Find Ancestors

Jeffery

I admit I was feeling irritated with you

........ you shot down every suggestion that was made because it did not fit your facts.

You did not even give us the name of your gt grandfather as it would be found on the 1901 ............... you did not tell us that it might be Menachem. All you talked about was Freedman



As you have found .......... looking at the image is essential, the transcript is just the transcriber's interpretation of what he/she could read.


We have all learnt that


That is why we suggest that "newbies" do not take the transcript as the truth, but instead look at the image every time it is possible.


I feel myself duly whipped with a wet towel, a la your comment in your last post

"And to those you seem to make a habit of 'helping' enquirers I would suggest that you tread gently and refer to previous snippets of information in more moderated tones."




Always providing of course that you will take help in the manner in which it is offered without apparently dismissing it out of hand


As for this comment ....... I really do not understand where it comes from. We ALL know that typing in capitals is shouting ...... unless it is used for emphasis when used for one or two words.

" And to type in upper case is the height of bad manners as it signifies that you are shouting."

The only postings that I can see in upper case are either direct c&p from a site that carries its records in upper case, or where someone has used upper case to emphasise the name or names ......... to bring them to your attention.


I also note that you do not think the rest of us have been helpful in any form or fashion:

"Once again there have been one or two who have been extremely helpful and courteous, namely Barbara and Quinsgran and to them I am extremely grateful."


Rest assured, you will not be hearing from me or getting any help from me in the future.




sylvia

Sylvia

These postings have now taken an unfortunate turn.

Would you please read again all the postings. My first post was a plea to help me find the entry of Freedman Flamberg, Flamberg being the operative name in the 1901 Census. I had not shot down every suggestion. I believe quite naturally that I was entitled to dismiss the suggestion that the post of Hamberg was connected. I had given you 8 Frostie Mansions when it should have been Frostic Mansions, an honest mistake and to respond in capitals I found offensive.

It was only after consulting another member of the family that we thought that Hamberg might indeed be our great great grandfather,

I did not dismiss your suggestions in any form or fashion. I was presented with information that related to the 1911 Census and other website entries. I could not see what connection they had in finding the name Flamberg on the 1901 Census. I explained quite correctly that the entries by Sol Flamberg where inaccurate and incomplete. A fact of which you could not have possibly been aware.

Your input was not at all helpful. It was Barbara's lateral thinking and Quinsgran suggestion to look at the handwritten entry that convinced me to look again.

I would suggest that if are to continue to help enquirers you would do well to take the trouble to read the question, understand it and then give information that initially relates directly to the question. Then, if there is any further information that you require, ask for it in a friendly welcoming manner.

There are many newbies who are not aware of what is required to search the records and if you are to succeed in offering accurate and effective advice you would do well to be a little more sympathetic and less abrasive.

Jeffery

Thank you for the advice ......... NOT


As I have very successfully been giving help and advice on these boards for more than 7 years, I think it boils down to thee and me have a personality conflict.


I found the information you gave less than helpful ................ you did not in fact ever mention that Menachem might possibly be an alternative name for Freedman. It was other people who found that out.

If you object to being told that, then hard lines.


You did indeed dismiss the suggestion that Hamburg might be connected .................. against the advice of most everyone else. Until, as you say, someone convinced you to take another look.

I wasn't even sure that the trees I found on ancestry were connected with you because of Menachem being the name used. It was only the fact that Julius and other children's names were mentioned that made me even consider the fact that there might be a connection




I spent several hours trying to help you, as I do for many other people.


If there is any lack of infomation on how to use these boards, then blame GR for not doing that .............. we the helpers do our best to give advice, and to let "newbies" know what information they should provide.


we all do the very best that we can ..................... as members using our own resources and subscriptions to other sites, and out of love of the research and hunting that is sometimes needed to find our ancestors.


Responses such as yours, both last night and today, sometimes make me regret that I do give that help

Having read through - always entertaining (but Sylvia I do wish you would compress all that bumph when it comes from trees and such and delete the unnecessary bits) - I would just like to say that if I'd been involved in it all, I'd have said ditto to Maureen, Yesterday at 17:11.

Jeffrey, I think what I didn't see was an apology to the people who tried so hard to help you, who, you eventually conceded, were correct all along about the 1901, for your own ... how'd that go? ... smugness.

When someone asks for assistance and persists in ignoring and discounting what people have worked hard to find and know very well is correct, and coming up with far-fetched theories of their own instead, well ...

FYI, the "Hamberg" in 1901 would have come about like this.

Someone filled out the household schedule - a family member, a neighbour, or the enumerator in the absence of anyone able to do it.

A census worker then transferred the information from the household schedule (number 338, the number in the first left-hand column on the census image) to the page you see at Ancestry.

