RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Jay9 on Wednesday 08 July 09 16:59 BST (UK)
-
Hi
Does anybody else find it upsetting to find the deaths of close relatives on public trees on Ancestry, my mum died on Christmas day and it was on Ancestry within 6 weeks with full details and is now being copied to other trees, it would of been nice if it had not been put on for a year, out of respect for family. Perhaps it is just me.
Jan
-
My last remaining uncle died last week, aged 95. His daughter views my tree on Ancestry as an invited guest, and I waited until after his funeral to add my uncle's death details (he died in Canada), so that I could be sure that it wouldn't come as a shock to anyone. My cousin saw her father's details on my tree, and she immediately emailed me - to tell me that I'd got his place of death wrong ! :)
Both my mum and dad were dead long before I started doing my tree research, so I'm not sure how I'd feel in your position. I can only speculate that the loss is going to hurt anyway, so maybe it's best to get it out in the open and done with ? Only speculation, though :)
-
No Jan, I don't think it is just you. I think that anyone who wanted to put details of your mum's death into a public tree, it would have shown some courtesy and consideration to have asked how you felt about it. I understand how you feel as I struggled to add my own mother's death details to a tree which isn't public. There was no way I could have posted it for the world to see after such a short time.
Jen
-
Jan
I have much sympathy, my grandad died some 13 years so I was used to his death by the time I started my family tree some 6 years ago but I was upset by the fact that there were at least 4 trees out there with not only wrong death details for him but also wrong birth details.
Ok so I could get over that, but what I couldn't get over was when I informed one person they didn't believe me and to this day its wrong. Errrr hello he was my grandad, I know when he died. :( That person was so distantly related I'm surprised that line was even on their tree.
Kerry
-
I have just had look to see how the one person is related to my mum but I have given up the tree has 43089 names on it, I can see what line they have got my mums name from but not how they are are supposed to be related.
43089 names makes my tree seem rather small. Thanks for the replies.
Jan
-
43089? What am I doing wrong? I doubt if I've got 200 on mine! At least I know all of them quite well!
-
I supposed it depends if you like collecting names and generations or getting to know the ancestors intimately. That takes a lot more time in my experience so you get stuck with less ancestors.
Kerry
-
Jan
I have much sympathy, my grandad died some 13 years so I was used to his death by the time I started my family tree some 6 years ago but I was upset by the fact that there were at least 4 trees out there with not only wrong death details for him but also wrong birth details.
Ok so I could get over that, but what I couldn't get over was when I informed one person they didn't believe me and to this day its wrong. Errrr hello he was my grandad, I know when he died. :( That person was so distantly related I'm surprised that line was even on their tree.
Kerry
I can relate to that Kerry. Someone told me I had my grandmother and my fathers date of deaths wrong. Did this person ever visit the graves or sight the death certificates ::) . I gave them the correct dates but they were adamant I was wrong.
Cheers
KHP
-
The trouble is I'm not even sure where the contact got the wrong dates from, it clearly wasn't from certificates or any primary sources. Probably came from another Ancestry tree, which of course is more likely to be correct than a witness to the event ::) (she says with tongue firmly in cheek) ;D
Kerry
-
Since doing my tree (which is quite small at the moment) I find I get quite involved in each family member and spend ages trying to get it right.
My cousin is also doing his tree and he has loads of names which don't seem to match our family and what gets me is that he has listed my dad's death as ....................., Somerset, England, Maine, USA. :(
Where did that come from.
Frustrating !!
-
hi jay just a bit off the topic welcome to the club the christmas day club my dad died 5 years ago this christmas day so its a visit to the crem before dinner every christmas day when we go there a lot of people are visiting graves or the garden of remembrance but very few people have lost relatives on christmas day.
neil
-
I can understand how you feel a loss is always painful without unthinking folk grabbing the information as if hot off the press!
I am astounded at the number of people particularly Ancestry members of trees that seem to collect information like one would postage stamps. In some cases they use only the Censuses and BMD indexes as proof of our dear families lives. Frequently climbing up the wrong trees by using a lookalike census.
I have thought that I would try and correct their assumptions by just posting a comment to the effect that it is not the number one has but the quality of the information and verification one has researched often at great expense but more often by ones own local knowledge.
But what infuriates me even more is when I see this incorrect information then copied by another person.
I try and and ignore these 'trees', but when I saw your post I was reminded of my own personal sadness.
