Genealogy Chat

Sorry chaps, I fell a long time ago !

I went to The College for the Distributive Trades in Leicester Square, my Mum always called it The Institute for Destitute Prostit**es.

Like Mandy, I fell fro a Hot Match relation just after I started, she stole my tree and added it to her other 25,000 names.

Unfortunately two branches were still a work in progress and I now know were at that time totally wrong.

Now those "wrong " relations are on a good few trees, having been copied from hers and my parents and my brother and I have our names connected with relations that aren't ours at all.Including a whole load of Scottish families which only a few weeks ago I proved were nothing to do with us as they had all been in India not Scotland.

I have no desire to put them right as they obviously haven't bothered to check any details what so ever before adding those names to their trees blindly.

I never give anyone access to my tree any more.

Hope you are all enjoying the sun. M

I was really annoyed when I first joined 'Genes' and just started my tree. I contacted someone with a 'hot match' because I was curious to find how they were related to me. I let them have access to my tree, and they just copied all my hard researched stuff into theirs, and never let me see their tree. I only know that they had copied my tree because I started getting loads of hot matches with people unique to my tree with this other person, and I still get them now. I complained to 'Genes' and I think the person was 'told off' about it. The pleasure of doing my tree is from doing the research and fitting the bits together, and I have only added from other trees when it has been offered by the tree owner, and we have shared our research. Can't be doing with this 'mine's bigger than yours' stuff. Sorry Roy (and Jonesey) i won't be taking you up on your offer!!! :-D

Well I think you are both (polite version) mucky aged males :-| :-|

But I admire your money-making attitude :-D

<3

Jonesey, I think my offer of 60/40 (In my favour) Is more than reasonable

After all i thought of it first, And i would be the one administering this plus i would be the one doing the copying oops, I meant researching these trees and your Fallen Women would be happy with whatever they can get ;-)

Roy :-D

Oh all right then Roy, 60/40 (In my favour) is acceptable as I need the cash to try to persuade a few more women to fall. :-D

That's a deal then Jonesey ;-)

Is 60/40 OK with you :-D

Roy

Roy,

I hope that you realise that advertising your services for commercial purposes on the GR message boards is in contravention of GR's terms and conditions of use.;-)

I won't rat on you providing that you donate any monies received to:

Jonesey's Home for Fallen Women. :-D

regardless of whether you want the biggest tree in the village or the tree that goes back to Adam and eve

without evidence the tree will always be a fantasy tree

Copying on mass by way of merging trees is just a quicker way of gaining more names I doubt very much that anyone merging trees will ever go to the trouble of checking the accuracy of these trees

If you cannot be bothered to do your own research then its unlikely you will be bothered to check the details of these merged trees.


For any one who would like such a tree
I have trees ready to link you to many thousands of ancestors going back to God for a small fee of £60 it could all be yours just send your credit card details to my inbox and i promise to send you a copy of YOUR Gedcom

I can also send a printed version of your tree for an extra £40 plus P&P

Roy :-D

Like Jonesey has said it all depends on what you consider to be a family tree.

I will never be a 'name collector', adding thousands of names to my tree.

Having made contact with other members who have shared their information, I have made a note of details which may be relevant to my family and then I research that info myself ensuring their facts are correct before adding it to my tree. I would never simply merge someone else's tree with mine. Like others, I have spent an awful lot of money making sure that my tree is accurate and by merging my tree with someone else's may undo that accuracy.

I wouldn't want to restrict myself to just the first level of a family tree (no more than 255 individuals as stated in Joneseys post). If you don't include siblings of direct ancestors, then obviously you're not including cousins who I consider to be my family.

I have also added my step-father to my tree. Although not a blood relation, he was part of my life for 32 years until his death. He meant more to me than my natural father who I've hardly seen in the last 40 years.

As has been said, it depends on what YOU consider to be a family tree.

Chris

Beats me but maybe it's an 'I've got more than you have thing' if they want to show anyone or just have a bragg. It's a bit like claiming someone you know slightly, and who is famous, as some close best mate. It's just posturing or a bit of self-importance or because they don't see themselves as being much without it.

I've only got a few hundred names on my tree. I don't care. I found them all myself bar a few which came from my new-found cousin and are all current family.

xJ

Thankyou for your replies, Penny, Sylvia, Jonesey and MarieCeleste :-D

I'd personally rather have fewer names and know a little about each of them than swathes of names that mean nothing to me, and have no particular desire to trace back to 'Adam and Eve', but each to their own :-D

Too true, Jonesey! As in all occupations and pastimes some people are more competitive than others, in these instances some people just like being able to brag how many 10s of thousands of names they have collected.

I suppose that it depends on what you consider to be a family tree.

In its strictest sense YOUR Family Tree should only comprise of you and those whose genes have contributed to your own. That means you, your 2 parents, your 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents ect. If you are lucky enough to be able to trace your ancestry back through 8 generations, your tree should have no more than 257 individuals. Hopefully all personally researched and supported with appropriate documentation. Depending upon your age now, that might well cover a period in excess of 250 years.

I suppose the next level of family tree would include all the above plus the siblings of your direct ancestors. That in itself could generate hundreds of more "Relatives". From a time and cost point of view the research into these relatives has probably not been carried out with the same degree of dedication and accuracy. Accepting census records, birth index or parish record entries as proof rather than purchasing certificates ect.

Next we have the all encompassing tree which has all the above plus their spouses, their descendants, the spouses ancestors together with all their ancestors and descendants. By now the tree will probably have several thousands of individuals and should probably be called "Family Connections Tree" rather than "Family Tree".

So why do some people add other peoples trees to their own. My theory is that it is the, "Mine's bigger than yours" syndrome.

Is that harmful? That depends upon whether that "Family Connections Tree" is in the public domain or not. If it is private and the "FCT" has been compiled just for the amusement of its owner then no harm should be caused. If it is public however then there will undoubtedly be others who will be keen to add it with all its probable inaccuracies to their own tree to enable them to claim, "Mines bigger than yours". And so the merry-go-Round goes on.

name collectors?


people who want the results without doing the work?

Difference between a person who does a family tree & a genealogist?

Thanks Kense, I was thinking of starting another tree as I have found a lot of Fishlocks that I can't tie to mine, though I am sure they are connected, same area and distinctive name patterns. So it would make sense if I ever do prove the connection to be able to merge the two seperate trees myself.

DET probably right with that also, as I have seen similar queries from newbies wanting to merge trees on Ancestry with their own.

They might be people who are just starting out with their research, without realising its best to refer to, but not copy.

The merge facility can be useful where you create a tree to investigate a family with the same surname that lived in the same village as someone in your tree. You then find a common link and need to merge the two trees.

I wouldn't merge someone else's tree with mine though.

some people like to add other people's trees directly to their own? Being able to merge trees is something that seems to be cropping up now there is the new tree,( not just on here though, I have seen posts about it on other sites) and maybe I am missing the point of it?

For example: I have in my contacts someone who is related to my great gt aunt's second husband....that aunt being the only person we have in common ...I wouldn't want to add their tree to mine.

Or even if , as with my cousin, we have all the same family, but they or I might have done a bit more research on one branch...I wouldn't want to merge the trees just to get that extra bit as it were ...

It seems to me ( may just be me!) that it would take away all the challenge and sense of achievement to just add from someone else's tree ( quicker and cheaper perhaps but no fun lol) ?