RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: suttontrust on Wednesday 20 December 06 09:07 GMT (UK)
-
:-\ I discovered yesterday (because I got an "invitation" to view it) that my cousin's husband has uploaded his and her family tree to Ancestry. Now this includes a great chunk of information on his wife's side of the family that he got from me. I can't complain about the tree being online, since I have it on the internet myself. What irks me is that my research has been taken and assimilated into his (he has it on GR too) without any sense that he ought to ask my permission. It includes information about me (though not dates). Now that it's on Ancestry I feel that I've lost control of it. I don't want to fall out with them, having only just made contact with my cousin again after many years, but I feel that there should be an etiquette around this sort of thing.
-
I agree with you about this, people should ask permission to add this information to their tree on line.
-
Hi
I agree, permission should be asked for.
Just a thought did the relation know that it would become public etc once he had 'uploaded', is he new to FH, maybe you could explain to him the shortfalls, and hopefully no disagreement will occur.
Hard situation to be in, since you have just reacquainted yourselves.
Merry Christmas
Jane
-
This has happened to lots of us I think, best thing is to grin and bear it, and just think of what they've missed out on, we've had all the 'fun' of doing the actual research.
I was a bit disconcerted to find myself on a tree on GenesReunited recently and when I queried this with the tree 'owner' and he sent me his tree, it included almost all of my own research. My own fault, I naiively uploaded trees to Rootsweb some years ago, complete with all source references, and though I later removed the trees, they are now on ancestry in their World connect section and apparently cannot now be removed from there at all. I don't mind at all passing on my hard-researched info to relatives, but am not too happy about all and sundry seeing it ::)
-
Oh how I agree with you. I have had the same thing happen to me. I was contacted through Genes by a nephew of a cousin of my husband. He asked if he could view my tree and gave me permission to view his. Unfortunately I didn't view it straightaway as I was away from home. On my return I did view it and the tree consisted of one person - him!!!!
I then received a message through Ancestry and when I looked at it there is a large chunk of my family going back 3 or 4 generations!!! Whilst I don't mind him publishing my husband's links to him (although it would have been nice of him to ask) I do object to my family being hijacked in this way and of course he will not now answer any emails I send him through either Genes or Ancestry.
It will teach me to be more wary of who I let view my tree in future.
-
Whenever I share information with other close or distant family members I tell them that a condition of having the data is that it not be placed on the internet. I have shared with a couple of folks who have asked about the net & todate I have been OK with those sections going online but stated no living folks are to be included.
It seems to work without problems as long as the conditions are stated BEFORE the information is exchanged.
Thus said, if one of them suddenly decides to "publish and be damned" there would be nothing I could do. Once information is uploaded, or given, it is in a very public domain.
Trish
-
Yes, I was a bit daft putting my whole tree on rootsweb ::)
the idea at the time was to store it there just in case I lost it if my computer crashed......I know better now!!!!!!
-
I don't agree. :)
I've put together my Family Tree with help from lots of members of the family, one cousin gave my maternal grandmother's side complete. It saved me heaps of time. I also had lots of help from kind people on this forum. Following your logic, I would have to ask 100's of people for permission before publishing. What if one of them said "no"?
I have done heaps of personal research, paid for lots of certificates too, half is my hard work, the other half is the hard work of others that I very much appreciate.
However I came about the information about "MY" family tree .......... research, gift, shared, paid for, located on the Internet, my family tree belongs to me.
Well that's what I think, Kevin
-
I have my tree on Ancestry but made it personal. All that appears is the persons name and year. If someone is interested they have to email you via Ancestry. Only if you allow your tree to be a public tree can all and sundry see all your research. It pays to go into tools and change to personal. That way you controll what information and access people get from your research.
Merry Christmas
panda >:( :o 8) ::) ::)
-
This a grey area here,for there is often a delicate balance between what is public and private.I for one know that if I had not made details of my Tree public,then I would have made very little progress.I have come across those who,I have to say naively,try to keep details of their mothers maiden name "private".This is a false premise,as any genealogist worth their salt.would find such info easily via the GRO Birth Index.Returning perhaps to what could have been the reasoning behind this thread,if we are talking about "Title" of any research that has been done,it really is a minor point,as the person doing the initial research,will very rarely "own" the sources for their info.
Regards
William Russell Jones
Cefn Mawr
Wrexham.