Thank you
Pat
-
Your experiences make me more determined than ever not to place my very large, but well researched, tree on the web. I have never copied any information...well never found an actual tree about them anyway..... My OH's family are mentioned in several online trees, errors and all.
Someone who is not even remotely related to me, placed some of our family information on the web linked to their own web page. Not in tree form. When I eventually received a reply to my criticism of having living people listed [my father was mentioned and is still living] I received the comment 'Are you sure?" ::) ::) I was also informed that his birth is available on the bdm disks for Victoria...but does that give this person the right to place his details online. He is hoping to make 100 and is nearly there ;D ;D His name is still on the web however the contact email address is no longer valid.
I have also been informed that my complete family ie parents, siblings etc. is on genes whatever. We are all living. My friend, who is a member has attempted to contact the owner of the tree, but to date has received no response.
I feel sad and angry when I view the information about my father but always remember what he tells me..."it's incorrect and it isn't important....friends and family who matter know the correct information...and you keep telling me don't believe things just because they are on the internet". Wise old bloke ;D ;D
Cheers
Cando
-
He certainly is Cando and I can relate to that. I look at it this way I do it for interest and for my family sometimes I get a few shocks and sometimes a great deal of pleasure in the family's achievements; its reward enough.
Good luck, we all can store our 'stuff' in so many ways today without inviting plagiarism.
Kind regards
Pat
-
Hi Cando
I have also been informed that my complete family ie parents, siblings etc. is on genes whatever. We are all living. My friend, who is a member has attempted to contact the owner of the tree, but to date has received no response.
If you can't contact the tree owner then try contacting GenesReunited direct. One of the problems with the site is that it seems to attract people who soon lose interest and they either ignore contact or they change their email address and don't receive messages. I've got 3 young cousins with trees on the site that consist of 2 to 3 generations, mostly still living that I'm sure have no real interest in genealogy.
With regards to the original message where a death was on Ancestry within 6 weeks I'm thinking that it had to come from someone pretty close originally, they would be the ones I would be having a quiet word with. (well perhaps not so quiet)
Andy
-
Hi Andy
Thank you - I will contact genes. I think the information may have been place there by a researcher on my mother's side who has since died.
Cheers
Cando
-
I can understand how you feel a loss is always painful without unthinking folk grabbing the information as if hot off the press!
I am astounded at the number of people particularly Ancestry members of trees that seem to collect information like one would postage stamps. In some cases they use only the Censuses and BMD indexes as proof of our dear families lives. Frequently climbing up the wrong trees by using a lookalike census.
I have thought that I would try and correct their assumptions by just posting a comment to the effect that it is not the number one has but the quality of the information and verification one has researched often at great expense but more often by ones own local knowledge.
But what infuriates me even more is when I see this incorrect information then copied by another person.
I try and and ignore these 'trees', but when I saw your post I was reminded of my own personal sadness.
Thank you
Pat
If this is your attitude, then I am at a loss as to why you feel the need to visit Ancestry at all ? There are lots of other sites where you can look up BMD and census records ???
Why worry so much about what others are doing ? You do not own your ancestors - if someone wants to say that your g. grandfather was the son of Julius Ceasar, then there isn't much you can do to stop them, because you do not own copyright on your ancestors. However, most commercial sites will remove the details of living people if you ask them, (although laws on public information do vary from country to country).
I have a large tree on Ancestry, and I try to ensure that it is as accurate as possible, but mistakes do sometimes creep in, and if someone points out a mistake, and does it politely, then I will always investigate, and correct where necessary. I'm also quite happy to accept data from other people, but I never assume that it's correct, and I do as much as I can to verify. You have to appreciate that with larger trees, it is not possible to verify every single person with certificates, because it would be too expensive. That's what the whole concept of sites like Ancestry are all about - sharing with others. What really annoys me are people who don't want to share their information with others, but who are quite happy to subscribe to sites like Ancestry, so they can enjoy the fruits of other people's work.
-
When my Mum died in 2007 I put her details on my tribalpages tree shortly after her funeral. For me it was another aid to remembrance. It's a private tree though so only open to invited people.
-
I share people's annoyance with those who put details of those still living onto their public trees.
I'm happy to share info about shared ancestors but my ancestry tree is private and my GR tree has living relatives anonymised.
Nonetheless, I sent a couple of old family photos to someone with whom I shared quite a close ancestor, and now there are pictures of my mum as a baby on her public tree - I haven't even put them on my tree. My mother has not given permission for all and sundry to look at her baby pics!
