Genealogy Chat

I am sure that many members, like me, welcome the ability to search on the names of living people. I have made many a connections this way, including distant cousins I never even knew about, which I wouldn't otherwise have done. If you prefer not to show all the details when you let someone see your tree, then again fine by me, but lets not try and link the two. If you feel so strongly that you don't want anyone to see living details ever, then remove them altogether, but it does beg the question why you are using the site in the first place.

Hi all, I haven't really thought this through, and I don't really understand the problem, so perhaps someone can explain. Everything on my tree is available in the public domain. But of course, making it all public in one area can be a danger. I remember telling my kids (now 27 and 24), not to make their names visible on luggage while on a journey, even by train, and to use a psudonyn, like the name of the cat, when they were about 14 and travelling to visit friends. What danger are we facing? I don't want to put anyone in danger, perhaps we should re-think what we put on Genes. Is it possible, perhaps to leave out the last two generations? I don't know. I'm a bit careless, and now I am worried. Are you saying that excluding living rellies does not work? In which case Genes should make sure that it does. Sorry, being naive. Love to all Margaret I have two trees on my PC, one with everything, and one with living people named as Living Living.

I will agree with you on one thing Titus. GR should have a board for public announcements on this site - i.e. - 'We stuffed up again - so sorry'. A public apology and an explanation of the problem would go a long way towards ending all the anxiety and angst occuring here lately.

Totally agree that if you want living relatives to be hidden they should be. Here's what I do: My complete tree is on my own PC on my own family tree software, this is the one I keep updated and the one that includes all my research notes, sources, exact dates etc etc etc. I only input years into date fields on this software and put the exact date e.g. dob in the notes. I flag all living relatives in this software (plus some recently decesased I also want to keep hidden). I also mark direct lines and their siblings to keep the numbers under control. Every so often I update GR with a gedcom file from my tree which only shows the birth and death years and places (i.e. I exclude all my notes when I export to gedcom) and doesn't show all the marked people i.e. all those 4th and 5th cousins many times removed that are interesting to me but probably not to anyone else. All the living relatives come through on GR as Unnamed Unknown This means that my info (and research) is protected but that I am generally happy to share my tree with others who have a connection. Given the huge amount of help I've had from other GR members in the past I am happy to pass some of this on. I only share details of living relatives with very close (i.e. first / second cousins) contacts and only via private mail. I have had some people query why I don't share everything but mostly they seem OK with it when I explain why and if they're not I don't share. I have pointed out to some of my contacts in the past that they have VERY sensitive info in their notes fields that anyone they share with can see. Just goes to show that GR shouldn't be the only place you keep your tree and your research. Helen

Lots of members seem to use GR to build their tree from scratch, rather than to share some or all of what they already have offline, and for them, the temptation to include all of their family (including the living) is much stronger. I bet that most of them do not actually have the permission of everyone they identify (but that is just a hunch), but there wouldn't be a problem if GR actually DID hide the details properly (rather than saying that they do when they do no such thing), and didn't then keep sharing trees without consent. And not to have made some sort of public announcement is inexcusable: explanation AND apology is the very least we should expect, but I, for one, am not holding my breath.

Maureen, You are absolutely right, it is your choice. The problem at the moment is that there is a fault with the database, whether we like it or not, that is a fact of life. The solution is either to ride it out, until GR find the solution, or delete your tree from the site and take up another hobby. I do think the whole thing has been overegged - it is not as though the entire GR membership can see your tree - it is confined to a small number of people who you can identify in your contacts list. I have over 20 pages of contact, most of whom have some sort of connection and of which over half are able to view my tree. I have chosen not to change my settings as I believe this makes things worse, and it makes it harder to see that the problem has been fixed. As I look at this moment all my permissions seem absolutely fine.

I suspect that one of the real issues here is that many members won't actually have specific authority to put their living relatives on GR in the first place. But then how can it be proven or disproven.

Shiela - because it is great entertainment. I know I can always get a good chuckle on these boards! Brightens up my cold rainy winter's day!

Then why (if you are so sick of it) are you complaining about it???

I could never get on with knitting. All that effort, and you still end up with something that looks as though your granny made it. Family history is more interesting, but I want to choose with whom I share the results of tens of thousands of hours of research (and many hundreds of pounds expenditure). Is that so terrible? Am I, and those like me, to be mocked because we might just have a point? Partly the answer lies in GR actually enforcing the rule that living relatives should not appear on a tree without the express permission of each and every person so identified. By and large, they are here without consent, and shouldn't be here at all. That wouldn't be so bad if the option to hide them actually did what it says on the tin (when most of us know that it does no such thing), and it wouldn't be so bad if GR didn't keep sharing our trees for us without our consent. My tree is gone, and it won't be back.

Then why keep reading it Michael???

Yes very amusing but why do you need to keep telling us how unsafe our security is already? As I said before it's called 'personal choice' and for the record Im not with BT nor am I in the directory :P

Good for you Peter! I just get so sick of the 'Chicken Little' hysteria that has gripped this site in the last few days!

Peter - that's a somewhat disingenuous comment. Obviously not ALL names should be invisible - and no-one's suggesting that! However, where people have selected the ''hide living relatives'' option then yes those names should certainly be hidden - both on the trees and on the name search. Quite apart from anything else, GR are breaking their own terms and conditions by displaying details of living people without their permission. You don't need the details of living people in order to match up common ancestors with other members, which is after all the purpose of this site. If you're trying to find living people then you're on the wrong site. Try FriendsReunited - at least on there, people have only entered their own details and implicitly by being on there they are happy for others to find them. Incidentally, the same is true for phone directories - you get the choice as to whether you want to appear in them or not, and certainly you don't get dozens of distant ''relatives'' putting your details on there on your behalf! Remember that a lot of people upload their data from Gedcoms etc and may think that by ticking the ''hide details'' button then they are meeting their obligations not to put details of the living on here. That is far from the truth - the only sure-fire way to do this is not to put those details on here at all. Richard

I'm just trying to get my head round all this. The site exists for the purpose of allowing the members to search for possible connections to their family. tree and the manner in which this is done is to look for matches with people who have similar names and other relevant details. Is that not correct? Can someone come up with another way of doing this if the names are invisible to everyone? Picking up on Mikes point, don't forget to write to BT and insist they destroy all known copies of the telephone directory as there are thousands of names and addresses there, all of living people. I'm told knitting is quite theraputic too,

Yes - I am going to delete my tree on here and on Ancestry and Tribal too, burn all my back-ups, chuck my computer in a dumpster, change my name by deed poll, and take up lawn bowls instead!

I've only put on my tree people who don't mind being put on. I agree that at the moment GR are sending out access to peoples trees when they shouldn't and people don't know about it. That is wrong. But I don't mind people actually searching on the quick search facility for names in trees. As I said before, it's what the site was meant for. Don't list what you don't want found. Kath. x

Kathleen they are revealing living relatives details - doesnt that worry you at all? They are giving access to your tree details without your permission to people you may have not wanted to see it.

I'm sorry, and I hope I don't upset anyone, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. There are lots of problems on GR which really annoy me, because I think they should spend some of their millions employing enough people to run this site properly, but I don't see anything wrong with the name search facility on this site. The clue is in the name of the site - GenesReunited. The whole point of joining this site is to find relatives, deceased and living. If people are not interested in doing this, then they shouldn't join the site. I have made contact with lots of relatives, close and distant, since joining the site. Yes, there is plenty to moan about and the site isn't as good as it used to be, but the name search facility is very good - much better than the 'Hot Matches' idea. Kath. x

Titus LOL!!!!!! Chris