-
I recently shared some of my research with a new found relative, who then took all my research and put it on Ancestry, not only had she put wrong information but she put all the living issues online without permission of myself or any of the people involved. It took several messages to Ancestry and the person involved for them to remove the information. It seems to me that all some people want is the information about their family and are willing to take all the credit for it themselves regardless of how they collect the information.. Just recently the same person emailed to say that we had another connection and could I please pass on the information..... about her and her family, because after I found the information on Ancestry I closed my tree on GR to her.
-
I don't have my tree made public, but I do have notes in my program when I have received information from someone else. When I get a big bit of information from someone, I ask permission/let them know I am going to put it up, with credit. I do agree with Kevin -- if they are in your family, they are part of your tree -- but I also think giving credit where credit is due is necessary also.
And I big chunk of my tree was put up on a "new" rellies site, with nothing about the living people. He hadn't asked permission but he did credit me with the info I gave him. And I didn't have a problem with it. He had done an immense amount of work and took me back to the early 1600s on that side, so I was thrilled to be a part of all that. And I have been doing a lot of research on a couple people on that tree, which I will share with him when I am done.
Kath
-
Hi
I agree with Kevin, William and Kath. I started off my internet research, idly Googling one day, when I came across someone who was researching my (rare) maiden name at the correct locality. She gradually gave me loads of evidence and contacts, all people who had done good research, so my only input was the addition of evidence I got through my personal branch.
I thanked her of course and have not as yet put my tree on the internet anywhere. However if I did put my tree on Ancestry for example, it would be bound to include stuff researched by my contact and her contacts, simply because they got there first.
Most of this information is in the public domain if you know where to look, and therefore no one owns this info and even if it is felt to be personal because it is about our ancestors, these people were other peolpes ancestors/friends/neighbours/ relations as well.
I do agree that info about living people should not be posted, and that immediate sources must be acknowledged and thanked, but I think that as we are all connected not all that far back, we should not worry about 'controlling' or limiting access, but rather should open up and relax a bit, so that in a few years time we will all know our connections. ( You can choose your friends.......rootschatters ;), but cannot choose your relations ;D)
Happy Christmas to all rootschatters, and many thanks to all those who have helped me up till now. I hope I will soon be clever enough to help others! ;D ;D
Helen
-
I think one problem is that when one first buys FTM or joins Ancestry, it seems easy to store one's tree online; that is what they offer. I started doing it that way.
Then one starts to read around the message boards, read the Terms & Conditions and search around the online trees and one discovers that:-
a) Ancestry/My Family has a history of taking data they store and distributing it on CDs for money, complete with mistakes if you made any.
b) There is a lot of really rubbish "research" out there. I compared some trees with "my" names, and could see errors being perpetuated with no regard for the truth and no checking.
c) One discovers that some "genealogists" just want to have huge trees. Fine for them, but I want to really know who my ancestors were, where they lived and what they did. People should realise that it is VERY UNLIKELY that one will get back to 1500 if not a member of the nobility. To get back into the 18th century requires long hours with parish records. But many do not care to do this. Some folk seem to attach branches of other trees to theirs with dubious results.
d) Of course finding others researching your names in your area is fantastic. However, the best contacts I have made are from asking specific questions either on these boards, or in the local FHS magazines. We have then shared our information via letter or email, including trees. I have adsded some siblings others have told me about, but not whole generations without actually seeing the certificates.
So I for one deleted my data from Ancestry as well as I could. If I do ever put my tree online it will NOT be on Ancestry, and I will acknowledge others' research. As yet it is just not good enough for public consumption.
Just my thoughts on this - admit I am a bit obsessional about accuracy. But if you are new I would be very wary about saving your trees online for the above reasons.
-
Thanks for your thoughts. As I said, I'm not bovvered about it being online, since it already is. It's what Ancestry can then do with it, and the lack of "Would you mind if I nicked all this research, added it to my tree and put it all on Ancestry?". My cousin's husband is elderly and new to fh, so I think is a little naive about such things.
-
There are advantages and disavantages about having one's tree public
To my way of thinking, the advantes outweigh the disadvantages.
I have had quite a number of people find my tree on my website, in several cases adding really substantial information
I think that is worth more than one person on GR who copied many rellies onto his tree, and I can't even work out how he is related!
Bob
-
I feel that there should be an etiquette around this sort of thing.