And that person misread "Flamberg" as "Hamberg". Quite obviously. (It's an error more commonly seen the other way around - for instance, John and Nancy Flamer in 1891 are plainly Hamer.)

People here like the ones in this thread really, really do know what they (we) are talking about.

I really couldn't believe I was reading you saying "she is related to Zalick (Jack) Flamberg, Freedman Flamberg's son" and still insisting that this person in 1901:

Name: Lilly Hamberg
- it's not Lilly, it's Selig, as I saw before reading your concession, because the first thing I did when I saw the 1901 reproduced here was *look at the image* - in fact I paid no attention to the transcription at all
Age: 13
Estimated birth year: abt 1888
Relation: Son
Father's Name: Monassch
Mother's Name: Janie

was not this person in 1911

HAMBERG JACK 1887 24

and the rest.


Sounds like you've picked up some skills here, anyway. An apology for not graciously accepting the assistance you were offered in a timely manner, and said without so much self-justification, would definitely not go astray.

Thanks,Janey!!!
And look,Sylvia,my computer didn't combust after all.

Maureen

lol!!


glad to hear it Maureen!



and thanks from me Janey

........ I shall attempt to do as you say and shorten the bumpf even more than I already do!!



sylvia

Ignoring all the whys and wherefores of the actual information asked for given and received, what an extremely ungrateful man.
Jeffrey, I assume that you do realise that all the people who give their time to do look ups and searches for people on here do so in their own time, using their own resources, for which they have paid subscriptions. Some of these subscriptions cost over £100 a year. they are not paid to do this, they are ordinary members of GR who do it because they like to help other people.

A simple thank you is all they ask, not too much to ask for is it?
Next time you ask for help think back and you will know why you don't get it.

Janey

If you bother to read all the posts you will note that I have thanked all those who helped me.

It seems that a number of you don't make any allowances for newbies who perhaps don't initially take your advice. As I have said there seems to me to be a sense of smugness about one or two of you. Some of you believe you are absolutely correct and if the advice is not followed some of you get irritated.

What you are overlooking is that I revisited the 1901 Census, having thought about the advice given, and admitted that Hamberg was Flamberg the person I was looking for. I could have said to myself ooops! and said nothing on the boards and the matter would have ended there. But no, I was honest enough to say that one or two of you were right after all.

In essence the find boiled down to the name Flamberg and 8 Frostic Mansions. It was irrelevant that his first name was Monassch or Freedman in this instance, as the record was found by searching under the name of Hamberg. I did not persistently ignore advice. Barbara as it transpired found the family at 8 Frostic Mansions and with the help of Quinsgran and another member of my family I pieced together the clues that the family were the Flambergs. I admit I was adamant that it was not the Flamberg I was looking for.

What Silvia found was extraneous information which had nothing to do with the 1901 Census, hence my remarks to her about reading carefully the original post.

I do appreciate that you all give your time freely and at your own expense and of course I am grateful, but I must say this, there are ways of presenting information in a friendly professional manner and it's not helpful to get irritated if initially we don't follow your advice. Sometimes the penny drops, as in my case. And as I have said I had the decency to come back and tell you all.

I am experienced in giving advice to the general public as for the last ten years I been an advisor for the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) on a voluntary basis. (I am not sure whether or not you are aware of the work of the CAB). We are trained to listen carefully to what the client wants, search for the relevant information and present it in a clear professional manner so that the client can readily understand it. Part of the process is to prompt the client to give more details if initially the information is not sufficient. One thing you do not absolutely do is to get irritated with the client and display any kind of frustration if the client does not follow your advice; and you certainly don't shout or show your frustration in writing.

I have probably shot myself in the foot here by saying what I have with regard to seeking more information from the client. But sometimes as in this case it was not obvious to me that I needed to give more information. The name Flamberg at 8 Frostic Mansions seemed sufficient and indeed it was.

It perhaps need hardly be said that on some occasions people searching for lost relations come across some harrowing facts. Sensitivity, empathy an a calm approach are among the qualities that I think are essential.

It behoves all of us who give advice to the general public, not to judge them against our own bench mark. We are all different and the skill of an adviser is to recognise this and give advice in a manner that does not upset the client. If a client does not accept the advice then perhaps a shrug and a wry smile in private may not go amiss.

Finally as it seems that I have ruffled a few feathers, I do apologise and do thank everyone for the effort they have put into it, even Sylvia.

Jeffery

And I think this should be the end of the matter Nobody wins and everyone feels uncomfortable.
Jeffery has admitted he was wrong and apologized to all who feel offended.

