Talk:Findmypast

New article

It seemed opportune to write a short article on Find My Past, which is well known as a source of UK genealogical records. Maybe I uploaded it too soon, but I had given references to the key points, from the Financial Times, for example, and the UK Governments' list of Queen's Award winners. The article needs further development, but the key points are there.
Unfortunately it has been tag-bombed by Gaijin42 without any explanation. I am unable to address the issue of affiliation with the subject, because I'm not affiliated - I'm a WP editor and amateur genealogist who uses Findmypast. The article doesn't 'rely' on references to primary sources as already mentioned above. Primary sources need to be used with care, but they are not prohibited from WP articles! As for reading like an advertisement, an explanation is needed here too - to establish some sort of 'notability' the achievements of the subject have to be mentioned. I expect if I didn't mention it was award-winning and 'a leading' website (as per the FT news article) I expect Gaijin42 would have tagged it for 'speedy deletion', haha.
Constructive advice required please. Sionk (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

tag reasons : 3 of 6 articles are the company website. 1 is a website the company sponsors 1 is behind a wall

The queens award is certainly good.

That does not remove the fact that 4/6 of the references are not neutral/unbiased, hence the tags regarding the source. Partially due to those sources, the article is written like PR marketing for the firm.

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

NB I was able to access the Financial Times article without registration. I believe a small number of article views are allowed before any payment is required(?). Certainly registered users to FT have access to 10 articles per month. There were some useful articles about FMP published in the FT over recent years but, as you can see, I only used one because of the registration requirements. FT is an authoritative respected newspaper and I'm unaware that registration requirements prohibit its use as a source. Paywalls do not seem to stop people using Findmypast to uncover personal information about celebrities and publish on WP, for example (there are over 1000 examples of this!).
Written like an advertisement? Please suggest how it should be reworded. Sionk (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I would point out that WP:RS does not preclude the use of 'questionable sources' or 'self published sources' (assuming Findmypast.co.uk is either of these). It does not preclude citations that require registration or payment (WP:PAYWALL) as long as the source is reliable. The citation from the SOG simply confirms that they have a reciprocal arrangement with FMP, so I can't see how that fact creates bias. I would be grateful if someone could explain how the sources here do not meet WP standards. Sionk (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Branding/article name

The brand itself is actually findmypast (all one word), is there any way to change the redirect from findmypast and displaying Find My Past to findmypast as the title and redirecting from Find My Past? It's a common mistake, but I refer to all of their own branding on this one - https://www.facebook.com/findmypastUK for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djangoinspired (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Former "controversy" Section

Judging from the history, this article appears to be under attack from multiple single-purpose accounts (and possible sockpuppets) with a grudge against FMP over changes to their user interface. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The section did become a platform for wild accusations. However, a small number of reliable sources were found which corroborated the story, so it seems a valid section to include, at a much reduced length. The new interface still remains. I know popular internet sites often have waves of complaints when they try and change things, but these changes seem to be particularly bad. Obviously we don't want to sweep negative publicity under the carpet, do we?! Sionk (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No we don't but we also want to give the appropriate level of weight to the matter. I am sure that an editor of your experience can come up with a balanced summary of the matter. I tried but it wasn't found to be acceptable to everyone. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Even six years after the current discussion is still actual. The WP article doesn't have yet an illustrated and concise explanation on how the website works. And this is the main kind of information any reader firstly wants to be acknowledged to. Perhaps, YouTube doesn't show third-party and independent how-to guide or video tours for this video. So far, it has been linked one of their videos which has just one short commercial reference in the stream. I would like to delete it at all, but the possible benefits overcome the related drawbacks. Ifdfd an independent and fully non commercial hot-to video tour will appear on YouTube, then the "external links" section can be speedly replaced. Best regards, Philosopher81sp (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Response to the above accusation by Philafrenzy

I find it strange that the supposedly "Sockpuppet" comments have been on this page since April (first paragraph) and June 2014 (second and third paragraphs). They were submitted by 2 different people - I was one of them and I have never spoken, or communicated in any other way, with the other person to my knowledge. The page itself had not been edited since 25 September 2014, and yet on 07 November 2014 - the day before Findmypast embarked on FREE WEEKEND WORLDWIDE ACCESS - someone goes and deletes the above mentioned paragraphs. This article may well be under attack, but this appears to be more by Philafrenzy than any other. What possible justification did he/she have to go into this page and remove that part of the text? Aren't there enough pages on Wiki to keep them busy? What brought them here? Very suspicious to my mind. The information posted under Change of User Interface is well sourced, and attributed to internationally distributed genealogy magazines. Neither of the articles were written by me.

