RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Rishile on Thursday 15 December 11 12:52 GMT (UK)
-
I have just been looking through some family trees on Ance**ry to see if any of my immediate family are on are anybody else's tree.
I found a tree with someone on there with the same name as my mother - strange enough because my mother's name was quite unusual - but the woman was born about 40 miles away from where my mother was born, a couple of years earlier and married a couple of years earlier than my mother to a different man from my father and in a different area. She also had different parents. No problem.
So, how come she had my mother's death record?
I know it's a simple mistake but it hurts. :'( :'( :'(
Rishile
-
Hi Rishlie
Know the feeling....I was alerted by member connect that someone had saved the same baptismal record to someone I had on my tree but when I looked the person they had attached it to wasn't the same person as my ancestor.... they had attached it to a married woman and the surname on the baptismal record was her married name not her maiden name!
MOIRA
-
could it be that your mum had married someone earlier than your dad
strange things did happen
sylvia
-
could it be that your mum had married someone earlier than your dad
strange things did happen
sylvia
I've just looked at the tree again and they have her maiden name as the same as my mother's married name but the person on the tree has my mother's death record (I know it's my mother's - I registered it). Although the person on the tree was married, according to the tree, her death was registered in her maiden name.
Rishile
-
It can be difficult when it's a close relative, I know, but I'm sure it was a simple mistake :)
-
It can be difficult when it's a close relative, I know, but I'm sure it was a simple mistake :)
I'm sure it was Nick. Maybe I'm being a bit sensitive because of the time of year.
Rishile
-
My Relatives are recorded in the census from 1841 to 1911 in the same UK village, yet some Anc's insist on listing them in a similar town name in USA.
Some people collect thousands of names regardless of any proof, tens of thousands in some trees.
It is a shame you were upset, think of these people as morons.
Best wishes for Christmas.
Mike
-
My Relatives are recorded in the census from 1841 to 1911 in the same UK village, yet some Anc's insist on listing them in a similar town name in USA.
This is an Ancestry problem, in some cases if you don't tell it the village is in England the system assumes it is in America and picks an American settlement of the same name.
Doesn't excuse name chasers or those who blindly accept Ancestry "hints" without checking them though.
Robert
-
I received an Ancestry "hint", although I'm only a guest member, and amongst other entries found my own name on a tree. I then edited the entry to read "living person", so it now stops at my parents, who are both dead. The other entries are correct and can be found in public records anyway. I guess the person who invited me to be a guest member and who is distantly related to me has added my family to his, which is fair enough. I did allow him to see my tree on GR, after all.
Gillg
-
I have found my late (and much beloved) aunt on several online trees: as she had no children and I am an only child, I don't know why she is on anyone else's tree - she only had two cousins and neither of them are interested in family history. I've contacted the tree owners and asked - very politely - what their relationship is to her, and had no replies at all.
I agree with Rishile - it can be very hurtful.
-
Hi Rishile,
When I was a novice I put my family tree on Ancestry. It is still there, but a lot of the personal stuff isn't - why?
Because someone took my grandparents photos (that I'd taken so they didn't find them anywhere else) and put them on as their own relatives. I thought maybe we were related but we are not.
I was devistated for weeks. I wanted to take my tree off Ancestry - I had lots of support from my family history friends and so the tree is still there, but I now no longer put anything personal on it.
It is dates and names and that is it.
On the positive side I have found many distant relatives because they have found my tree.
Last month I met 3 of those family tree cousins at my 3xgreat grandfathers grave. (Yes it was arranged).
I now believe that the good things about Ancestry outweigh the bad. Just don't put anything personal on there that no one else knows but you.
Take care hugs from Ted
-
This seems to be a common problem with online family trees and the subject has come up many times before. My great-grandfather (with wife and children) is listed as female on one tree and on another my grandfather's birthdate is about 25 years too early although correct parents are listed ???
Possibly the biggest shock I had was finding my uncle on Facebook complete with his photograph- since he was born in 1869 and died in 1954 I didn't think he had opened an account :o . Turns out a cousin had done this as uncle was quite famous and she wanted to find others intereted in his acheivements.
-
Unfortunately Ancestry make it all too easy for people to steal photos from other people's trees, although if you complain loudly enough they will force people to remove them.
-
I don't really mind when someone copies photos and records from my tree - what DOES upset me though is when they go back a few years and then DEVIATE and change one of my ancestors for someone quite different ???
Just wish i knew why they do it ::) If the rest of my tree and my photos were 'good enough' why make a conflict?
Bah!!! Humbug!!!
-
I don't really mind when someone copies photos and records from my tree - what DOES upset me though is when they go back a few years and then DEVIATE and change one of my ancestors for someone quite different ???
Just wish i knew why they do it ::) If the rest of my tree and my photos were 'good enough' why make a conflict?
Bah!!! Humbug!!!
Perhaps they know something you don't.
I have to laugh at how possessive some people seem to get over the dead.
Damn-it, that's my ancestor (and the ancestor of my 12 cousins, 50 odd second cousins, only god knows how many third and fourth cousins and likely thousands of fifth cousins. But damn it they're mine!
-
I never publish my tree but will pass on any information if anyone gets in touch. I was appalled to find one of my dads brothers on a tree with a partner and child attached followed by his wife. I have known this couple all my life and they never had any children. I questioned my dads only brother that is alive and he was insistant that he never had any children to anyone - this can cause an awful lot of trouble and heartbreak.
-
I have to laugh at how possessive some people seem to get over the dead.
I get possesive as it's the only thing I have left of my mum and her side of the family, the knowledge of where she came from.....where i come from.
Rishile is right when she says it hurts when people use details that you have put out there without checking them and making sure that there is a genuin connection.
Personally I think that people who do that arent really interested in the facts or the truth but just how far back they can go. At the moment I'm having problems getting past my g grandad and I've seen information from someone else's tree that may work but I won't use it until I'm 100% confident it's correct.
Bit of a pain really as I really want to move onto the next generation but can't :)
Apologies for rambling, not long home and needed a stiff drink to get over the manic crowds and queues :D
Have a merry Christmas all.
Michelle
-
I have to laugh at how possessive some people seem to get over the dead.
I get possesive as it's the only thing I have left of my mum and her side of the family, the knowledge of where she came from.....where i come from.
Rishile is right when she says it hurts when people use details that you have put out there without checking them and making sure that there is a genuin connection.
Personally I think that people who do that arent really interested in the facts or the truth but just how far back they can go. At the moment I'm having problems getting past my g grandad and I've seen information from someone else's tree that may work but I won't use it until I'm 100% confident it's correct.
Bit of a pain really as I really want to move onto the next generation but can't :)
Apologies for rambling, not long home and needed a stiff drink to get over the manic crowds and queues :D
Have a merry Christmas all.
Michelle
People who copy info from trees without checking are ignorant - but the world is full of ignorant people; it's nothing new. For instance there are currently more incorrect trees than correct trees with two of my great-grandparents on them on ancestry right now.
But getting possessive is absurd. By my reckoning two of my great-grandparents have 43 descendants - 40 of which are still around. Are they still my and only my great-grandparents? My great-grandparents between them have potentially c160 descendants. Expecting exacting standards from everyone is a waste of time. Should I be presonally offended by someone else's uselessness? hah. The GRO index misspells my grandma's maiden name. My granddad's uncles death index has one date, his baptism a second and birth certificate a third, 11/12/13, Should I be offended? My ancestors have given barefaced lies to the census enumerators, should I be offended? Some of my cousins are a bit dim and don't check details, should I be offended? ;D
Frankly if you're so thin skinned I don't know why any of you have put anything out there in the first place.
As for 100% confidence in anything - good luck with that. Perhaps I'm being a bit too cynical but that's just the way it is.
-
I think we have to accept with the massive increase of interest in family history there are going to be new, and sometimes undesirable, attitudes to the subject. In recent weeks I've received several messages about my family tree which were abrupt to the point of rudeness. One I think just said 'WHO ARE YOU'. Charming :o
That doesn't mean that we have ownership over our ancestors, but maybe just a little over the information that we post. I've noticed too that a lot of people are so lazy they can't be bothered to find the correct ancestor, as long as there's one with a similar name withing about 50 miles of their target area they'll snaffle it ::)
-
Frankly if you're so thin skinned I don't know why any of you have put anything out there in the first place.
I don't think I'm particularly thinskinned - and I don't claim sole possession to any of my distant ancestors, as you seem to suggest - but it is particularly hurtful when a much-loved close family member has just died and you find them in family trees with which they have no connection (in my case it was within a few days of the announcement of the funeral arrangements - we hadn't even buried her). And she did not appear in my online tree.
And I still think that if someone is going to collect names and publish them online, they might have the decency to reply to questions.
-
Interesting discussion here. I tend to think that anything you put online is no longer 'yours' and it has to be accepted that people may take that information and use it in whatever way suits them. That could entail bolting your ancestors into their tree on the assumption that you're both researching the same people.
I've seen my ancestors in other people's trees, and sometimes it is good to see that my own research matches what someone else has come up with (making me feel more confident I've got it right), and I've seen my ancestors connected to completely incorrect families. In a few cases I've contacted the tree host but it seems very hard to persuade someone that they've got it wrong. They tend to assume I've got it wrong! So all in all I think there's no point worrying about it - if in doubt, don't put it online.
