Genealogy Chat

I know these names irritate people but ... I'm sure there was a lad at school called Ben Dover, I'm nearly positive. And I would imagine the tree of the greek gods would be fairly interesting to see, wasn't there a lot of inter-breeding going on there? I do agree though, making the site feepaying only would hopefully eliminate the hoaxers. One of my many brickwalls might come down if only a certain member would reply to my emails. I can only assume she puts her people on and ignores any queries about them. Rach

However, if we tell GR, then they may, hopefully, one day, decide to make this site fee-paying only. :-) Joy

The sad thing is that you will only come across these 'humorous' entries if you actually search for them. So the deadheads who put them on and sit there sniggering are only talking to themselves. But this thread is actually giving them undeserved publicity!

Some members have surpassed themselves.................. Spawn of Devil 666 Hell Iraq------thanks for that S F***ing B***h Devil 1940-----how delightful Cathy(mum in law upset you again ?) A Dickhead-----someone obviously not impressed with a certain relative. Minger Minger born 1965 Croydon-----we heard you the first time. Bitch Nutter Slag born 1982----dear dear Joanna,anger management class called for methinks. Someone calling themselves classics has entered the gods,greek and roman versions- how diligent. Another entry lists as O dear God-----obviously been doing too many lookups. Another entry Pope jesus god----mmmmmm,bit confused there I think.

I decided to waste a few minutes looking for spurious people - We have a Scooby Doo and a Super Man on the site. Will GR tidy these up and remove them.

There is an Engelbert humperdink on this site,born 1970 in Hospital. There are no Ivan Earoff's or Ivan Eadaches! There are 3 Sherlock Holmes,one born in johannesburg in 1953,another in Trinidad in 1801!!! There actually seem to be serious entries that do sound dubious ,such as Claude Body born 1884 (entered 3 times) Clade Glass (entered twice) How about.................. Henry Duke of Saxony and Bavaria The Lion ??? King Grayson Arthur 1960 Melbourne?

I've just read this thread and would only comment that I think the massive ammount of good stuff, lookups, good web sites, advice and so on far outweighs the rubbish that some idiots post. If the site contains over 38 million names then searching through for the Mickey Mouse enteries would in my opinion a pointless wste of resource. Derek

''nudging'' :-) Joy

After reading this thread i decided to have a go, DAVID BECKHAM 1950 tree owner Brooklyn DAVID BECKHAM 1975 PECKHAM tree owner DAVID....... Moe!

please do not delete it! I think more of us should report the names to GR - maybe then they'd agree that the site should be fee-paying only. :-) Joy

Just noticed this has thread has attracted a couple of comments and is back on the board, 'Back bouncable Joy' or any others, do you want me to delete it ? Bob

As this thread has been 'revived' I wonder whether there has been any response to the person who emailed GR? It's about time they made it paying members only to stop all this stupidity!! Lynne

so this is still here - yet others aren't, wonder why. :-) Joy

Four Elvis Presleys and six Ben Dovers. It gets more and more ridiculous. At least those are nothing worse than irritating and not very useful to those of us who are trying to do genuine research; the Bin Ladens are completely tasteless, sick and offensive.

I have complained to GR about the couple of people aliasing as Osama Bin Laden (born in a cave in Afghanistan). Extremely tasteless joke in my book. Needless to say I have not had a reply..... Sarah

... two results for Santa Claus (and one for 'Santa Clause')... ... three for King Kong...

Having read four pages of replies to this thread I thought I should add one of my own. The chances are most of the spurious names have been added by kids. In my day our entertainment came from phoning London Zoo and asking to speak to Clarence or Mr C Lion now with the advent of modern technology............ It's better than intimidating old ladies (no offence meant to any 'old ladies' reading this) or vandalising the neighbourhood. However, I guess, any Woodentops, Andy Pandy et al, have probably been added by more 'mature' persons. Oh! and if anyone finds Mary Christmas she is genuine as she was living next door to one of my ancestors in the 1861 census!

Thanks Jeanette and everyone who answered my query. I now realise that I'm not the only one, who doesn't receive replies sometimes. It's so frustrating, especially when you are 90 per cent certain that there is a connection. Just have to hope that the submitters regain their interest some time or maybe advise GR of a changed email address. We can but hope! Thanks to all Barbara

Good evening, Have just caught up with all the “genealogical postings”. These all because I was bored when the LDS site went down for a while! I must admit that I did not expect such a lively debate, with comments from down under also received while I was behind my eyes. Having seen what has happened to other debate or fun threads, like disappearos, I did not expect this to survive. With regards to the dummy names I must admit I have been both amused and annoyed. My improvement comment for the GR survey was that surely a more positive identity and date with proof noted from certifications would be better for searchers. Nevertheless, I again have received an email reply today, percentage rate for me is about evens. Enjoy the rest of today, I personally intend at least to message, Jess, Mike from Leicester, reply to my mail and continue Thomas begat Thomas on the LDS, monitor the threads, maybe a beer or three and some telly. x Bob

Barbara As far as I know, the only 'tree' names to be deleted from this site are those you delete yourself. The trees of people who are no longer members, remain on this site. If you add to that the number of names that are duplicated everytime anyone updates a Gedcom and then add on all the Roger Rabbits and Darth Vaders, then the REAL number of REAL ancestors on trees on this site is probably only about half a million at the most. Hmm, reminds me of another site..... GR will do nothing about this situation of course, because the banner looks so much more impressive with '36 million ancestors listed' than it would with say, 435,129, half of which have not been verified by the poster anyway! Old Crone