|
|
Re: Respect Your Customers
I wouldn't call that article interesting. I'd call it biased, uninformed, full of hearsay and intentionally argumentative.
|
Re: Respect Your Customers
Definitely not accurate. They completely ignore the fact that it is human nature for the ones who like it or don't care not to comment. It is also human nature for those who don't like it to make the most noise.
|
Re: Respect Your Customers
Just one of the MANY errors of logic in the article... "Where they went wrong was to switch new customers over to the new design, which didn’t yet work well, without preparing them for the sudden change. "
NEWSFLASH! If they were new customers there *WAS NO SUDDEN CHANGE* since they hadn't been exposed to the old design. - DUH!!!
|
Re: Respect Your Customers
I don't see how you can say that the article is "not accurate ....." etc Her main points such as: Ancestry ignored Beta testers opinions. It unleashed it on unsuspecting customers before it was fully functional and with no prewarning(Not everyone does facebook ) Subscribers lost site functionality and in many cases years of work at one stroke.I know i did.
Surely the work Acom is having to do now proves the above points.? In fact looking at the proposed schedule of things they are planning on doing i can't help thinking that we will just end up with another version of Classic,albeit much uglier.;-)
|
Re: Respect Your Customers
Well as long as they keep the old site to fall back on that's OK.
I have not seen the design documents of the new planned site but as a computer programmer myself I can tell you for most of the past 15 years I've had an account and for a few years a paid USA and World account their progress is slow.
Ancestry.com took a sit your hands approach to milk their customers as much as possible while doing practically nothing in those 15 years I've had an account to encourage good, documented, and correct creation of self contained exported Family Trees. That is the biggest indication of a lack of respect Ancestry.com has had for their customers.
The ideal is when you are done with a genealogical family tree project you have a complete exported family tree to be shared with family members. They purposely get in the way of competent genealogy with their online tree building software.
They'll be some people that disagree; desperately afraid if Ancestry.com can't milk every last penny for each access to the same record image by the same customer each time that customer views their online tree that ancestry.com will go bankrupt; but they won't. There are enough incorrect trees and records out there and enough new customers to keep people busy for decades.
However, it is pretty clear Ancestry.com has new competition entering the arena and that has lit a fire under their hindend.
|
Re: Respect Your Customers
"Well as long as they keep the old site to fall back on that's OK."
Newsflash: they've stated they have no intention of doing that.
|
Re: Respect Your Customers
I do not think it is true that Ancestry ignored Beta Tester opinions.
|
Re: Respect Your Customers
"I do not think it is true that Ancestry ignored Beta Tester opinions"
I guess it depends what you mean by "ignored" in this case. A number of adept users (e.g., Joan and BurgessDonnelly) have commented that they brought up some functionality issues early, which have yet to be addressed and as to which no feedback has been provided about a plan to address them in the future. Personally, I think that would qualify as "ignored."
|
Re: Respect Your Customers
Yeah, I know, that's coming eventually, and that's why I'm fixing the way they mucked up my tree with their 'Pay Per View' access before they finish and release with something even less professionally tenable.
|