Still, that has taught me to be more careful with whom I share pictures.
-
Ancestry do have a strict policy on photos. If you tell them that this person is using your photos without permission, then they will force them to remove them. I have to say though, that if someone sends me photos, I would assume that they might expect me to put them on my tree, unless they have specifically indicated otherwise.
-
GR is very prompt in removing living relatives from trees if you complain.
Before I "knew better" and had "living" relatives on my tree, one person assured me that details would be removed, but then stopped my access.
Just searched my name to find that she had not done so. Contacted GR and all details were removed within hours
Spring.
-
Hi
"With regards to the original message where a death was on Ancestry within 6 weeks I'm thinking that it had to come from someone pretty close originally, they would be the ones I would be having a quiet word with. (well perhaps not so quiet)"
The original poster on Ancestry was a fairly close relative who had been informed of my mums death, but she found all the details on line in the local paper in the obituaries, as has been said we do not own the information on our ancestors, but I felt that putting it on a public tree so soon was insensitive, but thats just my feelings.
Jan
-
I have my family tree on Rootsweb. I'm also on Geni connected with other LEWIS relatives.
The tree on Rootsweb will also show on Ancestry.
I may have bits and pieces scattered on other sites from 2001,2002
One brother died 2004, I have that information on both sites.
My father died June 2008, I have that information on both sites.
I come from a large family, theres my Mother, surviving 8 siblings, 25+ nephews and nieces and some of them have children.
None have objected.
I do believe living persons details should not be shown. (names are fine as per obituaries)
I've also had 3 new relatives contact me this year after finding the tree on Rootsweb/Ancestry...all LEWIS
Added
Mick
I'm also aware that some of the information is being Gathered
-
I think you assume too much Nick 29 I thought the original post was really about insensitivity in someone inserting information about the very recently dead to me the very recently dead is anyone close to you that has died within your memory.
Actually I never feel the need to visit Gene's whatever or Ancestry or to copy information from the Trees. As for Census and BMD there are many other sites that give far more interesting and accurate information about ones ancestors not forgetting c.d's etc. I find the actual act of just collecting information using such a narrow band rather boring and would sooner have a tree that relates directly to my ancestors than one that has hundred's of loosely connected relatives for which one has only a passing interest. It looks too statistical {to me!}. But that is my opinion and I do not expect anyone else to share this, but I really cannot understand the obsession to gather data that really has little interest to oneself or family. But also if this is what they want to do surely the onus should be with the responsibility to get it right and verify when the trees cross into into another's more direct line? Sometimes the only way to do this is via a baptism or a certificate or a burial record. Rootschat has listed many such links.
It has nothing to do with copyright just good taste and some understanding for the bereaved when the event is recent.
PK2
-
I'm also aware that some of the information is being Gathered
Can you explain what you mean by this? I think I know as I keep seeing trees with 10s of thousands of names on them, but I'm not absolutely sure.
Thanks
Linda
-
@ Linda, yes name gathers, just adding to your family tree from other family trees.
@ PK2 Geni is more a joint project, ie my LEWIS family tree there is connected to several other trees.
I have approx 50 to 70 of my LEWIS's there, (from me up) the others have more or less, the connection between us all so far is being descendants of Edward LEWIS and Mary Louisa DREW.
As far as I am aware you need to be invited before you can view the Trees.
Mick
OOPs, just realised I missunderstood your post
-
I think you assume too much Nick 29 I thought the original post was really about insensitivity in someone inserting information about the very recently dead to me the very recently dead is anyone close to you that has died within your memory. Actually I never feel the need to visit Gene's whatever or Ancestry or to copy information from the Trees.
That's what the thread was originally about, until you turned it into a rant about people on Ancestry. Strange how you know so much about Ancestry and Genes, when you claim you never go there ?
As for Census and BMD there are many other sites that give far more interesting and accurate information about ones ancestors not forgetting c.d's etc. I find the actual act of just collecting information using such a narrow band rather boring and would sooner have a tree that relates directly to my ancestors than one that has hundred's of loosely connected relatives for which one has only a passing interest. It looks too statistical {to me!}. But that is my opinion and I do not expect anyone else to share this, but I really cannot understand the obsession to gather data that really has little interest to oneself or family. But also if this is what they want to do surely the onus should be with the responsibility to get it right and verify when the trees cross into into another's more direct line? Sometimes the only way to do this is via a baptism or a certificate or a burial record. Rootschat has listed many such links.
It has nothing to do with copyright just good taste and some understanding for the bereaved when the event is recent.