Worse than Ancestry trees are people with personal websites where they proudly display their tree, sometimes with errors. Again, I've tried pointing these out from time to time but never with any success. C'est la vie.
In a few cases, the content of people's trees has given me food for thought and opened up a new avenue I can research myself to confirm/deny. I've also made contact with a few distant relatives using such trees, which again can be very useful. So not all bad. I think it is worth having some kind of sparing online presence so that you can be contacted and can help others (and be helped).
-
Interesting discussion here. I tend to think that anything you put online is no longer 'yours' ......
It never was. You don't own your ancestors any more than they can own you :)
-
I think the answer here is, unless you are prepared for the possibility that your tree becomes merged into a totally unconnected tree, don't put it anywhere that is public.
I removed my public tree from Ancestry after some photos were copied, but I am willing to open it to people who are genuinely connected. What I wont do is open it to some one who just sends a message such as I got last week, saying, "Can I see your tree?" I then reply, "Yes, after you've told me where you think the connection is." Often that is the last I hear of them.
What you also have to remember that information is readily and easily available these days from lots of sources and, as has been said before, there are a lot of people who see a name and think, "That's one of mine." and add it to their tree without checking.
A couple of years ago I had a contact from someone in Australia who had, what she thought, was a member of my family in her tree. I was able to send her details to prove this was wrong and even found the correct line for her. She thanked me and agreed she had made a mistake - but I see she still hasn't altered her tree. Her loss not mine. ::)
-
As far as I can see, the whole idea of publishing our trees etc is to connect and exchange information with others doing the same research.
If people take advantage of that and copy large amounts of your tree to theirs (then meddle with it) without letting you know where their connection is, or giving you the chance to comment it's going right against the spirit of the thing, and just plain rude :o
Really, I think the whole thing comes down to a question of courtesy - plain old fashioned manners.
-
I have been looking for my 6 x gt grandfather for years and got really excited when I found 6 trees on the A site which had his baptism. I wrote to all 6 and 5 of them replied all with the same answer ' I copied it from someone else's tree' I had a trip to the records office, but found no trace of my ancestors. I did write back and tell them that I had checked PR's, BT's, RO & settlement records etc. etc. No one has altered their tree. I think people like that are just playing at it and hopefully don't do it for long, but the damage is already done if their tree is online.
The 6th person never replied, so I'm blaming her!!!
Happy Christmas :)
Carol
-
There will always be people who abuse any system. However, to find out who is responsible for determining the accuracy of any 'fact' found on the internet, just stand in front of the nearest mirror ;)
-
I have a brick wall with William and Anne Grant my 4 x great grandparents' dates of birth and origins. I just have a marriage entry for 1784. I was really excited when I found a good half dozen Ancestry trees with a baptismal date for them both. I searched everywhere and couldn't find any record to confirm. Eventually I e-mailed them all explaining my problem and asking where the dates had come from. It transpired that they had all copied from one source (family bible, I was wondering). After a couple of months the source replied saying that she didn't have any records of when they were born but had "ESTIMATED" based on the average age for marrying in 1784 and used the "of this parish" as an assumption of place of birth! I was so disappointed. Back to the brick wall.
Jenny
-
After a couple of months the source replied saying that she didn't have any records of when they were born but had "ESTIMATED" based on the average age for marrying in 1784 and used the "of this parish" as an assumption of place of birth!
I probably still have some examples of this sort of thing in my tree. Reason being that I began recording my tree on Genes Reunited, where I was forced to enter a place and year of birth. I could mark it as 'approximate', but a blank wasn't accepted. So I had to make some estimates. Now I have my tree on a software programme, and I'm free to leave blanks - but there still may be some estimates remaining from when I transferrred the original gedcom.
-------------------------------------
I wish everyone would lighten up about all this. It's a hobby, and people have varying degrees of interest in it, varying degrees of experience and expertise, and varying amounts of time and attention to devote to it. No one is out to upset you or "steal" from you. Nothing can be stolen from you unless you are permanently deprived of it. And as someone has said, if you are going to dabble in your family history you cannot afford to be thin-skinned. There may be all manner of upsetting things lying in wait for you to discover them.
-
I discovered Ancestry shortly after my husband died,he had tried finding out about his father's parents but his dad didn't know much, since they died when he was young,and we had had no luck with other surviving relatives so this seemed like a good idea. I was horrified when I recieved a hint ,one of those family trees and there he was attached to it,one of these was genuine, but the other had both of his maternal grandparents lines and he was an only child of an only child.It took me a while to get over but I decided to ignore it ,and that particular tree owner I automatically ignore . I know my tree is not 100 percent accurate but I do try and verify each addition as I make it.
Liz
-
Heavens forbid any of you find a connection to a murderer like I did the other day.
-
Heavens forbid any of you find a connection to a murderer like I did the other day.
Well you're not the only one....
-
I discovered Ancestry shortly after my husband died,he had tried finding out about his father's parents but his dad didn't know much, since they died when he was young,and we had had no luck with other surviving relatives so this seemed like a good idea. I was horrified when I recieved a hint ,one of those family trees and there he was attached to it,one of these was genuine, but the other had both of his maternal grandparents lines and he was an only child of an only child.It took me a while to get over but I decided to ignore it ,and that particular tree owner I automatically ignore . I know my tree is not 100 percent accurate but I do try and verify each addition as I make it.
Liz
Sorry, I don't understand the problem here.
-
Sorry, I don't understand the problem here.
Me neither. My grandmother was one of 11 children, and most of those went on to have 2.3 children (my mum was one of 11 too), and they in turn have done the same.
If at least one of those had an interest in genealogy, I wouldn't be at all surprised. Through genealogy sites I have discovered at least half a dozen 2nd cousins, and through one of those we found the 'family Bible' which had been missing to most of the family for about 50 years.
Surely the whole point of genealogy sites is to make contact with other extended family members ? :)
-
I think the difficulty arises because we all automatically assume that everyone else is doing their tree with the same amount of diligence or lack of it and in the same way that we are. I try to make sure that I have checked and double checked everything with original certificates and censuses before I add it, although I may be less rigorous with siblings of the line I am following and that has caused me problems but I have to choose between limiting my credits somewhat or divorce. When I looked at other trees I used to expect them all to have done the same research, although if I had half a brain I would have realised earlier than I did that if someone has over a thousand names on their tree they are unlikely to have checked it all thoroughly and are probably just copying large chunks of it. Now I regard other people's trees as suggestions and tips as to lines of research which have occasionally turned up gold, in one case photographs and a portrait of my 2xG grandfather for which I will be forever grateful.
Jenny
-
I've learnt the hard way never to take the accuracy of someone else's tree for granted.
I like to think I am diligent and do my best to make sure my work is accurate but sadly I don't think everyone is the same.
Only today I discovered that someone has added a brother and sister born in Kent, who are on my tree, and put them as children of a couple from Hampshire. Why, I cannot work out , as there is no evidence that the couple from Hampshire even had children with those names. I am now wondering if I should point out their mistake or leave it up them to find out for themselves
-
I now write little notes in the comments part of my Ancestry tree with things like "this might not be correct " or " just found this and still investigating".
Oh and I do have over 1000 names on my tree and most have been thoroughly researched over 5 years.
But it I have any wrong - I would love to someone to help me correct it.
-
Hi all
I don't think you can assume because someone has over 1,000 people in their tree that they have copied chunks of it. Surely it depends on how long they had been researching. I started 28 years ago in 1983. I've never copied anyones tree, but mine does contain an extended family as I have also searched my husband's line, brother in laws, sister in laws, and stepfathers lines. I'm beginning to run out of fresh lines to start !!
Carol :D
-
I now write little notes in the comments part of my Ancestry tree with things like "this might not be correct " or " just found this and still investigating".
Oh and I do have over 1000 names on my tree and most have been thoroughly researched over 5 years.
But it I have any wrong - I would love to someone to help me correct it.
I too have over a thousand names on my tree. I have copied the odd person from other peoples trees but only after I have checked the details for myself and found the original source.
My only real moan is when I put living people as private on my tree and then find their details on other peoples trees.
I have found my details and those of my husband on other peoples trees. Only in one case have I managed to get these removed. We're neither of us as young as we were but at the last count we were both still classed as living!! :D
And yes I too am very grateful if someone suggests a correction it sometimes opens up new pathways.
I would guess that most of us have been in the position where we were sure the information we added was correct and then later new information has revealed that we were wrong. I certainly have come across
errors in my own tree that I have made and I think I'm careful ::) ::)
-
Well, I'm not trying to boast, but my tree currently stands at 6173 people :o
Why ? Various reasons.....
a) When I started researching my wife's tree, I (foolishly) continued her line back from her entry on my tree :-\
b) Because I'm exploring every branch line on my paternal side, to try to prove whether the many people of the same surname (and often the same profession) living in the same hamlet as my g.g. grandfather were actually his relatives, and
c) to try to establish where the family originated.
My tree is on Ancestry, and is visible to all, and I don't really mind who uses the information from it. As far as I'm concerned, genealogical research is about sharing information.
