Genealogy Chat

Sue, I am not 'possessive' about my Tree and am more than willing to share what information I have on any particular 'line'.

Unfortunately, I'm not very good with computers I don't know how to send 'a file' with just the relevant details - it's view all my Tree or nothing at all.

The people that have contacted me recently don't ask for information, they just want to view my Tree.

A few months ago someone contacted me saying that they had 'Fred Bloggs' in their Tree, were we related? I could view their Tree. I replied saying that Fred Bloggs was my 2 x Gt.Grandfather, what was their relationship to him - I've never received a reply (probably because I didn't give them access to my Tree).

As for Hot Matches!......

M. Steer

I think if you read my comments again Gillian you will see I wasn't suggesting that anyone hands over their entire research to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asks for it. I did say that I tend to send relevant files to people who might find them useful.

But if someone copies my very basic GR tree it doesn't actually deprive me of anything and no-one living is on that tree to be upset, or to be added without permission onto another contact's tree. I've also got no sensitive information as notes on site.

I think this comes down to a very different way of seeing family history. I see myself as fitting into a vast and complicated interlinking network of relations and, whether or not I have discovered the mesh, the links exist.

I'd like as much of the whole pattern to be found and shared as possible. For me this is less of a hobby and more an obsession. I feel very attached to many of my ancestors, especially the ones whose memoirs I have read or who have left personal details of their lives. However it has never occurred to me to keep any details to myself if I find someone else who is also a descendant.

I have huge amounts of information on paper, on discs and on computer files and none of that is here on GR. My spare room is full of lever arch files full of detailed family history. I have written talks for Family History groups and I run several online groups. No-one seeing my GR tree would get any of that.

Some of my contacts have been sent copies of original documents or printouts of trees or photos of shared relations but if I let someone view my GR tree it is simply a basic framework with no details to speak of on it.

The only person who shares my exact tree is my sister but a huge number of people are descended from various of my ancestors. If I discover that you are someone who shares a fascinating piece of the jigsaw I am not going to say "Sorry go and do all your own hunting and I'm not even going to give you any clues where to look".

This whole business of "copying" of trees and regular complaints about people "stealing" ancestors only seems to happen on this site. The various other family history groups I belong to have people falling over themselves to share lineages they have found, which are then discussed at length and possibly disagreed with until a consensus is reached.
Possibly this is because people feel closer to the ancestors who only lived a hundred years or so ago.


Sue

I suppose if that is your experience Libby then you can only make decisions based on that.

However my research has uncovered several wrong lines on other people's trees and I was able to send them my version for them to decide which they think is correct.

I think on balance I'd rather send the version I believe to be correct as widely as possible so perhaps undermining already existing falsehoods.
There are two versions of one of the branches of my tree on this site. I've contacted museums and universities to discuss the ancestors concerned and come to my own conclusions which I then passed on to others sharing these ancestors.

I suppose it all comes down to at what point family history becomes the perhaps less emotive genealogy. How far back do you have to go before you don't really think of an ancestor as family? It would be interesting to know what others think.

Sue

I agree with Libby about people being attached to wrong trees and other people copying. As I have mentioned before, quite a lot of trees on Ancestry have my sister m to a man b in 1723. They have all copied the misinformation from the same place. I contacted as many people as I could to point out the error, but some chose not to believe me. I find it utterly grotesque.
Huia.

Much of the personal enjoyment I get from being on this site is to make contacts with other researchers who have a common interest and share information with them.

The only way that I know of achieving this is to publish details of my tree on here so people know which names I am researching.

If I were to remove all the names in my tree so that they can not be stolen by one of the hundreds of name collectors or identity thieves which apparently prowl this site 24 hours a day, can someone suggest an alternative way of continuing to receive contacts regarding my names, or should I look at taking up a different hobby?

Peter...... read my notes page 2 in this thread, they maybe of use. Bob

Thanks Bob,

However I am still not convinced that deleting my tree is the correct answer, at least not for me. With 2947 names on here already and several years of steadily adding and making well over 300 contacts, I am loathe to throw it all away at a stroke.

Ah well, back to the drawing board.

Libby,

That is exactly what I do too.....! and I choose who I share my information with as well.

It is just that I find all this nonsense about deleting names left right and centre or even entire trees trees all rather amusing, given the nature and purpose of the site in the first place.

It is just that I find all this nonsense about deleting names left right and centre or even entire trees trees all rather amusing, given the nature and purpose of the site in the first place.


So what you saying then...cos some don't do the above we shouldn't be here

Julie,

Don't understand your comment "So what you saying then...cos some don't do the above we should be here"

It should of been shouldn't...so have changed it

I only open my tree after several messages back and forth confirming that we do have a genuine connection. Even then it would be someone who is pretty closely related to me because otherwise it is easier just to send them a few details in a message.

Sue

It will take them out the Data

It's if you show someone as living on your tree their name shows up on the name search bit

But their name cannot show up on the name search bit if you have typed 'Living Living' in when entering them, can it? I have my daughter as ****** (Surname) and her children as 2 lots of *** so their names cant show up at all unless somebody in GR is clairvoyant. Of course if you import your tree from somewhere else to GR then that is a different matter, but this is the only place I have mine.
Huia.

Well there are times when you do need to put living people in as disguised.

My tree starts with me but then has to go back via my living father on one side plus sideways via my living husband to get to his ancestry. My mother is dead so I have named her on GR (though I was tempted to keep her off as well). I've rather lost contact with some of my mother's cousins so I decided leaving her on GR might mean relations would recognise her name.
I've not added any other living people to my tree because with my grandparents and great aunts and uncles on GR their decendants and relations will presumably be able to get that far back in their genealogical research without needing any other hints.

Sue