Genealogy Chat

I have to admit it baffles me as to why people put any living relative on an internet tree. Quite some time ago I even changed my own details so I can remain anonymous.

I don't mind sharing relatives but they have to be dead'uns and name sharing starts at my grandparents generation only.

Cheryl :-D

That is a very good point, Brian, and echoes my experiences to a T.

One of my particular areas of interest is the Derbyshire / Leicestershire border where some of my mums ancestors came from. Over the past few years I have worked on mini one-name studies for three surnames Goacher, Bettridge and Thornley.

Each of these names is in effect a mini tree in its own right, In fact there are two seperate trees for the Bettridges, who are the moment are completely unconnected. In total, each of these mini-trees has upwards of a thousand plus names.

As you can imagine, along the way, other names keep cropping it on a regular basis through marriages. When this happens I also research those names too, not necessarily in the same detail, but to the extent where I can see how the connections all tie together. It is surprising how many new distant cousins this can identify, sprouting additional mini-trees along the way.

One of the dangers of marching backwards towards Adam, glancing not from side to side, is that you can miss the interesting loops in relationships.

If two ancestors both happen to marry a Smith twenty or thirty years apart, unless you have explored the branches you will miss the fact that the two Smiths are related.

The bigger picture you have, the more insight you get into how families are interelated.
For example, I was able to show that a Canadian immigrant who was assumed to be unmarried was, in fact, the widow of a member of another branch of the family.

You don't even need to put it on a public forum for it to end up there. In the past there has been great play made about only passing selected information to other members by private email, and not giving access to your tree in the interests of preserving confidentiality and control over your hard won genealogy research.

As I have already said, even this isn't fool proof as you have no control whatsoever over the other persons actions once they have your info. It might be only a part of your tree but don't be too surprised if it appears somewhere else that you are not expecting.

I think there has been plenty of advice given on here.

I would guess that Ann was expecting people to think the same way as her.

Once you've put information onto a public forum it becomes public property unless you protect it carefully. Even the GR rule that forces members to remove the living relatives of someone's tree can only be enforced on this site. There is nothing to stop the person who has obtained the information to post it elsewhere on the internet.

Unfortunately, it's a bitter pill to swallow when you realise that not everyone's motives are the same as your own and worse still that you can't take back what you have given as a gift.

Well, considering that Ann accused a fellow member of stealing, it's surprising that she hasn't bothered to return to her thread.......especailly as she was supposedly asking for 'advice'

InspectorGreenPen's story. I have had this sort of thing happen once or twice on Ancestry - where I have a public tree. My tree on one side is copied from an inherited tree without many sources, but has usually turned out when I research it to be pretty accurate - it does go back to 1450ish, so if I get a possible match I do try and chase it up. But when I have found such a contact via Ancestry's hints and ask for their sources it turns out all too often to be my own tree!

With regard to IGP's comments on research 'doing the rounds'...

Personally if I have been given info, that I have then confirmed by my own research, I will always note in my source records the originator for the info. I believe that they should have recoginition for their work. Likewise I would hope somone would note me in their source records but sadly it rarely happens.

I 'mark' my certs/records that I copy to other people and I can't tell you how many times I get the same copies back attributed to other people's research, some of whom I haven't the faintest idea who they are! :-)

Oh well at least I know, to the best of my ability, the info being passed around is correct. I would rather that than some of the 'interesting' public tree info I have seen relating to my ancestors.

Chris

I'm glad to see that there is a light-hearted side to all this. All to often this topic ends up being a bit of a slanging match between the two opposing views.

Last year I was in contact with a member on here who turned out to be a distant cousin. After we had exchanged messages a few times sharing our details, and presumably on the basis that she had by then established I was a genuine connection, she offered to send me a more detailed genealogical report and tree of our mutual connection, to which I was happy to receive.

To be fair she did make it plain that it wasn't her own work but that much of the detail had been provided by another distant relative.

