Genealogy Chat

There are genealogists and then there are HOOVER genealogists. There is a big difference between the two. Some of us just need a lead or a nudge in the right direction and then go off and research the rest ourselves. Then there are those who don't want to put in any work or pay for any units on 1837 or buy any certificates. They just want to Hoover up your info (all for free of course)! Half the fun of genealogy is the thrill of the chase and knocking down those brickwalls by your own efforts. I feel sorry for those people who haven't progressed beyond their schooldays and have to copy other people's work. Thanks to one of my 'contacts' my grandmother appears on this website with the wrong birthplace. I helpfully gave some info to a cousin a few times removed and her accuracy leaves something to be desired. I asked her to correct her mistake and she hasn't obliged. Her computer broke down the other day and she wanted me to resend the certificates I had already sent her. I turned a deaf ear just as she had turned a deaf ear to me. I know that makes me sound rather bitter; but I have another relative (a third cousin) who I met on GR. We share info and he buys certs and sends copies to me and I do likewise. We SHARE! It's not all one way. I help him and he helps me. He cares about the accuracy of his info unlike this other person. As in life, you need to choose your friends and your collaborators with care! Cheers, Horatia

Hi, I have recently become angry regarding one user who has my mother and her siblings in his tree. The information is so incorrect to the point that she has gained two extra siblings.....(not even I have placed this info on the internet). I am angry because I feel that this person is building a database of surnames that link to his tree....is not putting the work in to prove the information. What perhaps once was a genuine hobby has become a race to increase the 3000+ people in his tree for some competition prize??? I am angry that there are genuine people spending hours researching their own trees with quality methology...not asking to view a tree....then copying it and expanding their own egos. I am angry that I provided this person with corrections to other parts of his tree. BUT I AM SOOOOO PLEASED that I simply did not push the button VIEW MY TREE. I have shared my tree with others doing what I call genuine research...we want to find out who, what ,when, how and why. It is our family...I feel that I know each person on my tree... I have complained to the tree owner and asked them to remove the information or to prove it.....I have complained to G R but have still not received any feedback... So my tree has today been wittled down.....Only the information I am happy to be duplicated by what ever means is available and I will remain everso hopefull that I will receive a genuine response to that information..... There that got it all off my chest. Sally

I dont mind anyone seeing my tree but I dont have any living rellies on it. I had all the fun of researching the tree and have been helped along the way by loads of people on this site. As for people nicking your info and claiming it as their own? well, I didnt start this for the glory. LOL Ellen XX

It is netiquette to ask first. :-) Joy

Once more we are back to that stupid box that you have to tick for people NOT to be able to see your tree. I know in this case permission was given, but i wonder how many of us have made the mistake of giving all and sundry access to our tree's. I answered a message on the tips board the other day, very badly written and a complete muddle, it sounded like someone just starting out.Emailed them direct with the offer of some help and asked a few questions to help me look up things, only to find that they had been at it for years, couldnt afford to join any websites so have been getting help on GR. While i appreciate that some people may be hard up, in a way it annoyed me, we all struggle at times, some more than others, but this hobby IS expensive, my opinion is that if you cant afford the occassional cert then you shouldnt really start, in the hope that ALL the information you are going to need will come from others. What do others think? mo jo

The way to get around the living persons is quite simple. I have two trees one that I upload on this to website and anyone that is living is listed as so with their surname - that way protecting their identity, but on my computer I have the full tree with all names and if/when I swap information I always clearly state that if they are to make any part of my tree public then they need to respect the wishes of my family and not use their first names, i.e. does as I do and insert 'living' as their first name. I have only had one problem with this and I emailed and the person involved who apologised for uploading the wrong tree and corrected it within 24 hours. But at the end of the day whether you add a disclaimer or not you always run the risk that they wont do as you ask - so if you really dont want your living names out there, then dont give them out.

Brian It isnt really in the public domain if its only on this site, as you have to give permission to view your tree. It isnt on general view. Permission given by living relatives for this site on the understanding it wasnt on general view is surely different. Margaret

The problem of living relatives keeps coming up. However, if you have put them on here then you have presumably got their permission. The data is therefore in the public domain and no longer under your control.

