Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

Genes Extras

Genes Reunited subscription bonuses

As a way of saying thank you to our subscribers, we have launched Genes Extras. You'll find exclusive competitions and discounts on family history magazines, days out and much more.

Take me to Genes Extras


  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

New Genes Format

Page 1 + 1 of 4

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date


Cynthia Report 3 Aug 2012 10:51

It's sad to think that people 'hate' the new tree with such an intensity that it affects their blood pressure . Surely there is more to life than getting so worked up about something so trivial.

I'm a pensioner and I am also a carer for two yet my blood pressure is that of a 20 year old and I 'hate' very little in life.

Yes, the new tree is different but I have patiently experimented with it; tried this and that; uploaded photos; altered relations; added comments and have no problems.

Some of the problems mentioned on various threads have been the inexperience of the user, not a fault of the site.

I will NOT be cancelling my automatic membership because, at under £10 pa., I consider it extremely good value for money and well worth the friendships I have made on here.



Patricia Report 3 Aug 2012 18:18

Well as I'm in my mid 50's I'll take 'Youngster' and be thankful :-D

I think the fact that a lot of comments are against the new tree and or the new layout is because people will complain more about something than praise something, that is just human nature I'm afraid.

The fact that most comments are against just means those people are more vocal, it does not mean that the majority of GR members don't like it.

As I have said before I like it the new layout, I don't have a problem with this 'brightness' but I have calibrated our monitors and my laptop for colour/brightness correctly [instructions should be with your monitor as each can be different] and I wear glasses, I wear sunglasses in mid winter as I find I screw my eyes up on even dull days. But I don't have a problem on here. A......try pages are brighter than these.

Any tree takes time to get used to I began many years ago with an early version of FTM, I have updated that a few times and each time it took awhile to get used to, but get used to it I did, it takes time and patience on the part of the user.

It is well known that using a pc for long periods can cause migraines in those that are prone to them, if I choose to play a game on mine then the first thing that comes up is a warning to that effect!

I won't be cancelling either, as the helpers on here are worth every penny I pay to GR.


Gins Report 3 Aug 2012 19:01

Im glad you are staying Patricia..........

..............but Cyns, think again ;-)


Cynthia Report 3 Aug 2012 20:30

Hmmmm. May revise my thoughts on 'friendship' :-D


Wendy Report 16 Sep 2012 16:19

I've just written to Genes again but I don't suppose it will have much impact.
I have been trying to edit family members.Having added lots of info I clicked on save only to have all the info disappear.Now the same edit panel appears for any of the 6000 people on my tree.I wish I was a computer savvy and could download my tree onto a disc I could then walk away .


Anne Report 16 Sep 2012 17:22

Have not been on the site for ages and could not believe the change. Can only see a few trees of other people on my site will not show all of them. Had to find some instructions on use!! When I first joined Genes it was so easy then it was changed which I wasn't keen on now its been changed again and it is awful. Please revert back. Am thinking of cancelling my auto re-new :-(


Sheryl Report 16 Sep 2012 20:20




JustJohn Report 17 Sep 2012 00:05

It is so significant that the few who are happy with this new format have loads of posts to their names. But those with big trees and consequently very few posts to their names do not like it. :-S :-S


SylviaInCanada Report 17 Sep 2012 04:18

It is fact that the most people posting about the tree are those who do not like it.

However, that can no way be extrapolated to say that no-one likes the new tree, or even that the majority of people do not like the new tree.

I know of many people who DO like the new tree, who are working with it very successfully, but who do not post on the Boards to say so.

I would even make a guess that I know of as many people who like the tree as have posted to say they do not like the tree!

How many more millions are out there happily adding names to their trees?

Probably at least as many as are naysayers.

It is wrong to make such statements as "the majority do not like the tree" ....... because there is NO WAY that we the members can know that.


Cynthia Report 17 Sep 2012 08:09

John, I quote...... "But those with big trees and consequently very few posts to their names do not like it. " :-S :-S

The size of their tree does has no bearing on the number of posts to a persons name. None.

The number of posts to a person's name does NOT indicate how many messages they have sent to possible relatives - it really doesn't.

The number of posts relates to how often you have posted a message on the Community boards.

