Genealogy Chat

My experience is that I have had a couple of people take the names off my tree although I always put in a note if the information has not been confirmed by certificates etc. When I have found out later that the info. was wrong and I had corrected it in my tree I sent the information to these people. Both people didn't answer my emails, nor did they change their tree. That drives me mad because I am concerned that they will pass the info. on when it is wrong. For this reason I don't pass on anything but confirmed information even if I am very sure I am right about an individual. Otherwise with a definate connection I will send copies of certificates and photos because I know how excited I get when someone sends on their information etc. Susan

Hi Karen I too only buy certificates etc for direct line unless I need one to prove a difficult family connection. I do try and confirm other rellies via census, parish records and any other resource available but agree that to buy certificates for every single person in a tree (I have over 800 people in mine at present many of which are brothers, sisters, cousins etc rather than direct line) is prohibitive. Assuming these were all born after 1837 and if I purchased Birth, Marriage and Death certs for each one I would have to pay in the region of £16000 if my quick sum is correct LOL. If someone contacts me and I feel there is a connection I will open my tree and by doing this I feel I am giving permission for them to use any info contained within it so you wouldn't offend me my doing this. I believe that GR was set up for this purpose - sharing of information. I always advice people to double check my sources though to their own satisfaction as I am only human and not infalible. I won't include people in my tree if I am uncertain of my facts but if someone did have cause to doubt any of my info I would prefer to hear about it just in case I'm barking up the wrong tree (or just barking ;) So, please don't take up knitting, imagine how bored you would get without some of the lively discussions on here. Kate :)

i must admit that, as a relatively new (pair of) GR member(s) (my fiance is involved as well using my log-on!) this thread has been very illuminating. We sometimes feel a little guilty at having been provided with a load of data and being unable to reciprocate. However we now have that seed of doubt planted which says 'don't trust anything you hear on GR completely!' Can anyone recommend a good wool supplier and advice on knitting needles? :-D

Good Heavens Karen, did you think I was telling you off???? (You have never had an OC telling off, in that case!) I wasn't. I was trying to point out that if you do not have PROOF, then your tree can go badly wrong. Yes, buying certs for all your direct ancestors is expensive - I know, I've done it. And there IS a right way of doing a tree, there ARE rules - at least three pieces of evidence for each person on your tree, one at least should be from a primary source. I prefer to stick to those rules, but you don't have to, of course you don't. Don't take any notice of me - I am off in ten days. I am weary of being misunderstood. OC

Um........3 pieces of evidence. That's going to knock an awful lot of people off an awful lot of trees. Many cousins, siblings, distant aunts and uncles etc may only turn up as a baptism then disappear. It would be nice to have a lot of my ancestors' wills.......it's a pity the Germans destroyed virtually all of Somerset's in WW2. Some ancestors are just a name as a parent in the Baptism records. In an ideal world I'd like to find out more about them and by adding them to GR I stand a chance of them turning up in someone else's tree and being Hot Matched. One of my 5x great grandmothers appeared in a Hot Match this week and was the sibling of someone else's ancestor. That new contact had done a lot more on that branch than me and has shared. I think most of us see the GR trees as work in progress. I've made mine as accurate as I can while I'm doing it. Sue

Rude members are best ignored - do not part with any information however much you are tempted. A|llowing them to view your tree usually ends up with your ancestors 'patched' into theirs with no effort on their part - then you will not hear from them again. Also - a word of warning to those who accept other members trees, and 'patch' the names into their tree - you could be importing wrong information - names who have no connection with your family. Think for a moment, if those sharing a tree with you have 'patched' unverified information into their tree - you may end up tracing a family not connected to you - always treat any trees passed on to you with caution, and check each one out.....you may be surprised at the results!

