Genealogy Chat

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!

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

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

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

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 :)

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

Hello, I agree with what has been said, what is the point of putting people in your tree if you do not have the certificate to prove it, yes it cost a lot of money,14 dollars and 7-10 days snail mail. BUT at least all the people in my tree are there by rights, I have meet some lovely people on GR but there are some rotters. I have had my tree 'raped 'twice now by people how can not be bothered to look up the most simple things--- never again will I open my tree unless the person is a relative how ever far back. I know it is difficult before 1837 but if there is the will, there is a way. Sheila

I don't have my tree on GR so obviously can't send to anyone, however, some contacts automatically send me theirs on without my ever asking and then appear to go in a huff when I write back and politely point out that although I can't send mine on, I can go into good and relevant detail about the people they're enquiring about. I tend not to hear from them again even though I feel I've passed on far more information regarding BMD's and census plus Poor Law information etc than I ever get back from just looking at a few names on a tree. Give me the 'bringer of news' contact any time over the plain sharer of trees. After all, I've already done the searching myself and could probably tell them a thing or two about their own family that they might not know and missed out on by not keeping in touch.

Thought it would be too good to be true. Never mind, still nice talking to you Kate x

Sadly not, though I hear the 'Hurst' spelling is a southern one, whereas the 'Hirst' is northern. My lot are from Ormskirk in Lancashire and thereabouts.

A woman after my own heart Kate (must be to do with the name LOL). Cross the t's and dot the i's and you can't go far wrong. Kate :-) btw, I have a Mary Hurst married John Padwick in my tree. Don't suppose you're a Sussex/Hampshire girl are you?

An excellent point, Kate. I have a contact who has kindly shared lots of information with me and I have tried to reciprocate. His method of approximating dates of birth is to go by the census records. eg. Tom Smith aged 8 in 1901 he would note down as 'born before 31 Mar 1893'. Thing is, I'm getting much pickier. I like to get the said Tom Smith and find his birth registration in Sep qtr 1892 or whatever the case may be. I also like to get a bit of background on spouses who married into the family. In one case I discovered that a Sarah who is down in everyone's notes under one surname as having married my distant cousin Samuel (there are a few people on here searching for the same family as mine) had been married before so I am trying to find her real maiden name. I don't assume everyone I contact has it right or wrong, I just like to double check it myself (I have often found twice-married women this way) and come to my own conclusions.

Have to agree with OC on this one regarding the use of caution when using other researchers information. I have no problem sharing my tree if I think there is a good connection and if those I share with wish to use my info that is fine too. That is why I open my tree and in my opinion the whole purpose of this site. If I have opened my tree for someone I don't expect them to ask additional permission to use info from it. I know my info is accurate and I don't include it unless I have researched it thoroughly, even if I have initially been given the lead from someone else. I was contacted recently by a member who most certainly does have a connection and which has resulted in my having a new line to follow through. I was happy to share trees as there was a definite link and thought we could mutually help each other. However, this contact now seems offended that I haven't added this new info to my GR tree yet. I have tried to explain that before I add any info I check it out for myself in order to assure myself of the integrity of my tree. Plus, I have reason to believe that this member is accepting as fact some definitely dodgy IGI info that basically sends the tree in the wrong direction and can be proven to do so. I have queried this but my question is being ignored. Another reason why I would want to check out any links for myself! Sorry I'm rambling aren't I. The point I'm trying to make is by all means share info but it is good practice to assure yourself of the accuracy of that info. Please don't assume that everyone takes time to do this and this can lead you completely in the wrong direction if you aren't careful. And if you aren't sure if someone minds you using information from their tree, a polite pm asking if it's ok can't hurt. Happy Hunting Kate PS: I remember sitting next to a very nice chap at Kew one day who told me he had been tracing his tree for just a couple of weeks and had made a contact who had given him his whole tree right back to 1066. I was astonished that he appeared to have accepted this whole tree as fact without checking it out any further and was merrily telling his family about all of their new 'rellies'. Very nice I thought but wheres the fun in that - isn't the search the best bit :-)

Don't be despondent Karen I don't think you've done anything wrong. If I find a contact who is likely to find relations on my tree then I am happy to share. I learned quite early on to leave all living relatives off GR when a very distant relation put my father and me on his tree. He was surprised when I asked him to remove us and since then I only have deceased people named on here and keep notes to the bare minimum. In view of the way some people feel on this site, I do say when I share that I am happy for them to use any information relevant to their own tree. If someone shares with me I would thank them and double check that they are OK with me adding to my own tree. That should then stop any feeling of being taken for granted. I do think that if someone opens their tree then they shouldn't be surprised if someone uses the information shown to them, but it is better if everyone says please and thank you. It is important to double check what someone else has got. I've seen some bits of shared trees which do not match up with my own research so be careful not to believe everything you read. Good luck with your tree Sue

Hi annie I pride myself on being polite but of late I have had so many people asking to view my tree and most from people I have spoken to in the last couple of years with no connection to my family that I now just send an auto reply saying sorry not my relative I know this is not right but I'm fed up, I have even had people sending me messages anwering questions about who I am looking for and their DOBs I have not asked about these people so what is going on? I have also had trees added to my list that are not even rmotley connected to me these I just delete weird. Paul

Karen You say you cannot possibly research every name in your tree, because of constraints of time and expense, and you are therefore happy to use other people's research when it is offered to you. But how do you know that they too, don't have either the time or the money to research properly? You say that you are fairly new to family history. I think you will find out, sooner or later, that you HAVE to do your own research, and to do it properly, otherwise your tree will finish up as a load of rubbish. By all means, if a contact has certs etc and you have proved the link for yourself, with other certs, then you can accept that research as being sound. I have lost count of the number of trees on here which have seemingly good research in the last 100 years, but it all goes to pot before that because they have relied on census information only, or on a contact's tree. I personally don't think it is worth taking any short cuts in this game because the results can be so catastrophically wrong. I know this, from my own bitter experience. OC

If I get the automated message asking to view my tree I usually respond by asking why and what they think the connection is. If they reply back and there looks to be a connection I explain politely that I don't as a rule open my tree to anyone but, I will send them a line drawn tree with all the people on it relevant to them. I don't then mind them adding this information to their tree. What I don't like is when people add all the twigs and branches off my tree that have absolutely nothing to do with them. Ann glos

Anyone reading this Annie and I are connected through my maternal sides grtx4 grandparents who were brother & sister from the early 1800,s. Just for info!! Shirley

Hi Annie Well I would never ask someone to open their tree but it has happened to me before the latest glitches just because I answered a thread with some reg info they wanted, they then bombarded me with genes Pm's asking to look at my tree and wouldn't take no for an answer, even tho we had NO connection. I eventually just stopped replying to them trying to get them to accept we had no connection. We have the connection thro our Chaneys but I would never filch any info .I have other connections too and have always swopped info and asked if it was ok to add to my tree anything that i didnt have previously. Its only good manners after all

Annie if anyone sends me an automatic reply to view my tree, i just ignore them