The fact that I have not contributed to any other Wiki page is immaterial. I have not felt the need to do so - that is my right. That does not, however, make the contribution I have made to this page any less relevant or worthy. I have posted under 2 different names, but this was due to not remembering my password under the name Old Man Gifford and creating Old Ma Gifford as a substitute - there was no attempt to disguise any potential links between the IDs. (I am on a different computer now and it has auto-filled my ID and password as Old Man Gifford when I went to log in.)

As for the accusation of a "grudge", I infer from this that Philafrenzy is attempting to discredit the validity of the comments - which I repeat were not my words, but were written by other people in reputable magazines.

Might I suggest that Philafrenzy is displaying a worrying partisanship towards FMP. I understood that subjective comments and accusations were not acceptable on Wiki, and yet one of your own administrators appears to be being allowed to get away with them. I would like their connection with any persons within FMP and its parent/sister companies to be investigated, as this whole episode absolutely smells.

When FMP get their act together and sort out their User Interface, I will be only too happy to delete those comments myself. In the meantime, I find that this is an unethical censorship of valid submissions.

Old Man Gifford (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think other editors can draw their own conclusions from the above comments. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know exactly what you are trying to imply with that last comment, Philafrenzy.

Old Man Gifford (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Could I ask what the position is when a Wiki Admin person favourably edits a page which relates to a company; from whom they have benefited via a free subscription to that company's genealogical website? See No 6 on the list on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FindMyPast/Approved

As I said previously, something doesn't smell right. I thought Wiki was supposed to be above all of that sort of thing.

Old Man Gifford (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the pov's are resolved and can be now removed. If not, let us please resolve this so that people do not have to wade through all the complaints in order to read the article. Please explain why these are on here. Loveonearth (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have trimmed the relevant section to one paragraph which I think summarises the position adequately and with an appropriate weight. Let me know what you think. Please don't revert it until the new wording has had a discussion. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I too don't like the idea that people have to wade through a load of contentious comments. However, this situation is not of my making, and the question still hasn't been answered as to WHY THE COMMENTS WERE EDITED IN THE FIRST PLACE. As I stated before, they have been there since April and June 2014. I still want to know the reasoning why Philafrenzy felt that they had to remove them (which is what they did initially). As for the new wording, it is totally wrong as it puts some comments into the wrong context. I would suggest that the paragraphs are reverted to their original state rather than that. I am concerned that this is another attempt by FMP to censor the information on the internet. They have already tried to have very negative reviews removed on another independent review site, which caused outrage and ultimately failed. I can, of course, only comment on my contribution to this page - 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the original submissions.

Old Man Gifford (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't replied to you at length before because it's hard to take you seriously when you throw around wild accusations. Anyone can edit any article at any time. Just because something has been around for a while doesn't make it right. Something being well referenced doesn't mean it should stay. When this section first came to my attention, the article had a three paragraph blow-by-blow account of who said what and when headed "Controversy" that took up about a third of the article. You may find this fascinating but we need to write for the general reader without excessive detail, and to be honest, if you think that is a "controversy" you need to read a newspaper. The whole thing could be summarised as "they changed the user interface, some people didn't like it but they later found it wasn't so bad after all." I don't usually respond to accusations of bad faith as I feel they are below me, but I will say it once, I am not connected to FMP and am not acting on their behalf, and yes I have a free subscription to FMP via the Wikipedia Library which I use only here in writing articles as I am not a genealogist. You could apply for one too if you are eligible. Why don't you edit the section to provide a short and neutral account of the point. It can easily be done in one paragraph. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no justification for removing reliable published sources, but I agree the quotes could be shortened further. The Family Tree Magazine source that you completely removed has some validity, though the concuding sentence of the magazine is more important, I agree, than the lengthy opinion of the forum administrator. If we start removing reliable sources completely it will give FMP a ready escuse to remove the section altogether! Sionk (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This really is a storm in a teacup. A one para summary of the situation would be fine. Recently, my local supermarket removed one of my favourite items from their shelves, I didn't start picketing the store or write a lengthy "controversy" section on their Wikipedia article. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. I doubt your example was covered at lenghth in dead tree magazines. Sionk (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you try doing a shorter summary that we can all agree on? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite agreeable for Sionk to put forward a compromise paragraph to cover my 2 paragraphs; the comments of the Forum Moderator were part of the article and obviously the Moderator's opinion was classed by that magazine as both professional and accurate; after all, any article is subjective to the writer and editor. However, I obviously can't speak for the submitter of the first paragraph, who may have a totally different viewpoint.