However....... now and again I have to play "What if ?"..... quite often putting an 'educated guess' in, which quite often brings up some promising suggested matches in Ancestry. Although I always put notes saying things like 'educated guess, cannot prove', this is often missed by people who take it as verbatim, and then complain because I've allegedly misled them. So now, I have a separate small private tree which is not found by Ancestry's search engines, where I can try out my "What if's' to my heart's content. I also cannot afford to purchase certificates for the people in every branch line that I explore, so I can't vouch for people in the 'outer reaches' of my tree, although I always do as much as I can where the budget allows. Sometimes it's hard to explain to people that I do my research for my benefit, and my entertainment, and my enjoyment, when they complain that they have been misled by my data.
Even though, of course, the onus of proof is always with the recipient of information, not the donor :)
-
Well said, Nick.
I would add that there is no law against researching families to which one has no personal relationship. Many people around the world research local history topics (such as war memorials) and it can sometimes be helpful to draw up family trees around individuals of interest.
-
A few years ago I got in touch with a distant relative, who has a massive family tree on her website, tracing her ancestry (and mine, I assume) back to the Kings of Scotland and throwing in a few Vikings as well. ::) We share the same gt-gt-grandfather. We corresponded a few times by email, and discovered that we had both known some of our shared relatives at some point in the past, which was nice. Some time later I looked at her website and discovered that she had added my parents, myself and husband and our children. She must have found my mother's birth date and done some rough calculations from there. She obviously didn't bother to check my parents' marriage date and assumed that they married at 25 (they were 30) and had children straight away (there was a quite a wait for the arrival of my brother and later me). She then assumed that I married at 25 (no, I was 30) and that my children arrived straight away (again, there was quite a wait). In consequence she has me, my husband and my children shown as 15-20 years older that we actually are! I have tried to get her to correct these errors, but so far without success.
I wonder whether the Scottish and Viking kings were arrived at in the same careless way. ;)
-
Perhaps someone with a tree twice as big as yours is a generation younger than you. :D
-
I stand corrected on my thousands comment! It was just a number I plucked out of the air so please don't take offence, none intended. I am seriously impressed with those of you who have reached that sort of number genuinely. It makes my 150 odd, of which I was so proud, look pathetic.
Jenny
-
I'm researching several trees. some blood line, some in-laws. I've been at it for quite a while and now my research amounts to quite a few people. If I'm not too sure of a name or an event I pop it down anyway and mark it as a query. In the same way, when I come across someone with one of 'my' less common surnames in the same village, I pop them onto the tree in the belief that there bound to fit in at some point.
I've no doubt that others looking at my trees would be hard put to find the method in my madness, but I do try to be careful with more recent records that might be a bit raw to anyone else who came across it, but I do find major problems with photos other researchers might have sent me, I'd love to ask permission to put them on my tree, but always have that niggle of doubt as to whether I'm asking the right person - so I don't do it. :-\
-
I agree with you about photos and recent generations. It's odd, I hadn't really thought about it before, but I would be shocked if I found myself and my immediate family on someone's tree. I don't know why I am being so sensitive. Maybe it's that I think one ought to be going back in time from oneself; and that going back and sideways and then forward in time to someone else's family in the present, and putting it on a tree without permission, seems to be an invasion of privacy.
-
People who host family trees on their own websites which feature the details of living people are reckless in the extreme !
If someone did that to me, I would be on to the company which hosted the site and give them 24 hours to take the site down, or face legal action. Proper genealogy sites never feature the details of living people.
-
People who host family trees on their own websites which feature the details of living people are reckless in the extreme !
If someone did that to me, I would be on to the company which hosted the site and give them 24 hours to take the site down, or face legal action. Proper genealogy sites never feature the details of living people.
Hi Nick
Unless the information on the website is libellous or is covered by some sort of court supression order or is factually incorrect there is little that you could do. Including living people in an online tree is not illegal. Newspapers and other media publish information about living people all the time without asking permission.
Andy
-
You will be amazed at the effect that a solicitor's letter can have ;)
-
You will be amazed at the effect that a solicitor's letter can have ;)
Any company hosting websites would, or at least should, have their own solicitors who would quickly tell them that it was perfectly legal.
Andy
-
LOL, you mean like this one, who don't allow any such thing ? I don't know if you've ever run a web site, Andy, but I have run several, including internet forums and I can tell you that what web hosting companies' Terms and Conditions say, and what the law says are often poles apart. On one forum that I used to run, I had to eventually ban a couple of people because I was getting warnings from the web hosting company, because although what they were doing was not strictly illegal, they were breaking my contract with the hosting company.
Added later.....
Here's part of the Terms and Conditions of one of the larger web hosting companies in the UK.....
The customer shall not :
send, transmit, make available, copy, retransmit, broadcast or publish (whether directly or indirectly) in whatever form any data, information or contractual rights, material or statement which infringes the Intellectual Property Rights or contractual or statutory rights of any person or legal entity or the laws or statutory regulations relating to defamation, contempt, blasphemy, infringement of privacy or personal data rights and any equivalent or related laws in any territory in which they are or may be accessed or made available;
-
Individual websites can, and do, make their own decisions about what they allow on their websites.
Certainly hosting companies do get concerned about the content of websites, particularly libel, and no doubt err on the side of caution but if you search the internet you will find many websites that have information about living people including many of the sites that we use in our research. For instance transcriptions of baptisms and marriages are on many sites, I have several entries on Ancestrys Australian Electoral Rolls that have my address, most blogs would mention living people, and of course social networks are full of references to living people.
Andy
-
I agree with you about photos and recent generations. It's odd, I hadn't really thought about it before, but I would be shocked if I found myself and my immediate family on someone's tree. I don't know why I am being so sensitive. Maybe it's that I think one ought to be going back in time from oneself; and that going back and sideways and then forward in time to someone else's family in the present, and putting it on a tree without permission, seems to be an invasion of privacy.
I am so sensitive that I removed my post here.
-
Individual websites can, and do, make their own decisions about what they allow on their websites.
Certainly hosting companies do get concerned about the content of websites, particularly libel, and no doubt err on the side of caution but if you search the internet you will find many websites that have information about living people including many of the sites that we use in our research. For instance transcriptions of baptisms and marriages are on many sites, I have several entries on Ancestrys Australian Electoral Rolls that have my address, most blogs would mention living people, and of course social networks are full of references to living people.
Andy
Yes, of course I am in no doubt that I can find a lot of personal information about myself on Family History sites, but not all at once on a single page, and certainly not to people whose own identity has not been checked. I'm fairly certain that if I saw a website which gave my DOB, place of birth, details of my father, and my mother's maiden name, I could get them to remove that data within 48 hours, especially when this is the sort of questions that banks and credit agencies ask. The UK Data Protection Act 1998 is also pretty specific about the data which you are allowed to store in digital form, and how you are allowed to store it.
-
People who host family trees on their own websites which feature the details of living people are reckless in the extreme !
If someone did that to me, I would be on to the company which hosted the site and give them 24 hours to take the site down, or face legal action. Proper genealogy sites never feature the details of living people.
Exactly what legal action could you possibly take?
The Information Commissioner has stated it is perfectly acceptable to publish information about living people on one's own personal family history website.
It would be an offence for a Family History Society or other Commercial concern to publish such details but it is completely legal for individuals to do so.
I am totally opposed to the current craze started in the USA to censor information.
Our ancestors fought and died to protect our freedoms including freedom of free speech and I find it abhorrent that people try to prevent others exercising what is in fact a basic human right.
Obviously one would not publish personal details such as medical history or financial history etc., but dates of birth, marriage and death are public records and it is perfectly acceptable to publish such details.
Cheers
Guy
-
I have no issues with freedom of information/freedom speech. Nor do I have any problems with people putting information which is in the public domain on an online tree.
My point was that I thought it was somewhat insensitive for someone to publish on their tree the date of death of my aunt before we'd even had chance to bury her - this must have been taken from the funeral notice in the local paper - and exceedingly insensitive not to bother to respond to my perfectly polite query as to what link they had to her in their tree.
-
Yes I agree with that, as with all rights and freedoms there comes a responsibility.
Cheers
Guy
-
Since when were we talking about legality ?
I could get most family trees taken down because they are infringing the T & C's of the hosts.
-
When I first began FH it was an unwritten, but essential rule that we didn't publish information on living people - and by extension, the recently deceased.
:oSadly, this rule has gone out of the window of late.
-
When I first began FH it was an unwritten, but essential rule that we didn't publish information on living people - and by extension, the recently deceased.
:oSadly, this rule has gone out of the window of late.
When was that flipflops?
When I started it was the common practice to include everyone (including the living) on ones tree and published information, but that was in the 1950s.
We used to hand transcribe our trees and send details by post, later in the late 60s and 70s we used to photocopy (at not inconsiderable expense) and again post details.
Obviously personal details such as telephone numbers, wage, etc. were not included, but general birth, marriage and death dates were.
During the early days of the internet (late 90s) I had a number of complaints due to me not including living people.
I have also had numerous emails thanking me for including graves of those recently deceased as it allowed relatives living at a distance to view their relations grave.
Cheers
Guy
-
When I first began FH it was an unwritten, but essential rule that we didn't publish information on living people - and by extension, the recently deceased.
