How cross would you be, or am I over reacting?

[lesleyhannah]

I don't understand how some people can be so tight as to not return the favour 

I think that's what causes all the aggro. I'm happy to provide all the information I have with others, and even if they're new to fh they can often add family stories in return which can be more valuable than hundreds of certificates.  And it's exciting discovering a distant relative.

But what happens quite often on Genes R in particular is that someone asks for access to your tree, saying they've opened up theirs to you. So you give them access, only to find they only have half a dozen names on their tree, with no clue as to how they might be linked to you. These people never reply to letters once they've accessed your tree.

[Jellis]

Dear Lesleyhannah

I got one of those the other day.  The trick is to look at their tree first!

A few weeks ago I had a go at my sister in law's tree.  I saw the name 'Alice WRIGHT' on Genes and asked if it was the same person; married so and so..the answer was yes, and I did receive some useful information for which I sent my grateful thanks.  I was able to tell him where Alice's parents married.  The chap asked several times to view my tree even though I repeated several times that the WRIGHT family wasn't mine and no connecting lines were on it.  I felt mean about it but my tree is no use at all to him. 

[lesleyhannah]

Hi Jellis

In that situation I offer what information I have about the family, that's not on the tree. Often I have a BMD certificate, where I can share the information , or maybe other documents or photos of that branch. Just to show I am genuine. Sometimes you learn more from the email info than the trees.

However you do get people who even when you send all the info you have on a person still keep asking for access to your tree (even when, like you, you tell them that particular branch isn't included in your tree).

Lesley

[NEILKE]

we once let some one get acess to my wifes tree this person was not related at all they were a step son of one of her uncles so no blood ties they didnt just copy my wifes tree they done mine to .then there was the person who had my grandfather married to who ever but had my dad and his brother and sister as their kids i contacted them they said  that they were wrong they said they were right untill i pointed out i think i would know who my nana and granda was .i reckon they just got hold of some half baked reserch and put it on their tree.
neil

[les_looking]

Even on this forum time and again i see the same people asking for look ups,
which is no problem, but it is pretty obvious that their only research is what other people are doing for them so they are only seeing info' that Roots members are finding for them, i saw the other day the same person posting about 5-6 look ups for different census, now at the best of time we know that cenus information is a guide and not enough to call it fact

lol back to the original question how are people who then view their tree to know how much information is 2nd hand or that info' is the only thing that they have found and is now fact because it's on a tree,
i know myself info given means nothing and doesn't stick until you have researched it yourself,
anyone who just adds data from a tree they have seen or information obtained from here is asking for trouble

[Nick29]

Even on this forum time and again i see the same people asking for look ups,
which is no problem, but it is pretty obvious that their only research is what other people are doing for them so they are only seeing info' that Roots members are finding for them, i saw the other day the same person posting about 5-6 look ups for different census, now at the best of time we know that cenus information is a guide and not enough to call it fact

I'm not sure you can ever call it fact with absolute certainty - I recall reading some while ago that at least 40% of the population have a father who is not the man mentioned on their birth certificate (I think I have the correct number), so you can't even totally rely on certificates.   What you need to do is to compare the information obtained from various sources, and determine how likely it is to be correct.  The further you go back, the less you have to work with, so the possibilities for error become greater.

[les_looking]

yep Nick, might not have explained what i meant properly lol
i noticed the person i mentioned who was asking for info, when told what was found then commented
"ok thanks i'll delete such and such a person" just on the say so of what was found on a census,
and without themselves having seen the original or doing some research themselves,
Roots is brilliant for like minded and knowlegable people but i would not on someone finding some info' for me then rely on it,
some subscribe to different packages for different reasons, i assume most do to get the best information available, and knowing that they are doing everything possible to get it correct, others do it via the free versions (and i do NOT knock that) but my opinion is your % rate of getting it right drops, then taking data from a tree and accepting it is even lower.

Having said all that if we all did it the same way then Roots etc would be redundant.

[lesleyhannah]

I think it's a bit harsh to assume everyone asking for lookups is just too mean to subscribe. I DO subscribe to ancestry and findmypast - with other occasional sites as and when - but when I ask for lookups it's because I just can't find the person I'm looking for myself. In my experience RCers are brilliant at finding people who've been transcribed under the most unlikely names - I owe thanks to many people on this forum who've discovered individuals or families I couldn't find.

My pay-back is that I always report mistranscriptions to ancestry, in the hope it helps others.

[les_looking]

I think it's a bit harsh to assume everyone asking for lookups is just too mean to subscribe. I DO subscribe to ancestry and findmypast - with other occasional sites as and when - but when I ask for lookups it's because I just can't find the person I'm looking for myself. In my experience RCers are brilliant at finding people who've been transcribed under the most unlikely names - I owe thanks to many people on this forum who've discovered individuals or families I couldn't find.

My pay-back is that I always report mistranscriptions to ancestry, in the hope it helps others.

not sure i said that or meant it lol, i have asked for look ups myself,
i said that SOME rely wholly on look ups and then take that as read,
and then that info finds it's way onto trees,
ie Lesley if a Roots Member found something you couldn't find i am pretty sure you would not then either go and check it or confirm it by other means