PK2
Well it's just as well that we don't all think the same as you, because otherwise we would have no information at all ! How do you think that any of the sites that allow internet searches actually get the dusty old census and church record books into a format that can be searched on a computer ? They're transcribed by an army of people whose interest in family history extends beyond their own families, and they're often unpaid. The same goes for genealogy CDs - without the dedication of people in Family History Societies, they wouldn't exist. You think you're doing all your own research, when in fact you're tapping in to the work done by hundreds of other people, even if you don't crib off other people's trees.
As for the actual subject of this thread - it doesn't pay to generalise. My cousin very recently lost her father and her step-mother in the space of two weeks, and on both occasions she immediately emailed me to ask me to change my family tree to show her relative's deaths. It affects different people in different ways.
-
As for the actual subject of this thread - it doesn't pay to generalise. My cousin very recently lost her father and her step-mother in the space of two weeks, and on both occasions she immediately emailed me to ask me to change my family tree to show her relative's deaths. It affects different people in different ways.
Just to add to that, when my brother died I mainly lost interest in Family History.
When my dad died I realised, after reading a 10 page or so essay he wrote for us to find after his death, how much information he had that hadn't been recorded and I started being active in Family History again.
Mick
-
I can understand that, Mick. My parents died a long time ago, but I still miss them terribly. I look upon their entries in my family tree as an homage to them (maybe that word is too strong, because I'm not obsessive about it). The wake after a funeral is as much about celebrating someone's life as it is in expressing grief, and I'd like to think that my family tree is a celebration of the lives of all my ancestors.
-
Hi Nick
I like your last phrase there '...and I'd like to think that my family tree is a celebration of the lives of all my ancestors....'
I totally agree with that, it certainly has become a celebration for me, of many people that I would otherwise have never known existed.
And that is why I get a bit miffed when I see these people misrepresented in other people's trees, whether it is incorrect death dates or whatever. I know I don't own these people, they are not exclusively my ancestors and I know about all the other arguments put forth in these sort of threads, but it just makes me a little sad that these people can't be bothered to do as much research into their lives as I have bothered to do and to get it right!
I don't lose sleep over it or anything else, I just feel a bit miffed and I know I am not alone. I also know from the many threads that many rootschatters don't get this feeling but I have it, and it is a valid feeling!
Kerry
-
Agree completely, Kerry and Nick!
I see my family tree as a celebration of the lives of my ancestors, including those I have rescued from obscurity. I've published a book about my father's life for family members, as a homage to him, and hope to put together one about my mum (it will be shorter, as I don't have so much information). When I finally get round to writing about the whole family, that will be a major celebration, no matter what they have done in their lives, good and bad, it doesn't matter.
I totally agree with you, Kerry, about our feelings. I feel as you do, and I agree that our feelings are quite valid because they are OUR feelings!
I don't have a tree on the Net for this reason. But I do have text about my ancestors - this has led to a number of useful contacts from distant rellies, but it would be much harder for name gatherers to appropriate it.
MarieC
-
Nick29
I do not think that I should even attempt to reply to any more of your pointless barbs. You chose to broker this, not I, and I think you demesne the original thread that was intended to be sympathetic Everyone here that uses this forum has a right to express a personal observation and mine simply was about the Ancestry trees and the inaccuracies that are inflected on ones ancestors; not Ancestry as an organization. They have very good records especially the Military ones but I never feel the need to scroll through peoples trees except when I was informed about my own by another concerned relative and discovered other instances of my ancestors being 'adopted'. I do not apologies for this copying without verifying is a very lazy way of researching ones family history and denies a person pleasure in the voyages of discovery, that is my opinion. And quite frankly my dear I do not give a fig if it ain't yours.
-
LOL ;D At least my "pointless barbs" make sense. I won't "demesne" your posts any more, promise ! ;)
-
Jan
I sympathise with you, I would find it very upsetting too.
My feeling about putting the death of someone's near and dear in a online tree within weeks of their death displays a great lack of respect and sensitivity to the family of the deceased and just because a person fits into someones tree it doesn't give them the right to publish details of their recent death without regard to the feelings their immediate family.
May I suggest it serves as a warning to all of us not to share details of living family, it only invites the problems you and many others are experiencing.
For the life of me I can't understand the necessity to pass on information on living family members, family history for me is just that history and as long as I'm alive and kicking I'm not putting myself or my nearest and dearest living family in anyone's family history file/online tree.
Sue