:oSadly, this rule has gone out of the window of late.
Indeed, for I, too, and still it is an unwritten rule, out of kindness and care for others.
-
When was that flipflops?
When I started it was the common practice to include everyone (including the living) on ones tree and published information, but that was in the 1950s.
We used to hand transcribe our trees and send details by post, later in the late 60s and 70s we used to photocopy (at not inconsiderable expense) and again post details.
Obviously personal details such as telephone numbers, wage, etc. were not included, but general birth, marriage and death dates were.
During the early days of the internet (late 90s) I had a number of complaints due to me not including living people.
I have also had numerous emails thanking me for including graves of those recently deceased as it allowed relatives living at a distance to view their relations grave.
Cheers
Guy
We had one of these complaints the other day.
I discovered Ancestry shortly after my husband died,he had tried finding out about his father's parents but his dad didn't know much, since they died when he was young,and we had had no luck with other surviving relatives so this seemed like a good idea. I was horrified when I recieved a hint ,one of those family trees and there he was attached to it,one of these was genuine, but the other had both of his maternal grandparents lines and he was an only child of an only child.It took me a while to get over but I decided to ignore it ,and that particular tree owner I automatically ignore . I know my tree is not 100 percent accurate but I do try and verify each addition as I make it.
Liz
Fact is there's no pleasing everyone. So why bother.
-
I'm sure that if Guy were to try his recollections a little harder he would also realise that in the 1950's there were not gangs of people spread across the world able to use very cheap means to steal someone else's identity for financial gain ::)
-
This all seems to be getting a little personal!
-
The problem lies in who actually owns the information, and who has access to it. I find it bemusing that I cannot go onto Scotlands People, spend credits and get information about anyone I wish if they are still living, but I can go down to my local council registrars office, pay an hourly fee, ask them to look up the same record, and tell me ALL the relevant information I wish to know from that record that is contained within, which I then can write down and use as I please.
The government is looking at
"Introduction to the UK Government Licensing Framework"
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/government-licensing/the-framework.htm
I have recently asked them several questions regarding this and await their response.
If people wish to use information related to me in a way which is false, as in their family tree, then this does not affect me at all. It is they who are wrong, not I. It changes nothing in my historic origins.
There is a post and subsequent thread about DNA testing, for trace-ability of origins. One has just to look at history prior to the recording of decently accurate records, about illegitimacy, pillaging and raping that went on in the past, and in some areas of the world still does. Where then is the correction in accuracy of trace-ability when comparing data. There will always be wrong data held in family trees, as the system of data collation will never be perfect.
Regards
Malky
-
Have been following this thread with interest, bemusement, embarrassment, indignation (and many other emotions).
1. The web is a public arena which is something I have tried to make my son understand, yet have been guilty of forgetting myself.
2. We all make mistakes. Problem is that "once it is out there it is out there" - even if one tries to correct it or remove it later.
3. Internet family history "etiquette" is personal and a learning experience. What one might do as a beginner changes over time, experience, realisation etc. So we all need to be forgiving.
4. Its a shock when one finds details of oneself (or close family) online (ie found my overseas birth the other day legally published in gov index which would not be allowed in my current country of residence). But if I tried hard enough I know I could track my life fairly easily online through "official channels", newspapers etc let alone what could be found easily elsewhere.
5. No matter how well you think you have "researched" your alleged ancestors (recent and historical) no-one can absolutely "know" that the "milkman" wasn't involved anyway.
6. Its a changing information world, the ramifications of which are not yet clear
cocksie
-
The problem lies in who actually owns the information, and who has access to it. I find it bemusing that I cannot go onto Scotlands People, spend credits and get information about anyone I wish if they are still living, but I can go down to my local council registrars office, pay an hourly fee, ask them to look up the same record, and tell me ALL the relevant information I wish to know from that record that is contained within, which I then can write down and use as I please.
Which is fine with me, because it's a well-known fact that most of those engaged in identity theft are 'not of these shores'. I don't think many people are going to be buying a return ticket from Africa to visit a Scottish registrar. They are also unlikely to purchase expensive memberships to genealogical sites. But when people are putting the information out there on the internet to be viewed for free, (often with a helpful photo), then why not ?
-
Nick, I think that you missed the point of what I was saying. I find it strange that the Data Protection Act protects restricted access data in one sense, ie direct online from Scotland's People, but the same restricted access data is available from the same source, Scotland's People, through another source, Scotland's local council registrars offices. Anyone can access this information.
One further point, since you mentioned Africa, some bad news, there are Africans living here in Scotland, some of whom are probably related to "your ones" back in the darkest continent.
I really do not see where the recent Scottish etc "restricted access information" information is kept, or would be kept in Nairobi etc.
After all, it's not our dead ancestors that are being scammed, it's us, the living.
Regards
Malky
-
I'm afraid these days you don't have to take out an expensive sub to a genealogy site...they offer free 14 day trials during which time anyone can use them them rip off the information on other peoples trees....and I know exactly what that feels like as its happened to me.
I am not ashamed to say I cried my eyes out when someone with a tree on a different website to the one I use got a member of their family to take advantage of a free trial with the website on which I have my tree to 'steal' copies of every document, certificate, photo and story for five generations of one family and their connections.
Normally I am quite happy to share with those that contact me but this person ignored all four of the messages I sent to them politely asking to talk to them and hopefully share information....instead at the end of the trial they simply cancelled their membership and merrily went on their way.
I was so upset as that tree had taken me six years of hard slog and expence...copies of the certificates alone amounted to more than £300. Call me niave if you like for putting them on my tree in the first place but it was my tree, I did all the work to make it what it was so surely I should be able to illustrate it in anyway I choose. I just couldn't believe the ignorance of this person, surely if they 'needed' my info so badly then we must be connected so why not swap and share?
Consequently all my trees are now private and no one gets an invite to view until I am totally satisfied they are genuine honest researchers.
-
Normally I am quite happy to share with those that contact me but this person ignored all four of the messages I sent to them politely asking to talk to them and hopefully share information....instead at the end of the trial they simply cancelled their membership and merrily went on their way.
So sorry that you had such an upsetting experience :(
Simply, what happened to you was a form of piracy >:(
For what real purpose I simply can't imagine - maybe it's one of those scavenger hunt thingies :-\
-
Thanks Flipflops
I was furious as well as upset.....without rambling on about all the details I am pretty sure that what they did was deliberate and planned....sad because its left me not trusting anyone now.
I can understand it if people help themselves to stuff thats on an open website that the whole world can view but being on a genealogy website that you need a sub to use I thought my tree would be safe from such unscrupulous people....obviously not
Had to put it all down to experience and to realise with sadness that not every family history researcher has the same honest scruples as I do.....bet the where the sort who used to cheat at school!!!
-
I'm afraid these days you don't have to take out an expensive sub to a genealogy site...they offer free 14 day trials during which time anyone can use them them rip off the information on other peoples trees....and I know exactly what that feels like as its happened to me.
True, but most 'free trials' need a credit or debit card to enable them (you cancel after 14 days and they don't charge the card) but the card is still verified. Doing this is a very cheap way of getting a creditworthyness test :)
-
I am not ashamed to say I cried my eyes out when someone with a tree on a different website to the one I use got a member of their family to take advantage of a free trial with the website on which I have my tree to 'steal' copies of every document, certificate, photo and story for five generations of one family and their connections. ....
I was so upset as that tree had taken me six years of hard slog and expence...copies of the certificates alone amounted to more than £300. Call me niave if you like for putting them on my tree in the first place but it was my tree, I did all the work to make it what it was so surely I should be able to illustrate it in anyway I choose. I just couldn't believe the ignorance of this person, surely if they 'needed' my info so badly then we must be connected so why not swap and share?
I can understand being upset if real documents, photographs etc were physically stolen from you, but you haven't actually lost anything, have you? You still have all those things. Imagine how much worse it would be if you lost them in, say, a house fire.
-
No I haven't physically lost them and one of the main reasons I uploaded scanned copies to my tree was in case anything happened to the originals but to have that amount of value copied all for free by someone else without my permission or consent was heart breaking, to say nothing of all the stories written by me that were also copied which contained years of research using a variety resources.
Unless this is has happened to you it is hard to appreciate exactly how upsetting it can be. If I had had a dress design or a novel copied in this way I would have had the law on my side but a geanolgy tree has no protection
-
No, I really don't get it. It is disappointing when people don't share, or don't reply to messages, but I really don't mind people copying chunks of my tree. It's no skin off my nose as they haven't deprived me of anything.
I have still had the great pleasure of doing the research, which I don't regard as "hard slog". Yes, there has been some expense, but that's offset by the anticipation and excitement of discoveries. None of this has been taken away from me, but someone who just copies large portions of family trees has missed out on all of that.
What does upset me a bit is that I can't interest my family on one part of our tree. There are only three of us descended from this branch, but they just aren't into it, so I have no one to share this part of the journey with. I so wish I had started it a few years earlier when our parents were alive.
-
I so wish I had started it a few years earlier when our parents were alive.