I am with OC all the way on this. If you don't check the details you have for yourself even what you parents or grandparents have said you could end up with a tree that is very very WRONG. My mother when see died left me a file with a start of a family tree for me. I took it as Gospel. how very wrong she was. The GGGG-grandfather she had down was not even married so please check everything, all of you and don't take other peoples word as been right. Roger

Karen pet, I really don't think anyone is questioning your methods at all. This is simply a discussion about the potential pitfalls of sharing information for all of us and some very good points have been made. People are commenting, I feel, not because they question yours, mine or anyone elses methods but because this is an interesting topic. As I mentioned earlier a contact I have made has what I would consider doubtful info in his tree and so I chose not to use this. However, if he is happy to use this then that is entirely his choice. Unfortunately he doesn't appear to wish to enter into discussion regarding the authenticicy of the evidence. Some people feel very strongly about the use of information they have spent many hours collating, not to mention the cost implications. I have no such qualms but do understand and respect their reservations. After all, this world would be a very dull and boring place if we all did things the same way or thought the same things. OC, a shame you are moving on - I know I am a bit of a lurker but I have enjoyed reading your threads. Kate :-)

OC, This is devastating news: you are a beacon of good sense, wise advice and vast expertise. I hope you will reconsider. I am almost always in agreement with you (the need for primary evidence, the small-mindedness of xenophobic threads) but on this topic I feel it is better to open one's tree rather than let erroneous and poorly referenced genealogies gain ground. It has taken me about two years to persuade some fellow researchers that the IGI abstracted entries for our family are based on misreading the style of a particular parish register clerk. (He often enters only the mother's name with an occasional reference to a marriage page and this has been interpreted as an illegitimate birth.) Of course it is irritating to have lots of names peeled off but that is better than having fantasy trees everywhere. Peter

Oh, Peter, you flatterer, you! No, the time has come for me to move on. I am out of step with this Site and no longer seem able to express myself clearly enough to be understood - not just this thread but many others too, recently. It does get wearing - I have only ever wanted to help, and to share my enthusiasm for this obsession! I wish you all - an interesting family! OC

OC, I know you frequent FTF forum but you would always be very welcome on Your Family Tree Forum as well. I've always found you a very knowledgeable and interesting poster. :-) You'll be greatly missed on here. Cheers, Horatia

I don't think that OC was for one moment suggesting that if someone hasn't got three pieces of information to support their 'claim' to each individual on their tree, then that tree is worthless or invalid. I think she was responding to earlier comments to the effect that there is no right or wrong way to do a tree, by pointing out that family history societies and expert historians say that in fact there are approved and recognised conventions that are considered as standard. The three pieces of evidence thing is one of those conventions. One of those MUST be primary source. Someone submitting their tree for publication in a journal, for instance, would probably be asked to provide that evidence. I think OC was simply pointing out that conventions do exist. I recently removed most of the 800 names on my GR tree and now have only my direct line and the people I want to find information about. In the case of some of those pre-1837 people, I'm not entirley sure if they are siblings or cousins of my ancestors, but have put them as siblings until I know different. This doesn't bother me, as I am just fishing for information. If anyone contacts me about those people I will tell them EXACTLY what I know and what I don't know, and where I got my information from, with references. On my PC I have over 1500 names, with notes and citations and NOTHING goes on there that I can't prove. That's why I would feel 100% confident about sending out a gedcom file to someone - something I frequently do. What I would NEVER do is pick out a 'likely candidate' from a census, where one or two details may match, think to myself 'He'll do!' and proceed to put him on my tree...even my GR tree. I recently got in touch with someone on this site with whom I share great grandparents. I have traced this line - direct and expanded - to 1806. I was offering information, rather than asking for it. At first, I didn't tell them how much I knew, as I thought too much information might be overwhelming, and decided to see what they had and how far back (and how wide) they wanted to go. This person had, I soon realised, constructed their tree ENTIRELY from census and IGI data. A lot of it was right, with the usual DOB discrepencies found on census. Unfortunately a substantial amount of it was wrong - very wrong! Even the census data had not been read properly. I happily provided the correct information, quoting directly from certificates and parish records. I am fortunate enough still to live in the area and all my information is of primary source. This is one of the reasons why I like to offer help to people whose branches left the area. The marriage of my my 4xgrandparents (born in 1805 and 1806) which took place in 1829, is not on the IGI. It took me a long time to find it in Boyd's and with his surname misspelt. I then checked the parish record to confirm it. I later found two children born to them in 1839 and 1843 (available for all to see on the census), and was able to confirm her maiden surname from the birth certificates. This new contact, and at least two others on this site, had picked out a marriage from the IGI for a man of the same name, from a nearby parish, and decided it had to be them. Well it wasn't! The contact had then traced back the wrong wife a further two generations. They had done the same thing with two other branches which I have solid evidence for. A classic example of what can happen when people 'guesstimate'. I won't even get started on people who put guesstimates on publicly accessible trees, such as Ancestry, as I can feel my blood pressure rising, lol. I have read similar threads to this where people have responded to comments like mine and OC's with remarks like 'Get over yourselves: it's just a hobby....fun!' That's fine! Perish the thought that a hobby should become stressful! If people are doing it for the fun of it, that's great, as long as they make clear to those who contact them with enquiries that they haven't researched in any serious depth. I know a lot of people have said on here that they do that, as do I if I'm not certain. However, if it's more than just a pastime, and for many people it is, the motto 'if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well' is a good guideline. Best of luck with their research to everyone! Amanda