Lets keep it friendly

I agree, thank you for apologising Jeffrey, maybe any newbies who have read this thread will realise that it is good to thank people, give enough information, not get irritated etc etc.

Indeed.

I hope that all of us are not too proud to have learnt something from these postings. No one is the font of all knowledge. Misconceptions and mistakes, are all too common in life. This is particularly so with the written word. If we all sat round a table and had a face to face discussion as to how to find a particular name in a Census, I'm sure we would have all reacted differently towards each other; maybe being more polite, thanking one another for their input, doing one's utmost to control one's emotions, etc, etc. Perhaps we should consider this when we write; just image you are sitting opposite the person to whom you are writing. That way we may get the best out of each other.

Best wishes to you all and keep up the good work.

Jeffery

And once again -- how about the *askers* sit quietly and think about the people they are asking? The faceless search engines with fingers who inhabit this place answering strangers' questions ...

I am fed to the teeth with people posting and PMing about all their personal problems and how this excuses their behaviour on the boards (this is not the case here). Everyone has problems. I've spent the last year having a mother and sister in treatment for cancer, having eye surgery myself to correct previous disastrous surgery and health/vision problems as a result, having my partner almost die of diabetic complications, and having a host of other problems I don't happen to feel like discussing in public. One of our most active and charming helpers here, Lewella in Australia, died a few weeks ago of cancer herself.

This isn't the citizen's advice bureau, it is a place where peers help with research, not personal problems. Someone who has personal problems that they feel prevent them from being considerate of people they ask to devote their own time and resources to their questions (again, not the case here) should really reconsider their decision to make the request.

I really am just tired of being lectured about showing consideration for people who show none -- again, a response to your general comments, not to the specific situation here.

As far as sitting around a table, hopefully you yourself would have listened more actively, Jeffrey, because otherwise I think you would have got yourself throttled out of frustration.

Thank you for the somewhat strange apology Jeffrey.

We really didn't need the exposition on CAB however, as I think most people know what it is, even us "foreigners"


May I add that one thing that requesters often forget is that they have all the information and ins and outs of the relationships in their heads ................ the helpers don't.

We have to get our heads around that family so we can get a "feel" for them. That means that most of us at various times will post information that the requester thinks is unnecessary because they have it or know it.

We really want confirmation that we are following the correct trail.

As I said, I was confused because it was Menachem in the Family Trees ................. a name you had never mentioned. But Menachem WAS Freedman, and it was a variant of Menachem that turned up in that 1901 census


I really must congratulate those who realised that Mxxxxx Hamburg was really Freedman Flamburg

An excellent piece of lateral thinking!!

This is turning into an interesting thread.

But isn't this to be expected in your line of voluntary work. The general public at large couldn't care a fig about who answers their question as long as they get an answer which leads directly to solving the query.

No matter how provoked one may be and how inconsiderate one views the questioner, surely one doesn't have to rise to the bait and be rude. I'm afraid it is a one way thing and I don't think that one can expect anything else. If one does, then perhaps voluntary work is not for them.

Although as you say it is not the same as Citizens Advice work, but the principles are the same whenever one is dealing with the general public.
Don't react.

What I meant about sitting round a table face to face is that the conversation would not have been remotely like the written postings. One is able to speak much more quickly and to define more precisely what one means and one can change tack in mid sentence. What I am saying that it would be unlikely that one would be rude to someone facing you just because they happen not to agree with you or would not accept your advice.

It's not a question of lecturing, my remarks were born out by some the remarks of those who responded to my query.

As I have said it is a one way thing and if one can't accept that well.... Gosh, if I had thought otherwise I would have packed in the CAB years ago.

I know this is all rich coming from me and of course I should have known better than to react to Sylvia's comments. But none of us is perfect and from time to time it does no harm to have ones feathers ruffled. Hopefully we can learn that we are after all, human, sensitive and fallible. As one who has worked in the voluntary sector for more than 20 years,10 years at the CAB, I can honestly say that I have enjoyed it in spite of, by and large, an ungrateful public.

May the spirit of all volunteers live long.

As I said in my last post, keep up the good work.

Yours in complete contrition.

Jeffery

Sylvia

I can understand what you say, but my not needed exposition on CAB was merely to illustrate that before launching into an answer, it would be wise for one to extract some more information from the enquirer, particularly if one felt the information given was not sufficient.

It was unfortunate that on this occasion your line of research would have been most unlikely to have led you to the correct answer. As I said it was the name Flamberg that was the key in the 1901 Census. I had already searched the 1901 Census under Flamberg and found nothing. I knew from a birth certificate registered a few months later that he lived at what I thought was Frostie Mansions, which turned out to be Frostic.