Oh - I wonder how many of us have said that before :'(
I know I've lost count
Rishile
-
No I haven't physically lost them and one of the main reasons I uploaded scanned copies to my tree was in case anything happened to the originals but to have that amount of value copied all for free by someone else without my permission or consent was heart breaking, to say nothing of all the stories written by me that were also copied which contained years of research using a variety resources.
Unless this is has happened to you it is hard to appreciate exactly how upsetting it can be. If I had had a dress design or a novel copied in this way I would have had the law on my side but a geanolgy tree has no protection
No you are wrong, you have copyright and database protection, but it is up to you to chase it through the courts and prove your case.
Cheers
Guy
-
To Sloe Gin
Don't get me wrong ...its not that I don't like sharing, I'm more than happy to. My cousin and I share every scrap of info and I have several other distant relatives who connect to mine or my in laws tree with whom everything also gets shared
I think the reason I found what this particular person did so upsetting was the way in which it was done....at the time I had been almost exclusively working on that section of my tree for six years trying to solve a family mystery. During that time I had only come across one other person connected to it but their tree appeared to be dormant, not used for years, so when I thought I had finally found someone still actively researching I was very excited ...at last I might have someone else with whom I could discuss the problems and share the triumphs.
Of course I was disappointed when they didn't answer any of my messages but I could have lived with that...what made my disappointment worse on this occasion was when I discovered exactly what they had done ...used the free trial only to access my tree so they could take copies of all my work.....something akin to bank robbers devising and carrying out a heist....it was the thought that their actions had been deliberate and planned in that way that made me genuinely feel like I had been robbed
I can't help but think that type of behaviour despicable and dishonest....why behave in such a callous selfish manner.... Surely sharing and discussing is to everyones benefit?
-
I think what needs to be considered more is that one persons tenth cousin, three times removed is another persons grandfather.
There is an online site about a branch of my family and the website host and myself share Gtx7 grandparents. Obviously her direct line is more thoroughly researched than my direct line but she does have information on there about some of my line. I first contacted her because she had my grandfathers death as 1911 which was when he was 10 years old. This was obviously not the case or I would not be here. She accepted that she should have said After 1911 as she had no further information about him after the 1911 census so the error was just one small word. She corrected her site and everything was fine. But that one small word meant far more to me than it did to her twig.
I also feel that people who steal information from others trees are missing out on so much. The feeling that you are getting to know your ancestors is not something that can be done by copying chunks from someone elses work.
Rishile
-
Sloe Gin,
I know how you feel about your family not being interested in one part of your tree. My family have no interest in any part of our tree! I'm doing an in-depth search on the direct line of my Grants and the lives they lived. All our family records and photos were lost in Hurricane Hattie and the ensuing tidal wave in the 60s so it is a real start from scratch. Every time I find a reference in a book, something they wrote or a photograph or picture I am so excited. My husband occasionally indulges me, the boys say "Very nice, Mum" and my mother and sisters express mild curiosity but no-one shares my thrill of the chase.
My husband has just seen this post over my shoulder and said it's not true that they aren't interested, just that they don't share my "obsessive interest". Hmmm!
-
I so wish I had started it a few years earlier when our parents were alive.
Oh - I wonder how many of us have said that before :'(
I know I've lost count
Rishile
I don't think my parents would have been very cooperative if I'd been researching while they were alive. My mother was very straight-laced, and wouldn't talk about any 'misdemeanors', which included her own ! My dad left home very young - his mother died when he was 6, and he was brought up by an aunt, who was only recently widowed herself, and he wouldn't talk about his family very much.
-
I so wish I had started it a few years earlier when our parents were alive.
I DID ::)
I started asking as a child (not that there's much chance of me having written it down) but might have remembered a thing or two. All I got were the standard put downs Mum DID once say 'I could tell you a thing or two about THEM if I wanted to' but seemingly she never wanted to because she never did, even when I was a mother myself :'(
-
The reason I regret not starting it earlier is not for what they could have told me, because that wouldn't have been very much. But to share with them what I have found out. My poor mum would have been a bit in denial about some of it at first, but would have put her own spin on it and would have become thoroughly caught up in the sagas. She would have loved to have known that her GG grandparents were in the Workhouse ...... as Master and Matron! Her brother would have loved everything, warts and all and they would have had some marvellous squabbles about it. Such a shame that my cousins aren't v interested ("it's just a list of names and dates")
As Rishile mentioned "the feeling that you are getting to know your ancestors" and in our case, because they didn't take any early interest I have left them far behind in this respect, and it must be a rather forbidding wall of names now. But that's not my fault as I tried my best to share from the start.
I have no complaints on my father's side as there are lots more living rellies, most of whom find it all as fascinating as I do.
-
I wish I had started earlier so I could ask my parents questions and also share the stories.
My mother knew a few details which I am sure she mentioned but I never listened at that stage. Now those details would fill in a few gaps along the line.
My father rarely spoke about his family unless questioned - and I never questioned. My father would have loved to have known that his family had moved around the country so much - he never travelled very far because my mother hated travelling.
I'm sure we all have regrets. It's never too early to start but it can be a bit late if you're not careful.
Rishile
-
My poor mum would have been a bit in denial about some of it at first, but would have put her own spin on it
Sometimes I can almost hear her (http://bestsmileys.com/ghost/2.gif)
"It can't have been our (insert name). It must have been another (insert name)"
"Well, I expect he was going to pay the man"
"They can't just have been tinkers, I expect they were real Romanies. They had their own royal families, you know"
(http://bestsmileys.com/lol/16.gif)
-
Rishile mentioned the feeling that you are getting to know your ancestors,
I felt it just yesterday on coming across a report on britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk on the inquest on my 3xgt grandfather. Age 79, he'd been to the pub to hear the newspapers being read, came home and sat in his chair to relay the news to his son and daughter, fell back in his chair and died. It didn't sound too bad a way to go...
-
All very well saying I wished I'd started earlier .... but I still wouldn't have found a quarter of what I know now. There's so much easily available now that wasn't then, and more all the time. No - what I really mean is that it's sad that they aren't with us now.
Moderator Comment: A comment removed; language unnecessarily harsh.
-
Heavens forbid any of you find a connection to a murderer like I did the other day.
Well you're not the only one....
I am a distant cousin to the Kray Twins. One of their 3xgreat grans was the sister of my 5xgreat grandfather.
I dont mind people copying info in my tree on Ancestry as I want to share the information. But when I find new info on another ancestry tree I like to check for myself as many ancestry trees are false. And I have found they seem to have a lot of my ancestors down as doing a lot of Atlantic hopping and being born in namesake places in America to their real England birthplaces such as 3xgreat grampy born in Soho, New Jersey, USA. I need passenger lists now urgently. ;D ;D It was Soho, London. These mistakes are due to the drop down menus which can be very annoying.
And I am not sure if everyone in Ancestry trees actually existed. Such as someone who had 3 siblings born in a parish yet I have found no record of them.
-
It makes no difference when one starts, there will still be earlier generations one would liked to have talked to.
I wish I could have talked to my Great-grand parents but they died before I was born.
Cheers
Guy
-
Moderator Comment: A comment removed; language unnecessarily harsh.
This comment gives a very misleading impression of what I wrote. I refute the suggestion that I used "harsh language".
-
I so wish I had started it a few years earlier when our parents were alive.
I DID ::)
I started asking as a child (not that there's much chance of me having written it down) but might have remembered a thing or two. All I got were the standard put downs Mum DID once say 'I could tell you a thing or two about THEM if I wanted to' but seemingly she never wanted to because she never did, even when I was a mother myself :'(
The problem is that genealogists really only get to see the 'official' paperwork - we often have to read between the lines to get a glimpse of the history that maybe they wouldn't want us to know :)
-
The problem is that genealogists really only get to see the 'official' paperwork - we often have to read between the lines to get a glimpse of the history that maybe they wouldn't want us to know :)
the minutia of their lives is the sort of thing families could tell us that would link us more closely in understanding who and where we came from. Trouble is, I guess often THAT's what leads to letting out the really big secrets :-X
-
Of course, what we may sometimes lose sight of is that attitudes to certain aspects of life have changed dramatically, even in the last 50 years. Today, we don't even have a second thought about people living together whilst unmarried, or having children. 100 years ago, living together when unmarried would make you the talk of the village, whilst having children whilst unwed could easily get you drummed out of it :o
My dear cousin (who died recently) was a lovely person, but she had a child to a man that she lived with and never married, and was branded by many in the family as a 'loose woman' - a name she really didn't deserve.
-
Like so many young people today both my children lived with their partners for a time before getting married, but at least my grandson does have married parents. It must be a nightmare for the amateur genealogists who have to work out the parentage and ancestors of children from unmarried unions often without the father's name being included on the birth certificate.
-
I must admit I feel sorry for future geneologists with some of the problems they are likely to encounter.
Surrogacy, Frozen Embroyos meaning children are born five years after their fathers died, twins born five years apart, marriages in strange places like airplanes, underwater, on small islands in the middle of nowhere, identity theft.
If they ever allow cloning of humans or bringing people back from the dead fifty years after they died, I'll give up. :o
Rishile
-
I had no idea people would be upset and offended at people adding information from public family trees on Ancestry to their own tree. Ancestry makes it very easy to add pictures and information from public trees to your own tree so sorry but I thought the intent of public trees was to share information.