i know how you feel- althoe mine is more rude- a gent sent me a message regarding a name on my tree, i e-mailed him back asking question's, to which he replyed a satisfieing answere- he asked if i could alow him access to my tree, to which i did, when i asked to view his tree, he said he couldnt view mine, so i re-sent a message to allow him to view my tree, to which i got a reply which was nasty and hasty. others have viewed my tree without any problems what so ever. so now ill ask to view others before i allow access to mine.

Hi all Very interesting thread. I must admit that I do use the information from someone else's tree.......but ONLY as a starting point. I always check out the info for myself before adding any of it into mine, because I too have found theirs is not always accurate. Before opening my tree on here to anyone I upload a new gedcom with just the part of the tree that is related to theirs, that way they can only take what is pertinent to their own. When I think they have had enough time to look and copy what they want I remove their access and load my full tree back on. Mary

Having taken note of the 'etiquette' advice from these boards, I always offer some info as a 'checking point' when contacting 'hot matches' ( I know they're usually rather UN-hot, but I have had some very good matches, which makes it worth the work!). The other day I had a reply form someone, saying that it wasn't the same family as the 'checks' didn't match. Fair enough - that's the purpose of the checking point. They then suggested that I should open my tree at the time I made the inquiry, if I wanted to be taken seriously by other members! Evidently doesn't read these boards! Like many, I'm sorry OC's going - I'll have to drop in more often to FTF to catch her pearls of wisdom. She's always been full of calm and sensible advice. Bee.

Mary What a good idea, loading up just the relevant areas and the time limited access. That could be a very good compromise. Thank you. Kate.