Yes, there most certainly should. Portions of my tree have been submitted to the LDS and is included on one of their Pedigree Resource File CDs...all without my consent. I'm a bit irked by it, but there's no much I can do about it. The only thing is I can have a degree of warped satisfaction that the person who submitted it will look like an idiot...'cause if they'd asked me first, they'd have found out I'd make a mistake that I discovered after they'd got at it. ::) Let that be a lesson to anyone who decides to reproduce someone else's work...ask first, for it might contain a cock up the person knows about. ;)
-
I have had this happen, too ~ but what is much worse, I think, is when living relatives are added, including children, and made public, having been discovered elsewhere.
-
The only thing I really object to is finding my name and birth year on a public tree without my consent, perhaps I'm being too sensitive now I'm a little (????) over 40 ;) ;)
-
The only thing I really object to is finding my name and birth year on a public tree without my consent, perhaps I'm being too sensitive now I'm a little (????) over 40 ;) ;)
It's not being too sensitive. Especially in this day and age, it's an invasion of privacy. I agree that this is the only thing I object to.
Kath
-
ABSOLUTELY ... I object when 'my' info is in the public domain, as I don't have a web-site and it can only have come through Genes somehow ... thats the only public site I have put my info on ... and now I find living relatives are on One World Tree ... it is possible to email them and get names taken off, but its not easy.
-
I had a person contact me through GR wanting to see my tree. He gave me access to his. After a few conversations I realised that he knew nothing about these ancestors that matched with mine. They were just names to him.
Well, when I viewed his tree it was massive !!!! All he was doing was pasting other peoples research into his tree that matched with his. There were also errors where he never checked any of the information.
Luckily I never let him view my tree. My ancestors are personal to me. I don't just collect names. I try and find out as much as I can about them.
If someone is genuine I don't mind sharing, but I am not out to create the world biggest tree like he was. >:(
Inchworm :) :) :)
-
I agree. What's the point in a family tree, if the people on it are not family!? ???
-
I agree. What's the point in a family tree, if the people on it are not family!? ???
I second that. I want to get to know my ancestors, not just tally them up.
Kath
-
Quite. The fun to me is to find out how my ancestors lived and what they were like. It brings them back to "life" in a rather uncanny way. Esp. when I found out about the exploits of my Grt. Grandfather Peveril Frost. Well, theres a story !!!
:o
-
Well, don't leave us up in the air....... what's the story?
;D ;D
-
Well, having always been told that Peveril (b.1850)was a strict, smart, Victorian, respectable gentleman, it was a shock to find out that he had fifteen children with four different wives. The third he never married because he was already married to number two. He was on the fourth wife (my Grt. Grandmother) by the time he was thirty five.
They say never rely on family heresay. If only they all knew what a ladies man that he really was.
-
It's always the quiet, "respectable" ones, isn't it? ??? ??? ???
Kath
-
The sad thing is, that every son that he had called Peveril, after himself, died as an infant. All the other children survived.
-
See, a bit of a jinx kind of thing. :(
Kath
-
My gt.gt.grandmother had 4 children to 4 different men, didn't marry any of them, if she had done, I'd have had a different surname.............and a much bigger tree ................... :)
-
Thing is, life was really no different then as it is today. We are just open about it now. Trouble is, it makes searching more difficult when you have no marriage cert. to go on. Peveril has lead me on a wild goosechase some of the time. He covered quite a few counties. I still have to find out what happened to wife number two and three, plus three children that seem to vanish off the face of the earth.
Lets hope that 2007 brings some luck on finding them. :D
-
Thing is, life was really no different then as it is today. We are just open about it now.
You only have to watch Eastenders or listen to the Archers to know that is so ... or look at my family tree !
-
How does one get access to people's Family Trees on-line?
I would like to see a few to find out how they are set out, how much information is included, etc.
And what is the best Web Site to publish on-line on?
Kevin
-
I suppose the easiest way is to go to ancestry.com and click on 'Trees' at the top of the page, but please don't go looking at mine !! ;) ;)
-
I have often wondered how secure putting ones tree on the internet and so have found the previous messages interesting.
At present I keep my full tree on tribalpages plus warts and all, so its a ongoing research. On genes only direct line, no living relations, no social or personal information, just the necessary dates. If a contact from genes gets in touch and requires more information etc I copy and paste the line etc required. Also usually tell them where I obtained the information. This works for me.
Do not use ancestry, no real reason accept that on rootsweb there is a tree of one branch of my family somebody has put on slightly incorrect, and although I have been in touch with the owner he has not adjusted it. As you know rootsweb and ancestry are run by the same organization so it seems. Having said that have been in contact with a few ancestry family tree owners and we have exchanged details required etc, and being very helpful.