Philafrenzy - if you can't answer appropriately instead of in a derogatory manner, please don't bother.

Old Man Gifford (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss and resolve this issue of undue weight

How does this article lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies? How can it be fixed? Loveonearth (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope we can agree (a) that the change of interface in April 2014 generated a lot of criticism, and some bad publicity for findmypast, and should not be ignored or glossed over; but (b) that it is not the most important thing in the company's history or the services it currently provides, and should not be overemphasised. I agree with Philaphrenzy that it can and should be summarised in one paragraph. I would suggest that the paragraph consists of five sentences. (1) A basic statement that the change was made, and proved controversial. (2) A statement that it was widely covered in the genealogical media, with references. (3) A single quotation from a critic. (4) A single quotation from the company defending the changes. (5) The (existing) concluding quotation from Family Tree Magazine that questions remain unanswered. GrindtXX (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No further discussion for over two months. I have trimmed the matter to one para. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that there has been no further discussion. However, that does not give Philafrenzy the right to make an arbitrary decision on what is acceptable. I too have been waiting for a COMPROMISE edit- which this latest of Philafrenzy's IS NOT. I await further comment - but the section has been reverted until such decision and agreement is achieved. An arbitrary decision is not what was decided upon. What should have been done is for contact to be made with the parties above before any changes were made. Old Man Gifford (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not helpful either to restore the previous version without the sources! However, I agree Philafrenzy's cull was a bit brutal and it would be better to concentrate slightly less on what a forum administrator said and more on what the editorials concluded. There's scope to reduce the current version by at least two lines, I would say. The problem is if it is reduced to a quote from a forum administrator, someone from FMP will come along and be justified to remove it altogether.

Rather than make this into an edit war it may have been better to add some of the section back, rather than restore it in its entirety. Sionk (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please have a go. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines of what GrindtXX suggested would be best. It seems sensible and covers all the points. Sionk (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reduced the length by 30% while keeping all the magazine coverage and quotes from either side. Sionk (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sionk - I am happy enough to go along with what you have done and I will not be altering it - but I hope that this is respected by Philafrenzy as well, and that they will give an equivalent assurance.Old Man Gifford (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it goes quite far enough so I will change it trim it further but I don't have time right now. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to report articles for protection? This is fast turning into an edit war and benefitting nobody, wikipedia is not a place for people to only be allowed to edit with a strangers permission (and one with a clear negative agenda at that who accuses anyone who wants to make the article better of being a paid stooge). Moderators agreed this was too long and a step forward was agreed by GrindtXX Sionk and Philafrenzy, there seems to be only one single issue account that disagrees and it's not helping anyone. 50.79.71.187 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As the person who submitted the second paragraph - which is sourced correctly to a very reputable UK publication - I take offence at the above paragraph. This section was submitted and stayed untouched for several months, until one person (Philafrenzy) took it upon themselves to completely delete them. There has never been an acceptable reason given for that "out-of-the-blue" action. Of course it makes me suspicious that there is a hidden agenda given the other actions of FMP in trying to remove negative publicity from the internet - witness their own Facebook page where critics have been banned (on several occasions en masse) and their comments therefore deleted, their own website where the Feedback Forum for customer comment was removed (at which point it had over a thousand comments relating to the new search), the attempt to delete a large number of negative reviews from the Trustpilot independent review site by an FMP employee; that failed and there have been further negative reviews posted since which they now respond to. I am sure that they would also love to remove the 5 threads from RootsChat each consisting of around 30 pages with around 10 comments on each page - again containing negative comments. The whole issue of the new search which FMP released in April, and which has caused no end of problems for people, should not be censored - which is what is being attempted here. I agreed with Sionk about their edit, which has been in place for several weeks now. I was not entirely happy doing that, but went along in the spirit of their offer to help to sort things out. I have already officially reported the attempts to censor this page to Wiki and will do so again. As for accusing "anyone who wants to make the article better of being a paid stooge", please point out where those words were used, and also please do define "better" in that context. I questioned Philafrenzy's partisanship based on the fact that they are one of the Wiki Editors who has benefitted from free access to FMP which, I would contend, is a conflict of interest at the very least. Where have I accused any other of the Wiki Editors who have made suggestions of being "paid stooges"? I am a fully paid-up FMP customer of many years' standing. What are you?Old Man Gifford (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Findmypast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107210558/http://www.thecourier.co.uk/business/news/findmypast-and-mocavo-to-provide-dynamic-family-history-experience-1.438203 to http://www.thecourier.co.uk/business/news/findmypast-and-mocavo-to-provide-dynamic-family-history-experience-1.438203

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)