I have admitted that I was wrong to dismiss out of hand the suggestion that Hamberg was my man. Had I not come back to admit that Hamberg was Flamberg, you would never had known whether you were right or wrong. I was honest enough to let you know. I could have said nothing and gone on my merry way.

Would I have eventually thought of searching for Hamberg? probably not. But I did not mean to dismiss all suggestions and it was your unfortunate remark about letting me do what I will with the information, that caused my to react in an uncharacteristic manner.

It was, in hindsight, unfortunate that we had this spat and if you feel that my apology was somewhat strange, I now offer you my sincere apology and regret any offence I may have caused you.

As it has been said there are no winners here. None of us are perfect, at times we get it wrong, and the mature approach is to admit it.

Jeffery

"The general public at large couldn't care a fig about who answers their question as long as they get an answer which leads directly to solving the query."

This isn't the general public, and this isn't the public library. This is a membership site at which individuals are addressing other members. And I don't care what any of them don't give a fig about.

"No matter how provoked one may be and how inconsiderate one views the questioner, surely one doesn't have to rise to the bait and be rude. I'm afraid it is a one way thing and I don't think that one can expect anything else. If one does, then perhaps voluntary work is not for them."

One can do what one very well likes, is what one can do.

I have done decades of volunary work, including my professional pro bono (or just plain unpaid) work as a lawyer representing victims of torture and other people with quite a lot of personal problems, and so one might want to consider - again - that one is talking to people about whom one knows precisely nothing, before lecturing them.

"Although as you say it is not the same as Citizens Advice work, but the principles are the same whenever one is dealing with the general public.
Don't react."

Whazzat, the gospel as writ by St Jeffery? If one voluntarily gives of one's time and resources and doesn't like the response, one really may react as one sees fit. There's no rule in my book that says "don't react".

"What I am saying that it would be unlikely that one would be rude to someone facing you just because they happen not to agree with you or would not accept your advice."

Quite.

No one here was rude to you, so perhaps you're engaging in self-examination.

"I know this is all rich coming from me and of course I should have known better than to react to Sylvia's comments."

Isn't that just the funniest thing ... how you can tell everyone else that the rule is "don't react", and yet you did ... and of course Sylvia's comments were not the issue here ...

Thank you, Jeffery


Let's now forgive and forget and move on from this unfortunate spat.




sylvia

Well said Sylvia. Let that be the end of the matter

I am sorry to all who by now must be fed up to the back teeth with the line these postings have taken.

But I am compelled to respond to Janey's vitriolic comments.

It seems to me Janey that you have not read every word carefully in the preceding posts. Is it not a requisite of a lawyer to read carefully that which is written?

Didn't you write 'I am fed to the teeth with people posting and PMing about all their personal problems and how it excuses their behaviour on the boards' .... 'should really reconsider their decision to make the request'?

'One can do what one very well likes, is what one can do' Pray why moan then?

I did say don't react, but then said it was rich coming from me, so implying that I am not above the gospel as writ by St Jeffery. Writ by St Jeffery , how spiteful is that?

You still don't get it, do you? Whether you are dealing with the general public at large, in libraries or a membership site such as this, my opinion is that it does not give you the right to be rude (offensive). As I have said before, it destroys your credibility, which to my mind you have singularly done by your rude (offensive) response.

It seems to me that you are not prepared to admit that perhaps there is something that you can take away from all this. You mention self-examination- exactly.

I can understand that you would wish to stand up for your colleagues, but there are ways of doing that without resorting to what I can only describe as nastiness in your last post.

Having read something of your travails in your posting, and I should imagine that it must be difficult for you, perhaps it is because of these events that prompts you to write in such a manner.

Of course none of us are aware to whom we are writing, but that is neither here nor there if basic courtesies are ignored. Hopefully you would be more courteous in a face to face meeting. All I am saying is, why should it be any different in a forum such as this.

Perhaps I have got it all wrong in that one can say things that are hurtful to enquirers and then tick them off for pointing out that there are perhaps better ways of dealing with those who reject your advice.

This has all been a salutary lesson for me and I must make a note never to return to this site for any further information that I may require about my ancestors.

Jeffery

Oooooh. Vitriolic.

What I get is that someone is supercilious and self-important and surrounded by WOMEN in this thread who must be put in their place. The latest tactic, suggesting that I am too emotional to be engaging in this activity (it being a very logical one, at which all the women in this thread excel, and in particular outdid you), was to be expected.

One of the things I have devoted years of time and effort to is dealing with misogyny in all its manifestations.

"This has all been a salutary lesson for me and I must make a note never to return to this site for any further information that I may require about my ancestors."

If I had a nickel for every time this whine has been heard ... . I guess women are supposed to be cut to the quick at the sight of someone cutting off his/her own nose to spite them.