Happy Christmas.
helina
-
Peoples family tree online are on
- Their Websites - try googling
- Ancestry - as mentioned
- World connect - http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/
- Many other sites such as GR and lost cousins
Bob
-
I recently had contact with someone by email about a part of my family and after a few emails back and forth sent her part of my tree with an email saying 'this is what I have so far' much of it is probably not correct, given it by other people and I am still working on it so don't take it as gospel'.
Imagine my surprise this week when I found her on Ancestry and found that part of my tree in its entirity on the Public Tree section.
That is it, I am not giving anyone else my tree!!!!!! I'm just glad I have replaced all living people with the name Living.
Kerry >:( >:( >:( >:( Empty of Christmas spirit!!!!!
-
Imagine my surprise this week when I found her on Ancestry and found that part of my tree in its entirity on the Public Tree section.
This is all very depressing. :( >:( :'(
It does make me think about whether I should continue with my current approach - which is to publish stuff I am confident about on my RootsChat FH website.
The one saving grace with that approach is that it is not in gedcom format and anyone wanting to copy has to re-key everything. ;D
Problem is that the website has proved to be a very good way of exchanging and discussing info with 4th-6th cousins.
JULIAN
-
I think that if you don't have a problem with people hijacking information, correct or not, then don't worry about it. If you have had success, then I would continue. It's all a personal choice. And most people are good and will talk to you first (did I tell you my middle name was Pollyanna? :-\ :-\).
Kath
-
Lets have no more revelations like that Kath!Seriously though,What I can see are two kinds of Genealogists emerging;Those like myself who are happy to "publish and be damned",and not be concerned about exposure.The advantages in this approach,is that you make more contacts and therefore make more advances in your Family History.On the other hand being more cautious,about exposure.I must say.that if I had adopted this approach,I would still be where I started off;not knowing the proper names of my four Grandparents!
Regards
William Russell Jones
Cefn Mawr
Wrexham.
-
Hi all
I get annoyed at finding my living relatives on other people's trees and the connection is usually very, very remote. Do some people collect 'numbers'?? >:(
I received an email in response to my request to remove my father's name as he is well and truly alive and this 'person' wrote "I thought he would be dead". :o
No wonder my progress is quite slow as I try to verify all my data. I have seen quite a lot of my family all entered with ??......?? and lots of guesses at where and when they died.....honestly. Why bother placing the data on the net if it isn't correct. I notice that the same errors have occurred on various trees - do they just copy one another's data?
I have not placed any of my info on the net as I am at the piles and piles of paper stage. I have only recently started to enter data onto a software programme. In a perfect world ::)
Enough grizzling :)
Cheers and Season's Greetings
Cando
-
I have to admit to putting a tree up on ancestry using the research of others. I have kept it private though, only inviting those that have contributed to see it. I was under the impression that you wouldn't see the details of anyone who is still living, and having done a quick search I don't appear to be there! Only scrolled through a 1000 names though :)
The research that has been done by others has been added to my tree with their full knowledge and I wouldn't dream of making it public without their consent. Also they have added stuff to their trees that I have done.
As mentioned in my post in the main Common Room forum if it hadn't of been for making a discovery through a simple google search I would still be pulling my hair out. This work, submitted on a webpage by a distant cousin was prayer answered. I do though always check everything myself, make sure that I have the correct sources and still have issues with everything that's on the page (for the life of me I can't find where they got some of their information from :().
I suppose it depends on how proprietary you are with the information gathered and your reasons for doing genealogy. I have no qualms about sharing my information but can see why some people would get upset at having their work shown. Perhaps there might be a copyright issue, I'm not a lawyer, and you should be duly referenced like any other author would be in a written, quoted work. I do notice that with the recent changes on ancestry you are able to write a little introductory piece on your submitted tree, an ideal opportunity to reference others.
-
SuttonTrust
OK what if your cousin had asked your permission to display your research on ancestry.com?
downside
-
Hello Downside, not totally sure what you mean. But if it's what I think, I would have no problem with any work that I have done being shown by anyone else. :)
-
Imagine my surprise this week when I found her on Ancestry and found that part of my tree in its entirity on the Public Tree section.
That is it, I am not giving anyone else my tree!!!!!! I'm just glad I have replaced all living people with the name Living.
Kerry >:( >:( >:( >:( Empty of Christmas spirit!!!!!
kerryb - Sorry you have to feel that way but I understand and agree with you.
I have not placed any "tree" on ancestry. I would be very upset if I found any of my information on a "tree" that was there without my permission. However, I have looked at the "tree" section on ancestry just to see if any anyone else is researching my family.