I have private trees because I do want some control over who I share my pictures, certificates and information with. Although I just finished a public tree with information I am happy to share and I don't expect people to ask me - that's why I made it public.
I am sure I am not the only person who didn't realize that some people with public trees want to be asked if you can use the information they have posted. Do you think those people who want permission could post that somewhere on their tree so those of us who would never think to ask would do that.
Vivien
-
I had no idea people would be upset and offended at people adding information from public family trees on Ancestry to their own tree. Ancestry makes it very easy to add pictures and information from public trees to your own tree so sorry but I thought the intent of public trees was to share information.
I have no problem with people taking information from my public tree on Ancestry, as long as they have checked that it is correct before they use it. Grabbing someone else's grandparents and tacking them on to their tree, whilst changing the facts to fit is not only extremely annoying to those who did the original research, but it also perpetuates the sharing of complete untruths among those who are too idle to check them.
And yes, Ancestry does make it too easy for people to steal photographs, and it is also a breach of Ancestry's rules to take them without the permission of the original owner. The problem is that the practice is now so rife that it's often hard to trace the original owner of many photos.
-
I had no idea people would be upset and offended at people adding information from public family trees on Ancestry to their own tree. Ancestry makes it very easy to add pictures and information from public trees to your own tree so sorry but I thought the intent of public trees was to share information.
But surely it's only polite to ask?
Cati
-
My favorite boss would always reiterate the saying 'Say SOMETHING - even if it's only (h hmmm) goodbye.
Seriously though, it's true that Ancestry and the like have made it a bit too easy.
Of course, once someone has paid their sub it's not totally unreasonable to think they can just 'go for it'. Unfortunately the result is that more and more people are making their tree private.
Maybe hosting sites could include some kind of 'permission' button but include some kind of automatic permission for long dormant accounts?
-
But surely it's only polite to ask?
Cati
There's a very easy solution to this. If you want people to ask why wouldn't you just make your tree private?
Vivien
-
I am curious to know where you find Ancestry's rules about taking or as you say "stealing" photographs. It is actually easy to see who owned the original photograph. It says on Ancestry who posted the picture originally and I think if the original poster removes the photograph it is removed from every one else's tree who attached the photograph to their tree.
Vivien
And yes, Ancestry does make it too easy for people to steal photographs, and it is also a breach of Ancestry's rules to take them without the permission of the original owner. The problem is that the practice is now so rife that it's often hard to trace the original owner of many photos.
-
This would all be helped a lot of Ancestry were to be more accurate regarding their subscribers.
Many times I have seen a message on my home page saying 'Genie' (or whoever) has added a census record for John Smith to his/her tree in the past two days. When I click on Genie's profile it tells me that he/she hasn't logged in in the past six months. In fact, my own profile tells me I haven't logged in in the past six months yet there's hardly a day goes by that I don't. If we were able to, accurately, access whether these tree owners are currently researching or not, it would solve a lot of problems.
Rishile
-
The problem for many of us is that, usually for the most altruistic of motives, we've put our information 'out there' with the hope of contacting other people researching our lines and hopefully share information, but by doing so we make it far too easy for any anonymous person to glean information without ever contacting us or sharing what they know.
I really don't understand why so many people don't want to share but it's been my experience that they don't, so as things stand the only answer is to keep our trees private which I imagine goes against the whole idea of Ancestry, but what the hell ???
-
I am curious to know where you find Ancestry's rules about taking or as you say "stealing" photographs. It is actually easy to see who owned the original photograph. It says on Ancestry who posted the picture originally and I think if the original poster removes the photograph it is removed from every one else's tree who attached the photograph to their tree.
Vivien
And yes, Ancestry does make it too easy for people to steal photographs, and it is also a breach of Ancestry's rules to take them without the permission of the original owner. The problem is that the practice is now so rife that it's often hard to trace the original owner of many photos.
It is tucked away in the Terms and Conditions, and the whole area surrounding this is a bit 'grey' because copyright laws vary from country to country, and Ancestry is an international site. In the UK, the copyright on photographs is 70 years fom the date that the person who took the photograph died (unless he/she had sold the copyright to a third-party). If the photographer is unknown, then copyright extends from the date that the photo was taken. So, most of the photos on Ancestry will already be free of copyright restrictions, but from experience I can tell you that if you make enough fuss with Ancestry they will try to 'persuade' the offenders to remove the photos. If the theft of photos is important to you, then you should consider putting fairly obvious watermarks on your photos saying something like 'Taken from ....... without permission", but of course this is fairly useless if the horse has already bolted, as it were :)
-
Recently I found that my dad's photo has been attatched to two different trees on ancestry, along with all of the photos and stories that I had on my gdfather and gtgdfather. Since I'm not a paying subscriber at the moment a friend sent them a message saying that I was eager to get in touch..and to see how were we related.
Unfortunately they haven't replied, which most likely means that not only are we not related, but that they KNOW that we aren't related!!! (otherwise the'd get in touch) And therefore know that the data they have is wrong!! Perhaps, giving them the benefit of the doubt, that originally they thought it was correct and can't be bothered to eliminate all 'their' hard work....but come on guys....it takes two mins to write and explain, hey, I'd even help them find their own kin.
I believe that most of the errors on trees can be excused....there is a lot of dta and it can get confusing..but what can't be excused is the lack of communication ..which is really one of the basis of genealogy...and a 'Please', a 'Thank you' and a 'Would you mind' do wonders for getting information!!!
Gillian
-
I just really don't understand why people would post a tree on Ancestry and not respond to emails but I've had that happen too. It's frustrating. Fortunately I've had more people reply than not.
This may not be the reason they are not responding but I recently changed my email address and didn't realize just how many places I had to change my address. Maybe they are away, or ill or....?
Vivien
-
When I click on Genie's profile it tells me that he/she hasn't logged in in the past six months.
Dear Rishile,
If you don't log out your log in date is the date you last logged in. I just looked at my profile and I hadn't logged in for the past six months. So I logged out and logged back in and now my profile says I last logged in Today.
;), Cheers, Ted
-
I didn't realise that Tedscout - but that proves my point.
There's a difference between 'JohnSmith hasn't logged in for six months' - implying he hasn't used Ancestry - possibly due to his subs running out and 'JohnSmith has been logged in for six months'. This would imply he uses Ancestry regularly so it could be worth trying to contact him. I have never bothered trying to contact anyone who 'hasn't logged in for six months' assuming I wouldn't receive a reply.
Silly me!! ::) ::) ::)
Rishile
-
Not so silly. When I had my 2 weeks free subscription, I didn't even realise this facility existed!
-
Thank you Tedscout I have just checked my profile and updated it.
You're not alone Rishile I use Ancestry nearly every day for something and hadn't realised my profile was telling people I hadn't logged in for months ;) ;)
Jo
-
No problems Jocie
I like Ancestry and use it nearly every day. I found out about the staying logged in problem by contacting someone with the line "I know you haven't been logged in for 6 months but I think we are related"
only to get the reply back straight away "but Im logged in now and your profile says you havent been logged in for 6 months"
Now I try to remember to check and update and this topic reminded me I hadn't updated for quite some time. ;D
-
I thought that too - never thinking to check myself ::)
What we really need to know is when a person last 'used' the site.
As for me, I've been logged on for so long I'm not sure I'd remember my password if I logged out now ;D
-
For me, part of it is the bad feeling of having been taken for a fool.
If I'm out in public and I hold a door open for someone, if that person brushes past without saying thank you, it bothers me, first because I think it's rude and second because it feels as if that person either thinks I'm so inconsequential as to be invisible or so below them as to be their servant. The whole encounter, such as it is, may only last five seconds, and I'm not actually injured in any way, but it leaves me (however briefly) with a sour feeling and a question of whether I should bother to be so courteous in the future.
Magnify that to feature a hobby that is more of a passion, into which I have poured years of serious dedication and thousands of dollars, all being appropriated, sometimes without permission, usually without so much as a thank you. I feel used somehow, taken advantage of, when a simple thank you or the sharing of information, however minor, would have shown some kind of tangible appreciation for the gift I have given them free of charge, out of the goodness of my heart.
Another example. A niece and nephew are now 22 and 21 years old. I tucked $50 of my own hard-earned cash into Christmas cards for each of them. If I don't receive a thank you from them, they won't receive another penny or gift from me again. (I could have bought at least four genealogy certificates with that money! ;))
I did have a few trees online a few years ago. I took them down because it bothered me too much when people copied and pasted without thanking me, without being related to most of the people on my tree, without sharing any of their information with me, and even copying my info and then putting it into a private tree that I wasn't allowed to view. I had my trees online because I hoped to make contact with distant relatives. I learned that not everyone has the same motives, or manners, as me. I was naive.
I understand that some family history buffs may consider me thin skinned because they don't share, or understand, my feelings. Those are my feelings and, even though I might not fully understand them myself, once I realized the way I responded emotionally to the online behaviour of many people, all I could do was take my ball home and refuse to play on their playground anymore.
Now, before I share information, I seriously consider how I would feel if... and if it would bother me too much, I don't share the information. Since I'm the only serious researcher into my and my husband's families, and the only accurate information online about my family originated with me (see above), I'm not missing out on not being contacted by relatives. One hundred percent of the time, if and when people have contacted me or vice versa, I have always done more research and had more information than them.