Yes this has turned into an interesting discussion. I think the sort of people who are regulars to these boards and who contribute to discussions like this are going to be the ones who want their trees to be as accurate as they can make them. We all go about this hobby in slightly different ways because we don't all have the same access to information. It's pot luck how lucky you are to find unusual surnames or collections of original documents lurking somewhere. If your ancestors were recorded on lost census entries or illegible or destroyed parish records then it is never going to be straight forward. Sometimes the many threads of the tree which I am working on at once make me feel a bit as if I'm juggling. Some parts of my tree I researched in my local records office over many hundreds of hours until I feel as if I would almost know those ancestors if I met them. Some of my contacts have had the same sort of experience but of different parts of my tree. On an almost daily basis I am exchanging new ideas and new information with people and sometimes we come up with a nice theory only to discover that on later inspection it doesn't fit all the evidence. My GR tree contains only a very few of the names of people who could go on the tree but I tend to go as far as I am confident based on what I have found so far. The greater part of my tree isn't online at all because that part is medieval and not the bits I am trying to fill in. I also don't want hot matches to any more people who lived 1000 years ago. New people join the site all the time and someone else might just have inherited a family document which could alters details but anyone I share with is always told that this is work in progress. It would be shared in good faith and it all fits the evidence I have found. When I am uncertain I tend to put a question mark next to the name so someone seeing my tree would be aware that I have concerns about that individual. For example: I have an ancestor Elizabeth whose parents are only pencilled in on any paper trees I have. I was in contact with another GR member this week who has her down definitely as the child of that couple. I tend to ask people where they found their evidence and then go and look at it myself........I'm always curious as to how I've missed it if it is online. This further digging means I have spotted that there are two Elizabeths (well one is down as Elisa. with a full stop in the IGI). They are first cousins and I am now querying which one is my ancestor. While I wait to discover if there is any chance of ever proving it, I have her father down as David or Thomas on the GR tree. I think there must be people using GR as their only way of recording their trees. Not sensible I think but judging from comments I read on threads it does look like it. I certainly have spotted loads of notes on some of the trees to which I have been given access. I keep my notes in bulging files of paper plus saved files on my computer and on discs. I save scraps of paper with latest ideas as I think of them. There wouldn't be room to put it all on GR. So long as living people are kept off the GR trees and people use this site as a way of contacting distant relations who are possibly useful sources of information then I cannot really see quite what all the fuss is about. As has been said, we ask for lookups and receive those gratefully. Those bits of information are accepted in good faith. If I find someone has used the IGI for their information then I would always look myself and use my judgement about how accurate that is. I always think of this hobby as being like doing a vast jigsaw with no guiding picture and no nice edges plus someone has removed a lot of the pieces. So long as we aren't trying to shove a bit that doesn't fit into the puzzle then if a group of pieces arrives which fit nicely and follow the picture then they are probably right and at least worthy of being 'pencilled' in. Good luck everyone Sue

Hello, I'm quite new to this site and have been guilty of adding names to my tree I didnt need. I did have permision from the other person but when I thought about it I didnt need them all. Some names where relations of people married into the family who had nothing to do with my ancestors. So I deleted them. Some people can be very rude but at the same time some are just silly mistakes. It would be good if we could just let people see a certain portion of our trees which relate to them. Helen

Sue My own tree is a work in progress and it will never be finished. I too have much 'pencilled in' information, waiting to be checked out as and when the opportunity arises. What concerns me is the practise of accepting someone else's tree as gospel, because the other person is 'nearer' to the relative in question. I keep banging on about this but it drives me mad - at least nine GR members have a distant relative of mine in their tree, from whom they are all descended. The only fault with that is - she died, aged four! The death is even on the IGI, as an extracted record. I tell them all till I am blue in the face, but they ALL tell me that they got their information from 'a very good contact, who has a very large tree'. All that has happened is that they have all blindly copied this information without checking it. Worse, they won't be told they have made a mistake, and this version of the tree is now set in stone. Curiously, none of them have found the marriage which must have led to them being descendants, but they all know it was 'about 1753'. Yes, by all means, use other people's research as a guide, but check it out. Even recent relations get things wrong - my father certainly did. He didnt have a clue that his grandmother was in fact his step grandmother and wasn't mother to any of the children, including his father. And the buying of certs also reveals a few things that no one knew about, either - baby sister Elsie, darling of the family, turns out to be the eldest girl's illegitimate child. Dear old gran and grandad, lovebirds of the century, both turn out to have been married before, and one of them bigamously at that! Think of it this way - if we ALL bought certs for our direct ancestors, then we could swap these certs with other members of our trees and we would all then be SURE we were following the right families. It IS expensive - but personally I would rather spend £7 to know I have it right than to spend endless hours chasing the wrong family. You don't have to buy all the certs at once - I have collected mine over about 20 years. Happy hunting OC

You're welcome Kate :-) Just to reiterate what others have said, don't take as gospel what even close relatives tell you. My mother was insistant about the names of her aunt and uncle, I spent many many hours searching for their births eventually found them.....the name she knew her aunt by was actually her 2nd name and her uncle's name was totally different! lol. And yes they are the correct ones, I have the certificates! lol. Also very recently I was told the names of parents and date of marriage on one line, I thought brilliant! I've been searching for that for ages. When I looked at it, thought hmmmm the children were born 20 years after the marriage. It seems that although the names are the same the marriage is for a different couple. So back to the drawing board on that one. Mary