How do you know if the information posted is correct? what research was done to validate the information?
yn9man
-
Hi yn9man
I think perhaps people should be encouraged to use disclaimers more often because what distresses me most is the fact that I haven't got around to checking out parts of the tree so don't know if the information is correct and now it is there in the public domain to be populated by more and more distant cousins as correct information when it may not be.
I was originally given the information by someone else who has done a load of research but I have found various errors on it and have shared the corrected information.
Someone else in the summer contacted me and we swapped information and I notice on his public tree he has acknowledged me so that if people have corrections or further information they can contact me as well as him.
I don't have any problem sharing my tree, it's not exclusively mine anyway but I just wish people would be more honest about what they want to do with the information and also a little bit of give and take goes a long way!!!!!
As I am working through my trees, double checking everything all my sources go and contacts go onto the sources page and I wish everyone would adopt that practice so that people could be acknowledged for the work they have done!!
Kerry :)
-
Hi kerryb -
I think perhaps people should be encouraged to use disclaimers more often because what distresses me most is the fact that I haven't got around to checking out parts of the tree so don't know if the information is correct and now it is there in the public domain to be populated by more and more distant cousins as correct information when it may not be.
I was originally given the information by someone else who has done a load of research but I have found various errors on it and have shared the corrected information.
Someone else in the summer contacted me and we swapped information and I notice on his public tree he has acknowledged me so that if people have corrections or further information they can contact me as well as him.
I don't have any problem sharing my tree, it's not exclusively mine anyway but I just wish people would be more honest about what they want to do with the information and also a little bit of give and take goes a long way!!!!!
As I am working through my trees, double checking everything all my sources go and contacts go onto the sources page and I wish everyone would adopt that practice so that people could be acknowledged for the work they have done!!
Kerry :)
Well said and I couldn't agree more. I always double and triple check my information in an attempt to eliminate research errors. Not always successful but as least I try to keep any errors to a minimum. My family tree has evolved into a bush.
My "list of sources" is now bigger than my family tree. ;)
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours.
yn9man
-
I have found my tree on Genes Reunited, taken from my own website, but everyone in the family knows that i have done all the hard work.
so in a way i am happy, as maybe one of them could do more research and find even more out !
Only once i have had a problem when i contacted a guy who accused me of steeling all his info which he had worked on for 20years, and i had to point out a few facts that the info i had found was A) on the IGI B) paid by me to download certs from Scotland C) my log files to the internet gives the date of unploading which was before i had contacted him.
But that still didnt work and we dont speak ! such a shame.
Ian Markie
-
:) Great to share info if you are a close rellie. I have had contacts with removed cousins and we have swapped great tales about our ancestors. Really broadened the picture.
Its the "copy & paste" types that you have to try and filter out. They should be firewalled !!! >:(
-
Most of the concern is about LIVING relatives, not those who have passed on.
So I have not put any living generations online at all. My family tree online starts at my grandparents and goes back from there, No dates, no places, no info other than names. If anyone wants more info, they have to email me. :)
See my families signature link
BD
-
My family tree online starts at my grandparents and goes back from there
I'm the same (with the exception of my paternal grandmother, who's not dead yet). I never really saw the need to include anything more recent than that...anyone who looks at my site looking for their ancestors won't find them with my parents, since I'm all they produced!
-
I suppose I should have prefaced my post with - I would love to find a rellie with whom I could share information - none seem to be interested or have surfaced :(
I feel most annoyed that I haven't posted any details anywhere on the net but a very distant cousin's friend decided to 'do the family tree' and the the site is full of copy and paste >:( [The distant cousin has stated she is not interested in family history!!] There are details of my immediate family,including my 95 year old father and the name of the small town where they live. Contact with the owner of the web page only resulted in the information being reworded and me being cited as 'working on the history together' :o :o :o
I decided after a family conference, to totally ignore the misinformation on the site. The misinformation has appeared on rootsweb on another person's family tree. My dear old dad summed it up 'who would be interested other than our family, and those that matter know the information is incorrect and doesn't come from us'. Spot on.
We have some lovely old photos and certificates, plus the family bible and feel that these are more important than lots of dates and names. :D
Our family tree is not all that big as the women tended to marry late in life and many of the males stayed single, so not lots of rellies. Very few of us in Australia and many of the lines have 'died out' in UK. However I am getting off the topic ::)
Cheers
cando
-
I am very perturbed when I see trees online that have some of my living rellies on them - e.g. my mother. I know she would hate it so I haven't told her.