So, the reports duly arrived as promised, and lo I could not hide my amusement when I realised they had started life as extracts from my own personal tree on FTM a year or so before.....!. I can only assume that they had been passed around by yet another member who I shared them with some time previously.

So even if you do go down the route of sending selective information to other researchers, don't be surprised if they turn up later, having done the rounds.

Mick


You never know - one day he may appear on

Who do you think you are !!!!!

Great story - we all know people copy without checking - but this proves it

I made a couple of mistakes
with my Johns and Elizabeths - muddling up the father and son -

I corrected mine - my copiers have not

So Mum and Dad appear to have given birth to a grandson !!!

Mick,,!! You made me laugh..lol,,,

On my tree I have only entered the year for BMD etc,,, full details of such events are available to the right applicant,,!!

I love Mick's story!!!


good one!



sylvia

My family must be boring, cos nobody has ever stolen my tree. I must have given access to at least, hmm, 300 people? and before I do so I ask how they are related. A few don't reply, but most say "Oh, Fred is the Uncle of my great grandmother" and I believe them. I might be daft, but it hasn't done me any harm.

I have about 4,000 in my tree currently. Just recently added another 500 cos I've started on my daughter's partner (who has some very exciting people in his tree, could run to a few more thousand!), I am not a name-collector, can't imagine why anyone would want to be, but I do record anything and everything I come across in case it's useful in the future.

I can't really see a problem with people snatching your names. I have no living rellies on any public tree, they are all long dead. All the info on them is in the public domain.

I once created a completly ficticious character on my public tree on Ancestry. This was simply to see how many people copied the bogus details without checking. I even gave this ficticious person a cryptic name based on Olive Oil. Sure enough this person now lives on in other trees and will probably be copied many times as new copiers duplicate what old copiers have done before them.

I was hoping hope against hope that one day someone would contact me to say they could not find any record of this person. I suppose by now after so many duplications it's almost impossible to tell the original ficticious person originated from my tree.

I say ficticious but as this character is now in so many trees they must have existed. After all, everone else can't be wrong, can they?

Michael

I think most people have come across this problem in some form. My problem is when fellow researchers dont even copy properly.

I had a contact who despite being given copies of certs, parish records etc, still couldnt record details correctly.

This annoyed me at first but now I take comfort in the fact that I have got the details correct and this former contact of mine has passed on duff info to many fellow researchers. It tickles me that they all probably think I'm nuts as I am the only one with different info. The amount of trees on Ancestry with this wrong info is amazing and I know exactly where it ha all come from lol x

i have some one in my contacts but they now cant view my tree who day after day on my updates add 30 or 40 peole

they must sit from morn till night doing this they have been adding for at least 5 years it must be the biggest tree ever

they must enjoy it but i find it a bit sad if thats all they do all day
so i think we are all in this persons family tree so we are all related

so no worry every one is related lol


sally w

Bl&&dy hell. -

92000 names - hope he never wants to print it - it will cause a worldwide shortage of paper

Irene

Edit - adding 90,000 - over a four year period that equates to almost 62 names a day - every day of the year

I know how annoying this can be.
It happened to me about four years ago when the man in question had around 2,000 names in his tree........I just checked again and has just topped 92,000 names.
Now, that's what I do call a name collector but I take satisfaction in knowing that people like me do make mistakes in their research and they can later correct them...........but just think of how many mistakes the name collector has in his tree. Well, he'll never know, will he ?

I have every sympathy for you Ann, but as everyone else has stated - there isn't anything you can do now. I have been approached by several people 'growing' very large trees. That's entirely their concern, but I'm afraid they will not glean much info from me because I have a very small tree on here, with few details. However, I'm always willing to provide more info if the need arises. I must say that by and large, people have been extremely helpful and given help when they can.

Piers

I gave a chappie access to my tree ( I had access to his) then I found he wasn't related in any way so I took him off my contacts. But hay ho that was my mistake, I ask now before giving access who do they originate from.