Don't people realise how much it hurts

[flipflops]

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

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

[cati]

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.

[ottobottle]

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).

[Nick29]

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 

[groom]

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. 

[flipflops]

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

Really, I think the whole thing comes down to a question of courtesy - plain old fashioned manners.

[sunflower]

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

[Nick29]

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 

[J11]

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