Perhaps ancestry should abide by the 100-year rule - no postings less than 100 years old.
The problem is that the more recent it is, the easier they are to trace anyway, except if they moved to another country.
I don't have too much of a problem with identifying people who are long gone, and I don't care at all who benefits from my hard-won research. It was my decision to do it and to pay the associated charges. However, I accept contributions! Who hasn't got something for free somewhere along the road because someone else had paid for it?
Let's not forget that the Nazis did extensive genealogical research and kept extensive records precisely so that they could identify everyone with a dram of Jewish blood in them. You never know how this info might be used later on.
-
I have a couple of questions about the online options:
ancestry.com
I looked at mine on there and it states:
"my tree name" (PUBLIC)
Not shared - (Share this tree with others)
This appears to say that others cannot see it. Am I correct in thinking that ?
GenesReunited.com
Mine has the option set to NOT allow individuals born in the last 120yrs, with no death date, to be shown.
I assume that this also stops others, that may be able to assist me, in seeing relevant links.
-
I am pleased to swap my research with distant rellies etc. but now state that no living people be put on the Net, ...... I naively also put my files on 'Gencircles' years back to find they were copied & claimed as that person's work, I mainly put them there to help other rellies & make contact, but withdrew them when they were talking of charging to look up information on other trees.
I've also noticed Ancestry seems to glean the information from these sites & some rellies don't like the LDS's practices, so it all becomes very complicated.
I only have my own ancestors on the Net now, I feel it's safer & easier to handle.
Cheers, Yvonne
-
I have a couple of questions about the online options:
ancestry.com
I looked at mine on there and it states:
"my tree name" (PUBLIC)
Not shared - (Share this tree with others)
This appears to say that others cannot see it. Am I correct in thinking that ?
GenesReunited.com
Mine has the option set to NOT allow individuals born in the last 120yrs, with no death date, to be shown.
I assume that this also stops others, that may be able to assist me, in seeing relevant links.
Chorlton, not sure about GenesReunited, but with Ancestry you've got yours on view to other ancestry members (public view) and haven't invited anyone to share it. Basically when you submit a tree you can invite people through Ancestry to view it, this is what the share part is! When it's personal, people have to contact you through Ancestry to be able to see it. Well that's how it's supposed to work! :-\
-
I think there used to be the problem on ancestry that the USA cut-off date is 1930 for living individuals - not sure if that still applies..... ???
My neighbour was quite disconcerted to find herself and husband listed on someone's tree with (incorrect as it happens) birthdates. I tried to email the tree owner to take them off but the email address must have been an old one and I had no reply, but I added a post-em note to the site to say they should be removed........
-
just my view, but i think permission should be asked beofre any info is used.i have uploaded my tree to my own site, but because of privacy reasons of living members, you have to log on before viewing the tree.( the rest of the site is public viewing) only people i give a password to can log on, therefore they are all "vetted " before i allow it. i think this helps keep everyone involved happy
steve
-
I can highly recomend Tribalpages for this, stephen, to have access to my tree I need 2 passwords, and only I can decide if I want it open to the public etc.
helina
-
Downside asks what I would have said if my cousin's husband had asked my permission to put the tree on Ancestry. I would have said yes, but if and when someone contacts you about the line that is actually mine, put them in touch with me.
I've shared lots of info on GR. It worries me that a person who got all or some of their info from me then becomes the contact, the expert in that line, and I'm cut out of the picture.
-
I titally agree with you suttontrust and that is why if there was more of an onus on sites such as GR to acknowledge sources and be honest about where the research came from there would be less chance of us getting cut out of the picture.
But I guess GR and sites such as that couldn't care less where the trees come from or how correct they are :( :(
Kerry
-
Yes I totally agree, kerryb, only to day I observed a list of surnames that I have researched, on genes, but what can you do about it. You give information and hope its used senseably. But it is annoying.
helina
-
This is one of the better threads of late.
I am in complete agreement with suttontrust, kerryb and Helina.
You are probably right that the sites don't care if the information is correct or not. The more information the sites contain the more "researchers" the site will attract. Hence the probability of incorrect or wrong information.
Annoying .... very much so but what can we do about it?
yn9man
-
Not a lot prob. At least on GR people have to ask to view your tree. Trouble is they all seem nice at first - then they add everything to their own tree, including your own name. Would be polite to ask first.