For instance:

I have 1,431 names on my tree.

I have 11,000+ posts on the Community boards

I have 13,000 people in my Contacts list - this once stood at over 30,000 but I have been whittling it down.

Does that help? :-S


JustJohn Report 17 Sep 2012 08:48

Cynthia and Silvia

I think it is about time that you stopped being so negative about the old tree format. New people are coming on these Boards every day (andf not many coming on at all now regrettably) to say that the old tree was fine. "It did not need fixing" is a common point they are making. Very positive and uplifting messages for most of us.

There seem to be obscure and technical reasons why we needed to upgrade tree and "modernise" it. We are always told this by Microsoft and most sites we subscribe to, and we have become used to upgrades and paying a bit more over the years. Similar ro Mars Bar for 5d when I was a child, then a new larger bar for 6d, then reverts to old size for 6d. And so on. They played that same trick for years till a Mars Bar cost over 20 pence - and was exacly the same size as the original 5d (or 2p) bar of my childhood.

The new tree has to be like the popular Mars bar. It has to be slightly better and more satisfying. I did not want my 6d Mars bar to be replaced by a block of Sharps toffee, and I would have looked for a better substitute..

Someone has told Genes that the old tree was unfit for purpose. You are quite right, Sylvia - we have no facts. Since the amazing official announcement on 2nd Aug that it was exciting and positive and new, we have had virtually no information at all. We have no idea at the moment whether the change agent was someone important in BS, one of the anonymous "team" or one of the unpaid helpers.

For all of us on the positive side of this debate, we have no idea who thought changing the tree was a good idea. But as you state, Sylvia, the majority who have posted have been positive about the old tree. By a large majority (my analysis).

Probable that you can extrapolate from that sample. I rather think the statisticians would find the sample plenty large enough to come to very clear conclusions about how large the positive majority actually is.

I am still hopeful that there will be postive change as a result of all this protest about removing our dear old tree, and that we will all eventually be much happier than we are now.


JustJohn Report 17 Sep 2012 09:15

As Genes give us so few facts to debate, I wonder if people will add to this list - which might give a clear indication of what has happened since old tree was removed on 2nd August

Me (John) - Began tree 2003 Current Tree 23,018 names . Additions since 2nd Aug - NIL
Cynthia - Tree 1,431 names. Additions since 2nd Aug - ?
Sylvia - Tree ? names. Additions since 2nd Aug - ?

Whether you have only a couple of people on your tree or over 50,000 (how did he do that?), it will be helpful info to add what you have on your tree and how many you have put on using the new format.

I am not trying to say that having a huge tree is good (probably makes me a pretty sad person :-)). And I am not saying that not using the Genes tree facility makes you bad. Just that it might give an idea of whether people are using this new tree or not.


Wendy Report 17 Sep 2012 09:30

I am happy for those who like the design of the new tree,if one can call it design,all tucked up there in the left hand corner of the screen with it's silly little boy/girl heads in boxes.It seems to be aimed at schoolchildren rather than adults.The purple stars indicating tree and record matches remind me of those dreadful fluorescent price tags one sees when passing the window of a pound shop.I would like to point out that I am not complaining for the sake of complaining I really do dislike this new format,it is time consuming to use even when it is working properly.


JustJohn Report 17 Sep 2012 10:16

Wendy Your reaction to the tree that began this thread has been similar to all of us who have used the tree a lot. That is what I believe, anyway. And I am asking for a few stats that either back up my feelings or not.

No one with a large tree (putting on, say, 200-300 new relatives every month) seems to have even been asked about this new format. Not sure who was involved in the trial, but I suspect it was members with a good knowledge of computers who can communicate with this strange world of computer programming. Nothing wrong with that, except it needs to be tested out on Soft Joes who know dicky mint about computers like me before launch.

What has upset me a bit is that we have been called moaners if we say we like the old tree. That is turning logic on its head. We were happy customers and getting on with our hobby. There were obviously moaners who thought the old tree was not fit for purpose, and forced change on Genes which appears to have been badly researched and badly communicated so far.



Cynthia Report 17 Sep 2012 14:12

John, are you deliberately being obtuse and argumentative? Are you actually reading and understanding what Sylvia and I have both said?

