And I used the links on the left margin constantly, that's a huge loss.

    I understand that after the site goes live, they will solicit suggestions for changes. There will be a lot of tinkering to improve the site. But like a lot of people....I don't see the need for such a drastic change to the single page format, and the search page of the original site was beautifully simple. I wish they had retained more of the old format.

    ReplyDelete
  32. New and improved??? It's absolutely horrible, isn't it??? Biographical information has been wiped out. Poorly cropped pictures are the least of the problem. Pictures are also missing captions. In photographs of families, it is not obvious who is in the pictures based on just the memorial. Attributions to who added the picture is critical in doing research since the contributors of family photographs are usually other family members or researchers. To top it off, the format is cluttered and just plain ugly. Why does "improving" something always amount to ruining it???????????????? Surely, Ancestry could have created links to its other products without wrecking findagrave. At this point, I am really tired of the near monopoly Ancestry has achieved with online research. I am a contributor and memorial manager. Going into mourning for findagrave now.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I work in the software industry although not for any of the genealogy companies. I thought it would be useful to talk about how users can most effectively provide actionable feedback to software developers.

    First of all, I applaud the Find A Grave team for publishing a public beta site. Developers are reluctant to show work they know is not complete, but it is in everyone’s best interest to get direct user feedback early and often during the development process. Second, we all need to acknowledge that user interfaces need to change over time although the benefits of those changes are not often immediately apparent. And finally, recognize their job is to make money. On a free site, that means they need to increase traffic. Concepts such as internationalization and mobile support are significant to them.

    1) Generally, don’t focus on colors and fonts. Everyone has difficulty accepting the unfamiliar, and everyone adjusts with time. Although Google is an extreme example (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/05/why-google-engineers-designers), major companies employ experts and detailed processes for deciding these things.

    2) One exception to this I believe is handicapped people. Although there are tools and guidelines for accessibility, real-world feedback is still encouraged in this area.

    3) Mobile support is about providing a good user experience a variety of resolutions. Try this experiment. Pick up a corner of your browser displaying the Gravestage site. Adjust it bigger and smaller. The elements change to accommodate. A good design finds ways to continue to show the most important information as the screen size drops. This is called responsive design and it takes a lot of effort to do it well. Pick a resolution that matches your mobile screen resolution and provide feedback in this context.

    4) Developers aren’t genealogists so it is all too easy for them to make false assumptions. Help them understand with specific, actionable insights into what you want to accomplish and how you go about it. If there are enough people like you, they will surely try to accommodate.

    5) It is generally accepted that reducing number of clicks is important, and I think this is a very fair criticism.

    6) Provide your feedback with context describing what type of user you are and how you use the site. Even a specialized site such as Find A Grave has dozens of different types of users that use the site in different ways. They need to be able to all these constituencies.

    7) It is safe to assume they are familiar with similar sites in the industry, but the internet is a very big place and I find it helpful when someone says "I like to do X with the site, and I find that Y site does this particular function very well".

    As they finish the site, they will fix all the bugs like photo cropping and stuff. But, they need help with understanding the many diverse use cases that ultimately affect the broad structure and design of the site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well stated. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. I agree. Very well stated. I will try to provide feedback with this information in mind.

      Delete
  34. First, honesty is not a word in the vocabulary of ancestry. They have a consistent, lonnngg history of "dishonesty for dollars". First step to removing it as a free site most likely. And a move toward making it as reliable as an ancestry online tree a direction findagrave has been moving in since it was taken over by ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I don't care for the newly designed site. You've taken a clean, elegant MEMORIAL page where ALL information was concisely and clearly outlined and linked and replaced it with a cluttered, ugly display of scattered bits and pieces of information and chopped up photos, requiring several clicks just to visit the complete memorial. I fail to see how this new site serves the users and contributors better, no matter what type of hardware they are using. I've contributed over $500 dollars to remove the ads from 107 family memorials so that the memorials might be displayed in a respectful manner. Now to see this mishmash displayed as memorials to loved ones just makes me sad.

