I am so upset .....

[jaywit]

Gadget I think some of the younger ones don't realize when we started there was very little online and it could be hard work and sometimes expensive to get information.

[PatLac]

I don't have an Ancestry subscription (I have tried but they have declined my card - their glitch - my card is okay), but I have had some upsetting experiences on FamilySearch, which is completely free and anyone can do whatever they like. It still upsets me though, so I can imagine how it must be upsetting when you are paying for a subscription.

I was wondering if you could edit the photos before uploading them by adding some sort of copyright mark? I have seen this on other websites regarding grave's photos and such.

I appreciate when people share their family trees because I'm interested in real people's history, so it's sad to see that they have their public trees used without permission and feel that they have to make them private.

I don't understand why some people can modify information that has been carefully researched with sources attached and just put some random information without attaching sources or a note explaining the change. That has been happening a lot on FS and when I send a message (chat) to the person asking the source of the information they don't reply. It's very frustrating even if it just takes a click to reverse to the previous information, but imagine having to do this hundreds of times.

Sorry to digress.

[familydar]

I'm in the "it amuses me" camp.  Whilst my offline tree is a different matter, my Ancestry tree has no family photos attached, in fact it has nothing that hasn't come from Ancestry in the first place.  Except ahnentafel numbers, and that's what amuses me.  Complete strangers with my parents in their tree bearing those anhentafel numbers.  You'd think I'd remember growing up with these siblings 

The random ahnentafel numbers make it clear that these "foreign" trees haven't been built the hard way.  There is obviously some means of cobbling together different ancestry trees with minimal clicks/keystrokes.  I've taken an Ancestry DNA test and it seems thrulines may be how it happens.  Click on any ancestor with matches on the thrulines page, if in the Relationships (tree view) tab there are individuals in green with "evaluate" against them, a few more clicks seems to be all it takes to add entire branches.

Jane :-)

[Heb66]

Hi all rootschatters,
Thank you so much for all your messages and thoughts.
Just to clarify I think I was shocked that my actual whole tree with me listed as living and all the additional family photographs etc information is shown on her Ancestry page when I really only have an extremely distant connection < 10cm DNA > with her.
I have never shared my log in details or sent her an invite to share over my tree as you are able to do on Ancestry.
As always you are all a wonderful community and really appreciate the rootschat forum.
Warmest regards and hope you all have a relaxing weekend.
Helen.

[Rena]

I was wondering if you could edit the photos before uploading them by adding some sort of copyright mark? I have seen this on other websites regarding grave's photos and such.

Sorry to digress.

Whatever you do, your photos will be all over the web before you can blink.

Years ago I added in Photoshop both the symbol and the word "COPYRIGHT" on my old family photograph before uploading it to my family tree but somehow the photo appeared online in other trees and also not attached to other trees without both the Copyright symbol and word.

I did eventually delete my trees because I was fed up of people being able to change spellings and add unknown branches without making contact.

Some chatters will wonder why my tree wasn't private but it seems to me that every time  the website is sold and bought the conditions change.   

[PatLac]

Hi Rena, I'm not a Photoshop expert but I didn't think this could be possible without leaving obvious traces of editing, but if it happened it's really disgraceful.

It's just a suggestion to put people off copying and sharing stuff that's not meant to be copied, but I undestand the internet is still a no man's land.

As the OP has clarified, it's even worse than I thought, sharing a living person's details 

I have sent messages to some people on FS regarding living persons being displayed on family trees (not their family members). The ones who replied had 'assumed' they were dead because of their DOB, but they're all alive, thank goodness.

[Biggles50]

There are three levels that a person can be granted access.

Guest, Contributor and Editor.

I only ever give Guest access with view living persons checked.

This is what Ancestry has to say ……

Guests can view and add comments. They cannot automatically view living people.

Contributors can view and add comments, photos, and stories. They cannot edit or remove existing tree content or automatically view living people.

Editors can automatically view living people, remove and edit existing content, and add people, records, comments, photos, and stories.
.
.
It does look like they have Editing rights.

Do check what you have assigned them in the Create and Manage Trees section.

If you have only given them Guest access, I suggest ringing Ancestry.

[George E. H. Haydock]

  Hi Helen,
i said i would read your input, Research and first class observations ,when we put our research, at some expense to our pocket, and many hours spent putting on Roots chat,
  confirming our ancestors ,then others who's family tree, Of same name sorry to say have the right, To use your fabulists gynecology findings, So( frustrating) but look on the positive, your great work has helped others ,I am 100% sure your determined to help people with your experience.

     Cheers George.

[familydar]

Heb66 has found that large parts of her tree have been copied to someone else's, not that someone else is managing to edit her tree without permission.

Jane :-)