Ancestry and personal family trees

[ankerdine]

There is at least one living relative mentioned in the other person's tree which is a pity.

Pheno, I really don't mind about you using "I really don't" so often. 

I'm sure we've chatted in the past on RC.

[markheal]

I think that PHENO is getting closer to the current reality of social and very public media and the current drift towards instant gratification. Lots of people add to their tree regardless of accuracy and avoiding any hard graft of solid researching of reliable sources.

Please remember that a PUBLIC tree is available to every member of the PUBLIC just as much as BMD and Census records [which also contain considerable mistakes] are all recorded for us PUBLIC to use freely. 

No problem with having a PRIVATE tree but I resent people asking for all my research of a person that interests them but with no intention of sharing or reciprocity. 

So, on balance I stay with my large public tree [mistakes and all] that, as a PUBLIC service, tries to follow all wives and daughters that have so often been marginalized in the patriarchal past. 

I am so grateful to all the generous people that have helped me over many decades.

[Guy Etchells]

Milliepede, that's so sad and annoying._
Creasegirl, I DO have gypsies (tinklers) in my tree but that hasn't popped up yet!

I'm so glad I've never paid for Ancestry subscription and never will do now after hearing about the cheats out there.

I feel very sorry for you by not using as many of the online sites as possible you are depriving yourself of finding digitised images of parish registers, electoral registers, census images and a thousand and one different original records such sites hold.
The trees are just a tiny part of the sites easily ignored but not using the sites is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I did of course say you mention you have "never paid for Ancestry subscription" which could mean you use the free weekends etc. many of the online sites provide.
If not may I please suggest you take advantage of such offers as they all have original records unique to themselves.

I would also suggest to everyone to download any original register image such as grave registers etc. as many councils and archives are licencing such images for limited periods and what is available on one site today may not be on that site next month or next year.
Cheers
Guy

[FAB Fiona]

I agree with Guy re using a variety of the online sources and records.

I keep a private tree and a public tree.  My private tree has far more detail and precision, and always up to date.  I just use the private tree to allow genuine exchange and learning about other, possibly important connections and I'll update it occasionally (especially if I later spot a misstep).

I give the wilfully false no time and the blind the occasional pointer - the joy and satisfaction after all is in the detective work and the realisation that x and y are connected!

[lydiaann]

I changed my trees to private simply because of this problem.  I am happy to share information with genuine requests where, between us, we can agree that it is the same person/family.  However, I got my own back once:  when my tree was public, I entered a 'branch' that, in the end, turned out to be totally wrong.  Someone who had downloaded masses of my information is still left researching an entirely 'fictitious' family since I turned my tree private and pruned the whole branch out.

The funniest thing I ever had was someone had my rellie living and dying in Melbourne, Australia, despite having downloaded all the pertinent (English) censuses etc. off my tree.  When I pointed out the fact that we were talking about Derbyshire and I had, in fact, visited the cemetery where they were both buried, she wrote back and said I had to be wrong as she was correct and I should just look at her census forms in regard to this rellie!!  Words fail me!