Don't people realise how much it hurts

[cati]

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.

[Guy Etchells]

Yes I agree with that, as with all rights and freedoms there comes a responsibility.
Cheers
Guy

[Nick29]

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.

[flipflops]

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.

[Guy Etchells]

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

[Joy Dean]

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.

[BashLad]

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.

[Nick29]

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 

[J11]

This all seems to be getting a little personal!