Oh dear, I sound like a "Grumpy Old Genealogist" ;D
-
So do I Inchworm, but I've had my fingers burnt once too often now!!!
Kerry :D :D :D
-
I am quite ambivalent about this matter.
In general, I have found that most persons whom I have contacted about my tree are completely selfish. (Those who regard themselves as more serious genealogists are generally by far the worst). They all want a copy of your work, but often will not even give you their own details or those of their family. I would estimate that this applies in one degree or another to more than 90% of all persons contacted.
So for many years I had a strict policy that they must provide some information regarding themselves and immediate family before I would send them what I had. It didn't seem to work, so now I just give my info to everyone who asks, at least sometimes they will contact you to point out a possible error.
Expect nothing in return, that way you are never disappointed, and sometimes you have a win. It is far better for your blood pressure and you will live longer.
Now my tree has become fairly large (12,000+ entries) it would be impossible to give credit to all of those who helped me, so in effect I am only giving away (sharing) information which for the better part was given to me. In this case, the tree does not belong to the person who has compiled it, but to all of those who have provided information in the first place. I now merely regard it as a Family resource which belongs to "the Family".
Personal information, is private and as such is covered in this country (Australia) by the Privacy Act, but no one has proprietorship of family history regardless of how much time and money it has cost them.
I compile my tree as a family resource and for my own pleasure. I have long since given up hoping for any recognition as in most cases it will just never happen. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to many hundreds of people who have helped over the years. My way of showing that gratitude, is by sharing that information with others of the family.
My advice is to make your records freely available to the public, but do so in a manner that would require a lot of work to transcribe, that way persons wanting large slabs of your info will generally get in touch with you asking for a Gedcom. Then you can negotiate some form of exchange of information.
Anyway, that's just my view.
-
Trouble is they all seem nice at first - then they add everything to their own tree, including your own name. Would be polite to ask first.
Oh dear, I sound like a "Grumpy Old Genealogist" ;D
So do I Inchworm, but I've had my fingers burnt once too often now!!!
Kerry :D :D :D
Couldn't agree more kerry. Nothing worse than "burnt fingers". Has caused me to build brick walls around myself and information ...and I really don't need anymore brick walls .... the relatives do that already.
yn9man
-
I also noticed a discussion on disclaimers as to the accuracy of information on the last page.
I feel that disclaimers should be entirely unnecessary, as no one can reasonably expect that information in a tree is any better than than the records used to compile it. Even the public records contain errors. (Many many errors)
e.g. In my tree my one of my Gt gt Grand fathers was shown in the 1881 Census as being a female. (See Francis Clark b. 1816),
Name Relation Marital Status Gender Age Birthplace Occupation Disability
Francis CLARK Head W Female 65 Cumberland, England
Robert CLARK Son M Male 29 Newcastle, Northumberland, England Coal Miner
Source Information:
Dwelling 71 South Row
Census Place Horton, Northumberland, England
ANY information found in ANY family tree is no better than "the best information available at the time" transcribed with all due care.
No guarantees can be given or implied by anyone regardless of how much care is taken.
This applies to all family trees regardless of the owners assurances. And anyone who expects any more than this is just fooling themselves.
-
I have seen family trees which are based on pure guesswork. I was researching a tree and was happy to find one of its twigs on a tree online. Unfortunately, I spotted a flaw straight away. They had found someone with the same name, assumed it was him, and put it out that he was a servant at Buckingham Palace for a few years conveniently between censuses. I emailed through the site to say that they'd made a mistake since the guy was in the local directories back in Scarborough, working at an entirely different profession, for all those years. I got no reply. If we're all doing our research properly, saying that we don't know when we don't, and giving our sources, all well and good. But not everybody does!
-
I must admit that I too have found "convenient" people added to trees. And I must also say that I have entered people who look like probable additions to mine, but always put (Possible Connection Only) alongside their name. Generally I try to weed these out before passing any information to others. Or inform the receiver that they are only included for research purposes as a "possibility".
I am also very wary of persons added that have "famous" connections. It is amazing the number of persons who contact me about my Hepple connections who tell me we are related to the Hepplewhites of Furniture renown and that the family were either famous and/or rich. I think that I have as much information as any on this branch of the family and have never found any possible connection. The truth being that they were tenant farmers and later coal miners in the north of Northumberland who spread to Durham.
Family stories handed down orally seem to be the worst sources of these "Furphies" and should be investigated carefully before adding them to the family tree.
