Don't people realise how much it hurts

[Jocie]

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

Jo
 

[Rishile]

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

[aghadowey]

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   

P.S. as of this morning he's still not dead 

[msr]

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

[msr]

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.     

[Ringrose]

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

[Nick29]

Maybe she's a member of the LDS church going for her gold badge ?  

[groom]

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.

[msr]

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