Find Ancestors

Kevin


old threads HAVE proved useful to other people looking for the same name


OR for similar information

The first time I asked for help I sat looking at the screen waiting for a reply, pottered around the house - back to the screen. Still can't remember how I managed to find the replies that had been almost instant. I'm one of those people who never read quidelines. Genes is not an easy site to follow. Take the reply button - its at the bottom of the page yet the pm is clearly visible.


Vera

Then they probably weren't that interested ;-)

Sylvia,

I know, they proved useful to me. But that didn't stop the self appointed forum police telling me off for posting on one. If they're useful, let's use them. If we aren't allowed to make use of them, delete them.

Kevin, we weren't telling you off, we were trying to help you - honestly!


You posted a request looking for Siggs' from Essex onto a thread which was 7 years old!


It was not connected to you at all, it was just a thread started by someone researching the name Siggs.


We simply tried to advise you of the fact that you were unlikely to get any help by posting on an old thread and that it would be better for you to start a thread of your own etc.....


Only the original poster or GR can remove threads by the way.


Hope this helps. Cx

Good idea GlitterBaby perhaps they would notice there is a differance between living rellies and find ancesters as well



Carol ;-)

I was talking about complete threads Jude, not our individual comments which I know we can delete if we so wish.


I'm not in favour of people deleting their comments when they have helped someone (unless it is duplicate info) - it makes the thread look silly and renders it useless.


We had a phase a year or so back where some helpers were deleting what they had found if the poster didn't return within a day or so. Don't ask me why because I just can't see the point.



I have .......er......hundreds of threads in my threads box and there they will stay. :)


Cx

That 7 year old thread has actually proved very helpful to me. I'm in touch with the person who posted it. If it was about John Smith I can see that it would be pointless to resurrect it but with a name as unusual as Siggs there is a very high chance of a family link and I see no wrong in posting on it. I asked a question which could have been answered but no, was told to start my own thread and I'm grateful for the help I received there, but, as I've already said, with a name like Siggs it would prove useful, not just to me but to most people researching that name. But as I've exhausted the Siggs threads on here I promise not to resurrect any more 'out of date' posts. :-P

Kevin

I cannot see anyone telling you off on that thread

You were advised to start your own thread or contact the poster directly

I assume you did contact the poster? if you are now in touch as I cannot see a reply from her on the thread

Wonder who are the "forum police" ?

It is probably the members who use their paid subscriptions to help out on these boards.

Kevin, no law against resurrecting old posts.

You could add a note that you have also sent a direct PM , to save anyone pointing it out.

Kevin


We are only trying to help when posters raise an old thread, and post information on it ........... to let you know that you might (probably will) get a much better response if you pm'd the person who started the thread.



You see ......................... those of us with long memberships, and long time experience on the Boards, know not only that GR does not send notifications of posts on threads, and know that many many (if not most) people do not check back on their threads after a certain length of time

........... but also know that the information thread was NOT threaded until late 2007!

People would post requests on the thread (or on a Surnames thread) and people would then have to pm them with replies and help.


I often spent hours helping on a thread ............... and sending pm after pm of information that I had found. It was an absolute nuisance .................... you could only have so many characters in a pm before it cut you short

........ and you also never knew how many other people were also working on that same request!

I dread to think how many pm's people might receive!

What that boils down to, is that anyone who posted a request before ca November 2007 would NOT be returning to the thread to check for any posts, because they couldn't!




............... only that explanation is far too long to post EVERY time that someone posts on an old thread.




I suppose, though, that you will never be convinced that any of us were trying to help.


............ and will continue to malign us with the horrid term of board or forum police


so be it.


I suppose that means that you don't want help from the "police"? :-D



sylvia

I am a reasonably intelligent person. I was aware of how old the thread was when I posted on it. I wasn't, as you all assumed, trying to contact KateHurst (OP), I was asking for information re a Siggs . The thread was Siggs related. All of you saw it. Rather than offer me the information I asked for, you told me to (pointlessly) start a new thread and ASK THE SAME THING AGAIN. I would say, the less threads the better.

p.s. The comment 'forum police' was inspired by the postings of 'Glitterbaby' 'okaying' a thread of mine.

I am aware of how you all like the forum to work and I will adhere to your requests, you are, after all, the people who have helped me !!

Love and peace :-)

For those who give help,as opposed to asking for it, the request that people hang around for a few minutes makes perfect sense.

It is often the case that additional info is need to give accurate and useful info............the poster is not helping him/herself by not waiting to see if any clarification, or elaboration, is required.

Kevin, you say you have exhausted the Siggs old threads but have you looked in the Search Tree facility?

The name isn't as unusual as you think - there are over 300 matches on this site with that name.


Cx.

Many are duplicates, I've mailed a few tree owners but only had one reply. I think in many cases it's simply that somewhere along the line someone in their tree has married a Siggs. The 1911 census lists 245 of us. I'd say that was quite an unusual name :-)

Thank you for the advice though Cynthia.

Kevin.

There are only 53 of my maiden name on the 1911 and it can be traced back to at least the 1600s...I think they must have all had girls :-D

There are also hundreds with the name Siggs on FB Kevin. Have you any contacts there.......?


Cx

FB, yes. As far as I'm aware the male line from C M Siggs of c1808 has produced very few male Siggs. My GF had one brother who had daughters. My G,GF had two brothers, one was childless (as far as I can tell) The other had two sons, one died in WW2 and the other remained single. My G,G,GF had two brothers. One died unmarried and one (Frederick) who I can't trace after the 1861 census. Which comes to my GGG Grandfather Charles Matthew Siggs. I can find no evidence of siblings, as of yet ! So he's the waist on the hourglass... I hope.

What I'm saying here is that it's unlikely any Siggs on FB are connected... Until I can start to find evidence of C18th Siggs'.

I can't be bothered to delete all the Siggs posts off this thread. Call the police.