    Another respondent suggested we detail how we use the site. I'm a FAG memorial owner, FAG photo contributor, a researcher (ancestry account for years) plus I've entered 3000+ edits for various parent and spouse links on FAG. I usually work from my desktop but have also worked from a laptop or Ipad.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The best thing they could do the FindAGrave would be to limit it to finding a grave. It is not a genealogy site. People should not put up the "graves" of people when they don't know where it is and they don't provide a PICTURE of a gravestone or a reference showing that the person was actual BURIED in the graveyard. It has become a place for people to dump their Ancestry unsourced family trees. That is a reason why Billion Graves is better. I use FindAGrave all the time, but when I see junk talking about parents, dates, etc., with nothing as a reference, it makes FindAGrave look like it was made out of whole cloth, i.e. imagined.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Vic. Without a photo of the grave, then who knows where the information is coming from?

      Delete
    2. Vic, I agree with you but that horse got out of the corral a long time ago. When Ancestry bought the site and allowed people to link memorials into family trees, it became about as useful as you would expect from an unsourced collaborative tree.

      Delete
    3. Death certificates indicate burial place. Sometimes headstones are sunken, broken, removed, unreadable, etc. A person can be buried in a cemetery yet their headstone never found. People are buried at sea. Many poor people couldn't afford a headstone. Findagrave understands these situations and allows memorials to be created anyway.

      Delete
    4. Jean - If there is no stone, but there is information about the deceased, the source of that information should be clearly stated, otherwise it gives the impression that the data is coming from the headstone.

      Delete
  37. Suggestion for memorial owners: The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine has a new beta site which makes it simple for you to enter a URL and make a snapshot of the page for archive.org. If you want your old memorials to be preserved in the classic format, why not save copies now? https://web-beta.archive.org/

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ancestry.com will screw Find A Grave up to the point where it is unusable the same way they screwed up the new Ancestry.com

    ReplyDelete
  39. More than 30% of visits to the site are on a tablet or phone. Ergo 70% are not. Would that 70% be desktop or laptop computers?

    ReplyDelete
  40. This what happens when Ancestry gets into something that works.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Am I missing something or can you no longer enlarge pictures?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I agree. It is missing all the siblings of my father. It sucks . It is not user friendly and looks GENERIC!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Every time there is something good,someone has to screw with it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I had information on my brothers cremation linked to my family and it is GONE! Why don't you people leave well enough alone?

    ReplyDelete
  45. I'm part of the 70% who works exclusively from my laptop computer, and intend to do so. I'm not really impressed with the "squished and distorted" photos on the memorial pages at first view. I'm also not impressed with having to click on 'Read More' in the bio portion ... or 'click' on the photos to get a clearer view of them. I noticed that hyperlinks within the bio portion, connecting family members, do not appear in the new format, and links to children and parents also do not show up.

    I echo, and totally agree with, the comments of M Milkweed on March 25, 2017: “You've taken a clean, elegant MEMORIAL page where ALL information was concisely and clearly outlined and linked and replaced it with a cluttered, ugly display of scattered bits and pieces of information and chopped up photos, requiring several clicks just to visit the complete memorial. I've contributed over $500 dollars to remove the ads from 107 family memorials so that the memorials might be displayed in a respectful manner. Now to see this mishmash displayed as memorials to loved ones just makes me sad.”

    I too have contributed money to sponsor 132 memorials, and that was the ‘small’ expense. Who can put a price on the time and energy and expense involved over the years in travelling to various cemeteries, photographing headstones, and then uploading this information? As a contributor, I have been generous and very willing to give of my time, because I felt the site was a good one and easy to navigate – Please don’t make me sad or mad!

    ~ Linda Morgan ~

    ReplyDelete
  46. i will stay with the older version. it is nice and ordered. it shows more to me than the newer version without clicking all the time. I can see that the designers have a new look, but we do not need it to look like some other web page that is already on the net and i do not like that one so i rarely go there.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Well that may be beta software, but now when I go to Find A Grave, and click on some files that i created a few years ago, now an add pops up and I can't do anything about it. Very frustrating.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I have been an active contributor since 2007. Coding may need to be changed but format and display of information of current site does not need to be changed. If I have a preference, I will stay with the older version. Otherwise it is a waste of my time to continue my contribution/research efforts and need to design my own site for collecting information like the old findagrave site.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I have been an active contributor since 2007 and it appears you are taking a wonderful site and changing it into a site like Billiongraves which I DO NOT like to use and contributed very little to this site. I am familiar with coding and it is possible to keep the same layout and functioning tools of the current site and update the coding. It appears I have wasted over 10 years of research efforts on findagrave and should have designed my own website. If you keep the same layout, I will continue to actively contribute to findagrave. If not, it appears I need to get started designing my own site.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I agree wholeheartedly with Martha Reid's comments.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.