-
I am also very wary of persons added that have "famous" connections. It is amazing the number of persons who contact me about my Hepple connections who tell me we are related to the Hepplewhites of Furniture renown and that the family were either famous and/or rich. I think that I have as much information as any on this branch of the family and have never found any possible connection. The truth being that they were tenant farmers and later coal miners in the north of Northumberland who spread to Durham.
I couldn't agree with you more on this one. I have an uncle who has insisted on a lot of fabrications, including being related to a big furniture company in NYC. I was able to prove that false, but his daughter keeps holding back our research by insisting on believing everything he said.
I still like to share though. I haven't had the kind of luck that senojekips has had. I have had great luck in contacting and sharing. I have also found inaccurate trees online, like the one that has my great-granddad married to a competely different person, and my Irish gg grandmother married to a Russian man, instead of my Irish gg grandfather. I have contacted both tree owners and they don't respond. I also had the woman, who when I contacted her and then mailed a package out to her, I never heard from her and she removed her tree.
But the positives have outweighed the negatives for me and I have shared a lot of info, received a lot from distant relatives, and made some great friends of my new relatives.
Kath
-
My good fortune started when most of one generation migrated to the US. One part of that group became Mormons, living in Utah and Idaho, and of course their records are very detailed. This was responsible for over 1500 entries in one go gladly given by one of the Mormon family genealogists.
This opened up my eyes to other possibilities and i found another similar number or of members who settled in Missouri, and Kentucky. The Kentucky clan were infamous insofar as one of them was the first man hung in Wise County Virginia. A tough old bird who was deeply into the famous Appalachian Feuds. These persons families are all well documented so it all came very easily.
-
I don't really give a monkeys if people put parts of my tree on theirs. I've drifted sideways onto so many collateral by-marriage branches, chances are they're a closer link to them than me anyway ;D
The only thing I would be perturbed about is if people were indiscriminately attaching names for the sake of it. On GR I've gotten messages from people who think that say John Smith born 1870, must be their relative because they've got a John Smith born 1870ish.
My idea of the family history hobby is that you're finding people that are actually connected to you. The people who treat it like a glorified Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game are wasting a great deal of time and effort and I can't understand why they'd bother.
-
I agree Silverhawk. I must admit I am fed up with GR and won't be resubscribing. I have people contacting me and I clearly state there is no connection and they still want to see my tree. I love to see how big my tree is, not because I collect names, but because each one is evidence of my hard work determining that they belong there. A great satisfaction in hard work. :)
Kath
-
Having said that, GR isn't all no-hopers. I'd say a good 75% of my actually connected contacts have come from there. And if it wasn't for GR, my mam would never have been able to get back in touch with her cousin after 30 years, so in my case the good outweighs the bad. Just be a bit careful, make sure of the connection before sharing - that's all you really need to do. Dropping the site altogether would seem a little drastic to me, unless of course you've rarely if ever gotten anything from it.
-
I go on it sporadically, but haven't, in the almost year that I have been a member, had a viable contact. I've had one that might be a connection, but I need to get back 2 more generations, and all the others have been misfires. Although it is cheap, it hasn't been worth it for me. I went through four pages of "hot matches" the other day without one connection. I don't know why I put place of birth for my ancestors. All they match are name and date, so I had about 10 'matches' for my New Jersey born gg grandfather, most in Australia. And that's only one name.
Oh well, I am envious of those who had luck and more power to you, but I haven't had any and mostly find it frustrating.
Kath
-
I have to say it sounds like quite bad luck not to get a single contact. But then if it's doing nothing for you, it makes sense not to continue with it.
Hot Matches is a waste of code, it's much more accurate to do your own searches I've found.
-
Unfortunately I didn't view it straightaway as I was away from home. On my return I did view it and the tree consisted of one person - him!!!!
I
I tried to upload my tree to GenesReunited and all it uploaded was my name - so it may not be his fault.
I do find it a little bit annoying when people "pinch" my stuff, but it is (usually) their family as well, so maybe we should be a little more forgiving.
I still check out all the info others give me - as we all know it is easy to assume, rather than check out the facts.
Happy Boxing Day to you all.
Sooziecats
PS Just been for a walk with my Mum and walked along a derelict alley where her Great Grandfather used to live - I have lived here 40 years and never been down there!
-
Thanks suttontrust for kicking off a really useful thread. It has generated so much interest that I would suggest that the main points arising could be compiled into a guide for those of us who might have concerns about putting our stuff online.
John
-
john -
Great idea. Maybe the moderator will / could arrange.
yn9man