The problem of living relatives is the reason why I never allow access to my tree on GR. If a person can prove a connection then I email them that part of the family file from the genealogy program on my computer, which is in fact in much greater detail. That way I can decide which parts of the tree, if any, I dont want them to see. Also, as I have mentioned before, I dont mind sharing info but I have one distant cousin who took my tree some time ago and then told everyone the work was all his. He had almost nothing when he contacted me, I am not so gullable these days. The source details on my tree always give the name of who supplied the data if it is something I havent researched myself or havent checked yet. That is, the tree on my computer which is loads bigger that the one on GR. Margaret

One of the problems is permission from living relatives. I recently found some on the lists of ' your names ' that had been entered by one member but supplied by another member who was doing a ' one-name survey ' and over-enthusiasm by both parties was the cause. No reply to the message asking for them to be removed so had to enlist the help of GR who dealt with it but this has probably now caused ill-feeling. All because someone was too stupid to work out that the d.o.b's indicated probably still alive and did not check.

Hi, I usually ask people not to put anything I have passed on to them on any website until they have checked it out for themselves. Mistakes and mistranscriptions are easily made. My ancestors are on Gencircles, LDS ancestral files and world family tree, put there by others. A lot of information was lifted straight from the IGI which is wrong in several places, as anyone checking original records will see. There is some very badly researched genealogy on the web and I don't want to add to it. Gwynne

I was contacted by someone last year. They say I had a name on my tree that they shared and they would give me information if I could 'prove' that mine was the one they thought it was. After loads of comming and going they sent me some info but said I could not put it on any public tree. So this info, of bood rellies is now in a file but cannot be used. Yes, I could go to that particular record office and dig it out myself but would probably be accused of using his tree. So it's dead info. I suppose the question is if someone gave you the info would you want to use it or not? I still can't work out why I was given the info.

Sharing family tree info is alright, so you expect it to appear on their tree, but is is annoying when the info is one way. I now never allow my tree to be shown to another researcher till I am certain, that info is two way, not arm chair researchers, john

I guess I don't understand why this is upsetting. If the people are really related to the same relatives that you are then shouldn't they be able to include them in their tree? I know a lot of work and money can go into researching your family but it seems to me that it's just part of the result that you uncover relatives that belong to someone else too. It's like planting a garden, if other people enjoy it but you had all the work and investment can you complain?

Terence, How do you know the other person hadn't followed the same route to obtain the information that you have also obtained? If you can do it, it's perfectly possible for someone else to do the same, and the information is just as readily available to anyone who wants to find it. Nobody 'owns' ancestors or their relatives, and nobody 'owns' information in the public domain. I have a large number of living relatives, and any of them or their spouses could lay claim to any of the info I've turned up and used to create my tree. CB >|<

Hi Elly Thanks for your in;put as well. Terry

Hi Peter Many thanks for your reply and input. You are correct in saying that I did give viewing permission to another GC Member. I suppose it just came as a bit of a shock to see the info on another site. Terry on the Rock

Terence I have to admit I have taken info from other's trees BUT only when I have had permission from them first. There is a site dedicated to a name in my tree and it took 3 months to get a reply from the web owner - but there was no way I would copy anything from the site until I had permission - which I now have. By giving permission to view your tree surely you are giving permission to copy the information too? If anyone contacts me I make sure there is a connection before I allow permission. Elly

This question does come up quite regularly, and the responses usually fall into two camps. Those who are happy for their information to be used in this way, and those who don't. I tend to side with the former. The main objective of the site, sureley, is to share information. You choose what information goes on the site and you choose who to share it with. The first time I saw our close family line appear in someones tree it did feel a bit odd, but then I though what the heck, isn't that what we are here for? After all, if you choose to share the tree, that person is doing nothing wrong if they decide to make use of the information. Presumably you gave permission to this other person to see your tree? Otherwise how can you be sure it is another GR member? As far a living persons are concerned, under the T's and C's for this site, you must have prior permission to record the information in the first place, and by sharing that information with someone else, surely it is implied that you pass that permission on. Another approach which I and other members also use is once you have exchanged credentials email a copy of just the info you are happy to part with, rather than give access to your entire tree on the site. The down side of this is that you must first disclose your email addresses to each other, but at least you don't run the risk of entire chunks of your tree being copied. Peter

I've just found one complete branch of my tree on another website. It was obviously cop;ied by a GC Member. It would have been nice to been asked first. Has this happened to anyone else? Terry on the Rock