Probate Registry site's response to my feedback

[CaroleW]

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=858522.0

I have posted this as a new topic as it deals more with their response to feedback.  I'll refrain from comment - particularly the last part - but have drafted a reply which I am still working on

Me to them

You need to check your programming etc following my experience detailed below.  Totally haywire
Looking for a  1965 will for Hugh Owen Roberts.    Input surname etc & am presented with 48 pages of results - but not all for Roberts

Robertshaw/Robertson then a page of Roberts & back to Robertson.  Finally get into Roberts and after 2 pages ending with Florence Roberts I get returned to the beginning.

Their response

Due to the way that the calendars are scanned, the search feature is based on indexing.
In a lot of cases, an uncommon surname will be sandwiched in amongst more common names.
 
Unfortunately on some occasions, you might have to navigate through a calendar with a close alphabetical range to find your desired match.
 
Something to note, as long as you have the correct FULL NAME, DOD, PROBATE DATE, REGISTRY,  you can actually type anything to those fields and we'll find it.
For Example: If you typed BROWN and view the calendar for Brown, but entered the details for John Smith and those details were accurate, we would be able to locate it.
 

[majm]

Did they read their reply before they pressed SEND. 

JM

[Gadget]

Their response doesn't make sense. 

I've just the same search and get the  same number of pages.  They don't seem to allow first names!
I then found a person with the full name for Feb 1963 on a pay site. It took me less time than ploughing through their laboured search form.

I'm not sure if the one I found was correct but it was very speedy. 

[groom]

Due to the way that the calendars are scanned, the search feature is based on indexing.
In a lot of cases, an uncommon surname will be sandwiched in amongst more common names.

How come it wasn't like that before they did the big update, pages were always in alphabetical order?

[CaroleW]

My reply makes exactly the same point.  Nothing wrong with alphabetical sequence on the old site.   If you put documents into a scanner in the wrong alphabetical order - they come out the same way.

[Gadget]

I ordered a will from them a few years ago when the system went online. I had no problems then. I've just entered the full details but it returned a nil result!

[groom]

I was trying to help someone the other day, the will came up on Ancestry but wasn't showing at all on the probate site. The only way I could find it was by using a wildcard and the year, then I had to hunt through 12 jumbled up pages to find it.

[Tickettyboo]

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=858522.0


Something to note, as long as you have the correct FULL NAME, DOD, PROBATE DATE, REGISTRY,  you can actually type anything to those fields and we'll find it.
For Example: If you typed BROWN and view the calendar for Brown, but entered the details for John Smith and those details were accurate, we would be able to locate it.

So why not have (in conjunction with this awful 'search') a free form for if you know the details?
A few weeks ago as (may have changed since) at that stage it only asked for a name and date of death. Person had died in 1940 but probate not applied for until 1946.
If I was new to this stuff and didn't already have the details from a pay site I could have spent hours looking through 6 years of scans of random surnames before I found it.

What is it about anything to do with officialdom that they have to make things over complicated and don't listen to 'feedback' about easy ways to improve their sites?

Boo

[CaroleW]

The old site worked really well so to coin that well known phrase “if it ain’t broke - don’t fix it”

In the past few months we have had the new Family Search site & this one - neither of which work anywhere near as well as the old sites

I’m all for progress - but this seems a retrograde step