I am getting the feeling that, if you don't understand what we are saying, you go off at a tangent.

Point one. I am NOT moaning or being negative about the old tree format - it was okay by me BUT the new format is okay by me too. I'm quite adaptable to change.

Point two. Why on earth would anyone want to add 200-300 names a month to their tree ??? That seems very excessive to me. Genealogy is not a competition where people are competing to see who has the largest tree in the world.

Point three. My tree was also started in 2003. I only add names as and when I am following a particular line and feel it necessary. I am not interested in adding names just for the sake of it. I HAVE added a couple of new names since the change and have had no problems at all.

Point four. Given the millions of members on this site, there is no way that, just because someone comments on the Community Boards, it indicates how the majority are or are not feeling.

Point five. The fact that you think some of us may have 'forced' Genes into changing the format beggars belief.

Point six. I'm stuck for words.


Wendy Report 17 Sep 2012 14:31

John ,I have about 7000 names on my tree.I used to log in most days and it was always a pleasure to look at the tree,all the info plus any photos for each relative was on their one page. The tree was so quick and uncomplicated to use.I am angry that Genes have only listened to those with the technical jargon and knowhow.
I learned the very basics of how to use a computer solely to enable me to research my family History.The format of the old tree reflected the fact that it was recording the past.
My son is a graphics designer,he points out that the design of a site should reflect the subject matter.I don't suppose that was taken into consideration.
I do not believe for one moment that according to Genes the majority of members approved this new format.This was said to cover their like it or lump it policy.
In all fairness we should have the option of access to the old tree.


Cynthia Report 17 Sep 2012 14:50


I do hope that you are not angry because of John's thoughts that it is computer savvy members who have 'forced' Genes to change format. He has absolutely no proof of this.

I hope you have seen the helpful threads which various members have posted regarding how to use the new tree format.



Wendy Report 17 Sep 2012 15:45

My thoughts are all my own.Although not very computer savvy I have had a tree on Genes since 2004 and do know how to use this new format.Knowing how to use it and liking using it are two very different things.
Do you really like this format ? It looks so unprofessional,the old tree format reflected what it was, an historical record of all our pasts.If "myheritage" members have either the modern or traditional option for their trees why can't Genes accommodate those of us who wish to work with the old tree.Genes stood out as a family tree why would it even want to look like all the rest.


jax Report 17 Sep 2012 17:24

I have just looked at my updates and counted the people who have added to their tree during July and August....I am not interested in these updates as none are related to me as it happens

During July there were six different people updating their tree
During August there were twelve different people adding 144 people and another added 48...none have complained on the do they like the tree??

Like Cynthia I cannot understand why anyone would want to add 200-300 people to their tree each month...My main tree has 650 names...just direct lines, their siblings and their children and no one born after 1920.


JustJohn Report 17 Sep 2012 18:51

There have been quite a few adding 100, 200, 300, 400 and even 500 a month to their trees. I woud never be so judgmental about motives, and whether that is good or bad. If I had a family of 12, I would always put all 12 on and, if easy to find wives and families would extend that as well. The only thing that would stop me was if someone already had the tree on A...... and it looked accurate to me. No point in me researching people who were not closely connected to me and who were already on someone's tree.

I was quite surprised that I had put on 23,000 in 9 years. But I only had 3 posts on Community in 9 years, and never felt the need to complain in that time. Cynthia has 1400 in same period and very many more posts than me. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong. It does make us family history nuts - probably certifiable in my case at least. But it is a very interesting and absorbing hobby and has been for 31 years now in my case.

I still maintain that those involved in the trial did not have large trees and were all very computer illiterate. No "soft Joes" like me were asked, I feel sure. And anything new should be trialled with the Lowest Common Denominator.
I suspect they chose those who had been on Community - particularly those who had been moaning about all and sundry whilst folk like me and Wendy plodded along building up trees, writing to contacts and enjoying ourselves.

When we tree huggers came on community boards in August to complain, we were attacked, called moaners, told we were complaining to the wrong people. Yes, a lot of help was offered by Cynthia and others.

But you have to admit it has been a constant stream of postive energy to either get the old tree back or develop our tree in such a way that we are all keen to use it again without doing too much technically. :-) :-)