I have appreciated being able to view other people's work online, and have at times used it as a guide, but always seek to prove the data myself through my own research. Maybe one day my feelings will be less sensitive and I will post my trees again and not care about the things that bother me now. Anything's possible. :)
-
I agree with you completely Josephine...but I am still in the delemna of 'Public' or 'Private'..Awhile back I realised that a tree on ancestry was growing every day with all the information on one particular line in my tree..photos and everything. I tried contacting..to no avail and so, feeling stupid, gullible and taken advantage of..I made my tree private.
The next day who and behold a message from this other tree's owner asking permission to see my tree. It turned out to be a genuine family connection. She had no qualms about copying my info and even said.."Your tree has helped me so much..I got back 5 generations in two hours thanks to your tree".. :o
However..I was pleased to be in contact with another branch and thought, hey...if your tree is private they are obliged to contact you...so I left it private.
The next week I saw a photo on another tree which was relevant to my tree. Being who I am (stupid!)..I wrote ever so politely,,asking if they didn't mind me 'borrowing' their photo...who it was for...the connection and all. I mentioned that my tree was private but I was willing to exchange any information.
Her reply was that as her tree was public anyone could take anything (implying I was stupid to ask) and as for sharing info...that she couldn't be bothered with my information because anyone who's tree was private was not open to critisism! :o BOING..Hit on the head. :o
Next day I returned to Public!!
To be Public or to be Private...That is the Question!
-
That is the question, indeed, gcrossley! ;)
-
I am curious to know where you find Ancestry's rules about taking or as you say "stealing" photographs. It is actually easy to see who owned the original photograph. It says on Ancestry who posted the picture originally and I think if the original poster removes the photograph it is removed from every one else's tree who attached the photograph to their tree.
Vivien
Not true, but I wish it was. My tree was public initially, but has been private since I realised that my photos were being copied. The photos of my parents, grandmothers and children are on the tree of someone who has now topped 57100 people. I have tried repeatedly to appeal to her better nature to remove them from public view. She will not. These photos are no longer on my tree but remain on hers, also on the private tree of someone who ignores my messages. I have no problems with someone saving time by copying searchable public records that I have already found, but personal photos are a different matter. And yes, I expect some to think 'how stupid' to attach the photos in the first place.
-
It says this under Content Submission Guideline in Ancestry
We are sensitive to the copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. Be aware that content, including photographs, even if submitted to a site of which you are a member, belongs to the creator or submitter and you should not reproduce it without permission of the owner and that photographs of living individuals must not be posted without their consent.
So really if you contact them is should be removed, but people know you cant really do anything about it.
-
Concerning photographs - I realise that once a photo has been passed on to a contact with mutual ancestry, one cannot say don't publicise it. However, what I did find strange was when I saw a photo (taken kindly for me by someone else) of my great-great-great-grandparents' gravestone that had my name printed on the front of the photograph. I did not take kindly to that and asked the people that had the photo in their trees to remove my name; they didn't take kindly to my request.
Edited (omitted words)
-
I think this is a 'no-win' situation.
Most of us that use this site are careful about what we put online and wouldn't use other people's carefully researched information without asking.
My tree is online but it is private and I give access to people who ask.
In spite of this a few years ago I gave access to a lady who with distant connections and she added not only the available information (which was fine) she added all the living family as well. This information was not on my tree so she must have looked it up and this included the death of my niece who had only recently died leaving two very young children.
She put this in her online public tree.
The email I sent was carefully worded but she got the message and they were removed!
Equally I have had people who have been extremely grateful and happy to share their own information.
Without these people I would not have been able to progress my own tree as far as I have.
Definitely a 'no win' situation :D
Jo
-
It surprises me that people take photos from An**estry as gospel when they wouldn't necessarily take the information with a pinch of salt.
I found a photo on a tree a couple of years ago. This was listed as being my Gt Grandmother and her son, Thomas. At that time, knowing no different, I assumed that was who it was. I was delighted as I haven't many family photos. I contacted the owner but got no reply. Eventually I 'risked' saving the photo to my PC but did not put in on an on-line tree.
The other day I was searching for photos and this one turned up time and time again on different trees. Then I noticed that on all the trees the photo was labelled 'mother and son, Thomas' but was actually attached to Thomas (My Gt Grandfather) according to the dates. So, now I don't know if this is my Gt Grandparents or Gt Grandmother and Gtx2 Uncle and have no way of knowing.
Rishile
-
A few years ago I noticed a picture of my father's gravestone (poor photo, impossible to read) on a relative's Ancestry tree which was a bit upsetting since he was still alive and doesn't have a headstone :o :-\ ;D
P.S. as of this morning he's still not dead ;D
-
Very pleased to hear that aghadowey :)
I often wonder if any other RC members have had their family added to the same tree that I have a problem with.
The tree in question had 57101 people on it yesterday. Having checked it again around 10 minutes ago I saw that it had increased to 57140.
3 have been added in the last few minutes. 57143. Now that is some family ::)
I'll post this before the count goes up.
Amendment. Just after posting the count went down to 57141, then up again to 57142 ???
No wonder she won't respond to my messages - she's too busy ::)
As you were. it's back to 57143 :-\
-
Not that I'm counting ;) , but the number is now 57151.
People Records Photos
57151 49148 11686
Surely this person must be annoying others beside me. I doubt if she is asking permission from the original submitters before adding all those photos to her tree.
Am I whinging? Maybe.
-
How on earth can you have that number of photographs.Many of our photographs have no name on to say who they were and we only have a limited number---less than 50 on ancestors.
L keep getting emails saying more content has been added to the tree---probably every day.
These people must spend all day on the computer probably sifting through other trees to add to theirs----often there is no verification.
Like everyone else I get so annoyed ,upset by these inconsiderate people.
Ringrose
-
Maybe she's a member of the LDS church going for her gold badge ? ;D
-
Have you had any response from Ancestry when you reported it Sue? Surely as they say that they are sensitive to copyright and that "content, including photographs, even if submitted to a site of which you are a member, belongs to the creator or submitter and you should not reproduce it without permission of the owner " they have some obligation to remove anything that is copyright.
-
All I had from Ancestry Jan was the suggestion that I write a lengthy missive proving ownership of personal photos.
All they need to do is look who first submitted them - me.
Doesn't necessarily PROVE that the photos are mine, it's a pretty good indication though.
If the photos were of common ancestors there wouldn't really be a problem, but my grandmother with my children on her knee, that's another matter, especially as this person is totally unrelated to any of them >:(
Nick - her profile says spiritual not religious. LDS? Perhaps not.
As for a gold badge ::) :-X
-
Personally, I find this thread strange.
I have an ex-directory number.
I do not have my name or adress on the open census forms, as I asked them not to post the information.
I do not openly post my details on the internet.
I have 3 e-mail accounts.
I have one large family tree which I keep private.
I am on the telephone preferential service.
So basically, I have done all I can.
My ISP's have been selling my e-mail addresses for years. (Common practice)
Every time I buy something over the internet, I am in the situation of losing control of my e-mail address, depending on the seller(s) and their privacy policy.
If I wish to share any information about myself with anyone else, I bear the consequences of said sharing, and accept what has/will happen/ed as the primary action came from myself.
We have just been given a copy of our family tree done by another member of our family. It's a load of rubbish. This family member cannot even get the information correct regarding living relatives, never mind the dead ones.
He is happy spending money on special binders and printing etc.
We do not care one bit. It changes nothing.
It is just like history. That is only the account of the person who recorded it. In reality it may not have happened that way.
Regards
Malky
-
Concerning photographs - I realise that once a photo has been passed on to a contact with mutual ancestry, one cannot say don't publicise it. However, what I did find strange was when I saw a photo (taken kindly for me by someone else) of my great-great-great-grandparents' gravestone that had my name printed on the front of the photograph. I did not take kindly to that and asked the people that had the photo in their trees to remove my name; they didn't take kindly to my request.
Edited (omitted words)
Then I asked ancestry to ask people to remove my name that someone had printed.
-
Did they Joy?
-
No. They wanted me to prove who I was, that I was the named person on the photo, quoted various copyright statements to me and said once I had given proof, then they would consider taking it to their court somewhere.
It all sounded very complicated and long-winded.
-
I don't know if this link will work - http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/4893731/person/118846551/media/48b26460-9d99-41ed-a0c0-ea8a1ff34016?pg=32768&pgpl=pid
"I would be interested to know how you came by this photo of mine, and who put my name on it. Thank you."
I received no reply on this occasion.
-
Think the link only works if you are a subscriber- I get the page offering Ancestry subscriptions.
-
I'll see if I can put the photo here.
-
The link worked for me Joy.
Did you not contact the other one? Although she probably got it from the first. :-X
The first doesn't have many people on his tree though. Can you find any connection?
As you say though, it does have your copyright mark on, so why won't Ancestry act on that.
You probably had the same response as I did. Makes you wonder whether to keep on handing them money ::)
-
Yes I did, but there was no reply.
It looks like my copyright, doesn't it? But I had not put my name on it and don't know why anyone else would put my name on it without my permission; I really wouldn't have wanted the world to see my name. Still, it's been there a while and there is nothing I can do about it.
