What is Ancestry playing at now?

I did, I used the suggestions link in my Home Page.

 

Yes, I think these fair points and despite their lead in the numbers game (I refer here to Ancestry versus MyHeritage) they cannot afford to rest on their laurels so putting up subscription charges is probably far from their mind. For a start they have MyHeritage breathing down their necks and even though Ancestry is streets ahead in both conventional and DNA research elements, MyH does boast better European (Scandinavian & Germany) cover although overall I think this quite minimal.

Online research shows Ancestry with 8 billion names spread across 80 million individual family trees whilst MyH has 3 billion names in 35 million Trees. So even allowing for the obfuscation of many of the names being duplicates - as one online source explains - "if an exact same person is listed in a thousand different family trees, that will count as a thousand names", I think the number of actual subscribers is important as is the perennial topic of Public versus Private Trees as not all names are searchable without recourse to 'private' contact and I do not have numbers for how many of each.

 

The point about both needing to be subscribers is granted, but the observation "not all names are searchable without recourse to 'private' contact"... came from an online source, although I understood and agreed with the comment. In essence it explained that those with Public Trees granted search access to ALL (subject to Ancestry's safeguards regards living relatives) and enjoyed the same in return with other Public Trees. On the other hand Private Tree owners although able to search Public Trees unfettered, only granted access to their own Trees after private contact and agreement. So, in essence, not a level playing field. (It mentioned in passing the same would apply to MyH).

 

It seems all is about to be revealed, to me at the moment.
I went to my Ancestry tab and was confronted by the message in the attached.

Using the arrows I found the last 'page' contains this:
Look out for an updated homepage, a better family tree view, improvements to search, and more.

Can't wait - NOT!

 

Have now had a look around one of my trees, all font appears to be Arial which is my preferred font for emails and Word docs but takes getting used to in my tree.
In the family view all profile 'photos' that are not photos are apricot for female and green for male. Looks very wishy washy.

Depending on which view you are looking at the actual photos are various shapes, I have some teardrop, some square and some with rounded corners.
I said the font is Arial, it is except when you go into a profile where the person's name across the top is similar to Times New Roman.
Top marks for inconsistency

 

Nobody seems to have commented, so: I noticed a few days ago that the (nauseating) pale green backgrounds and green text that had been introduced for various elements has gone back to blue - another experiment over?

Not all change is bad, though, as entering the message system now (for me at least) no longer takes 5 minutes to dismiss the rotating "busy" indicator but is near instant. Ok, 5 minutes is an exaggeration, it was only about 4.5 minutes

 

The text in my Home Page has gone back to blue today , it was green yesterday. Have also noticed the green for male has gone back to blue for the icons in tree view. I hope the wishy washy apricot colour will go back to pink for the females.

I gave massive Feedback the other day, colouring was one of the 'criticisms' I made. I didn't mention the 'avatars' which look like dolly pegs!

I've just had a look at my messaging, the 'daisy wheel' went round for about 20 seconds, which is 19 seconds too long for my liking.
It has always struck me as odd that the messaging can be accessed from the main site but when you close it, it remains in a separate tab which you have to close