More can see it now here, I have got used to it :)
-
Being a gravestone it holds the name of the ancestors of, I should imagine, many people.
Anyone walking by can photograph it - although certainly would not have your name on .
The photos I'm furious about are of people, one of my children and my grandmother was taken in her house. Not something anyone else should have unless I gave it to them.
-
Joy, you should have put "Taken without permission from Joy Dean"
-
Joy, you should have put "Taken without permission from Joy Dean"
I think I shall do that. Thank you. :)
-
I think I may do the same Nick.
The latest way I've been heading my comments: 'please remove this photo as a matter of courtesy'
That hasn't worked as yet.
-
Joy, you should have put "Taken without permission from Joy Dean"
I think I shall do that. Thank you. :)
Actually, I felt good after having done that :)
-
But what really did upset me, a few years ago:
Being "green" at this sort of thing and not knowing how to send a partial GEDCOM to anyone, I sent my GEDCOM to a recently-discovered cousin, not anticipating that he would merge it into his family tree programme. But he did and then sent his GEDCOM on to someone else. I shall not put the someone else's name here, that would be wrong, but that person has a site into which all details sent are included. One could say what's wrong with that? it was sharing. I am happy to share with people but I was not at all happy about all the information in my family tree being included in that site. It included living people's details, all the notes I have, not just census, not just what can be found in the public domain, but personal information known only to us, such as nicknames, people's hobbies, that sort of thing. It caused a rift in my family when close relatives learned of this. I attempted asking the owner of the site to remove the information. After much time and arguing, when I was told that the people whose names were there had to do the asking (babies can't do that nor can anyone else who didn't know their names were there!), names of living people were removed (I hope), but the personal information is still there.
I learned my lesson and since then pass on information by descendant reports that I have carefully edited.
-
Joy, you should have put "Taken without permission from Joy Dean"
I think I shall do that. Thank you. :)
Actually, I felt good after having done that :)
I've done the same but forgot to put my name. A lengthy comment went along with it, and copied to every photo of mine that she has. Also tried to message her again but she's bocked contact - "This member has chosen to not be contacted.
We're sorry. You are unable to reply to (name) because they have currently chosen not to allow other members to contact them. You may want to check again later in case they change their settings."
Perhaps we are expecting the same behaviour from others Joy that we practise ourselves.
As they say - once burned.......
-
As she has done that Sue, it sounds as if you aren't the only one she has annoyed.
-
I do believe that I've annoyed her by repeated request to remove the photos so don't know if it's just me she's blocked.
All she needs to do is take off my family photos - simple as that.
-
An**stry must take some steps to protect their members and to maintain the quality of their site.
They have to modify the 'easiness' with which people can copy the information..with two or three clicks you can copy everything. I'm sure that if these people had to study the trees, copy all info name by name on a sheet of paper..and then enter it name by name, date by date, into their own tree..Many wouldn't get very far because they want to fill in the blanks quickly and easily. And maybe this way, by reading the info, they would realise that 'Joe Brown' who was born in Yorkshire, in sept 1885, could not have a sister born in Scotland in oct 1885!!!
And I believe there should be an opcion..if you have a public tree..which photos, stories, etc you wish to remain private , even if they are photos of non living relatives.
Gillian :)
-
Joy, you should have put "Taken without permission from Joy Dean"
I think I shall do that. Thank you. :)
Actually, I felt good after having done that :)
I've done the same but forgot to put my name. A lengthy comment went along with it, and copied to every photo of mine that she has. Also tried to message her again but she's bocked contact - "This member has chosen to not be contacted.
We're sorry. You are unable to reply to (name) because they have currently chosen not to allow other members to contact them. You may want to check again later in case they change their settings."
Perhaps we are expecting the same behaviour from others Joy that we practise ourselves.
As they say - once burned.......
Indeed.
-
I'm confused.
Came home to a notification that a new reply had been posted here but can't see anything new.
-
I'm confused.
Came home to a notification that a new reply had been posted here but can't see anything new.
It could be that a spammer has posted on this topic and a moderator has removed the post. Looking at the name of the poster it is similar to the name of the poster on another topic where the message had also disappeared
Andy
-
I got the same message - thank the Mods for jumping on the spammers
-
It actually makes me cross when people don't bother double checking the info they are pinching. Especially when I go to the trouble to say "hey, good try but this person doesn't fit into your tree for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
But they DON'T CHANGE IT!!! ???
-
Hey Deb - maybe people don't care about their ancestors like we do.
-
Anything to have a name in a box I think! Bit dumb.....
-
That was me that deleted my own message, i had second thoughts about what i had wrote.
I am glad i did, because after following this post i messaged an individual on An#####y and they promptly replied with a very apologetic message and photos were removed.
Apologies to everyone. No spam intended !!!!
-
By the way andycand, which other message have i deleted? because this was the first time that i had used that option . Regards Caron.
-
I wish the person I have contacted would do the same regarding my photos Caron.
Susan
-
I think you've been unlucky Sue and just come across a name gatherer. The person I contacted last week and asked them to correct my father's information apologised and did so immediately.
-
Very true Jan.
I contacted someone else who had some on her public tree and she removed them and apologised if she'd caused any offence, and she actually HAD connection by marriage with my grandmother.
I told her that she was welcome to the photos for herself, no problem there at all, just didn't want them publicly viewable.
-
My problem was that i had invited a lady to view/share my private tree.Unfortunatley she copied a large amount of my tree and lots of photos onto her public tree!!!
I suppose it was my own fault.
-
I hope it wasn't the one with over 55000 people on her tree Lennie.
I know for a fact that I'm not the only one she's annoyed or upset.
-
That thought did cross my mind.
Her tree is massive,loads of it appear to copied, with no new information on it.
-
I no longer contact people who have massive trees after what happened to someone I know. Now I totally distrust that they are real trees being researched by genuine family historians
My friend contacted someone who had a tree with over 45,000 people listed. The male tree owner replied with a rather vague answer but insisted further contact be made through his e-mail address which he supplied.
My friend wrote to him again using the e-mail address but the e-mail that came in response was flagged by her computer as phishing. Being rather an innocently trusting person and not very good with computers she replied but never heard from the man again.
Then a few days later her bank told her that her debit card had been abused. Luckily they had picked it up very quickly and she didn't loose any money but at the time she didn't put two and two together and tell the bank about the phishing e-mail.
Of course she can't be sure it had anything to do with the phishing e-mail but it does seem a huge coincidence if not!
Since she told me her story I've had people contact me with huge trees and they also have insisted future contact be made via e-mail rather than messages on the website......I just reply politely on the website..... don't want the same thing to happen to me!
-
I've recently been contacted by someone who also has issues with a particular tree owner and her increasing collection of names, many with incorrect information.
I don't think I'm breaking any rules if I quote this message she received from the culprit:
"i report both the good & the bad - its called good reporting - i do not write the history nor do i make the history - if you are ashamed of your past that is not my problem "
This tree owner went on "this site allows me to block ratbags - i am going to block you"
So, I rather think that that person is not pursuing her own family history, but am unsure as to her agenda.
I don't know if the particular subscription site is at all interested in the feelings of those members who simply want to research their own family history, after all they do encourage membership at every turn, or if they are happy if the money continues to roll in.
I shall be thinking very hard before handing over another £100+ when renewal is due.
Note to Mods: I apologise if this has overstepped the mark.
-
On another site I found myself my husband and my children.
I contacted the person concerned but unsurprisingly never heard anything.
I contacted the site concerned and and asked them to to remove the information but as nothing happened I cancelled my subscription and explained in detail why I was doing it!!
I may be old but as far as I know I'm still classed as 'living.' :D
Jo
-
I noticed last night whilst adding some children to a distant relative on A******y that there is a new box you tick wether the individual you are entering is alive or deceased. As these individuals were all born between 1900 and 1910 I entered them as deceased. I needed to select a box before I could continue. Nowhere was a don't know box. Until I locate a death for each individual and confirm this it is confusing.
panda
-
The old Ancestry 'rules' said that anyone without a death date entered who was less than 100 years old was considered as 'Living'. On Ancestry, anyone classed as 'living' would not have any of their details shown on public trees. Many people's trees have ancestors who are known to be dead, but do not have a death date, because one cannot be found. The new Ancestry system allows people to show ancestors as 'dead', even though an exact death date is not known, which then makes their details viewable on public trees. If you are not sure that someone is dead, you should click the button that shows them as being alive.
-
Does anyone know what the protocol is for entering someone born 1947 and died 2002 is ???
I wouldn't add their birth, but to follow up with their marriage and death to me is very unwise because of the children involved.
Ambers
-
I don't know what the protocol is, but personally I wouldn't enter a death that recent on any online tree (unless there were no close relatives apart from myself) but would put it on my written records. for my own information.
The person would appear on A***y eg as just male or female, so they're acknowledged rather than ignored, but the privacy of their closer family is protected.
-
Thanks flipflops,
That's exactly what I do. I wouldn't even think about entering someone born that year, even if they were deceased.
We all know how to trace really far forward, it comes with experience, but so does common sense and respect....normally.
I hope things are going well for you ;)
Ambers