Genealogy Chat

I have posted before on this, and said I don't mind people pinching my research, and all the rest. But have just had a message from a person with my family in his tree. They are there,and it looks right, But he has over 100,000 people in his tree. I asked him to say how he was related. He probably can't answer me.

I am just a bit shellshocked at finding at tree so enormous. Do I give him access to my 3,500?

Someone helped themselves to my tree ( yes, I know now , my fault entirely) but at first I believed that he was doing genuine research as did many other members...........he now has almost 82,000 names in his tree and he's never expanded his research as far as my tree is concerned.

My reaction would be NO!

I had contact sometime ago with a member who had only 30 odd thousand in his tree and he wasn't sure how I and my family fitted in the equation....somewhat distant lol. On questioning more...he could only acknowledge that I did my family tree my way and he did his tree his way! That was fair enough however I was not going to give him access to my tree (pretty basic on GR as it happens!) that I had spent many hours and money on just for his convenience!!

Linda

Maybe I'm mean, but I have spent hundreds of hours and I don't even want to think about how much money on researching my family and also my husbands. If someone asks for my tree I now (having been bitten in the past) ask how it fits into their tree exactly. If they cannot answer in detail I'm afraid I'm not going to open up my hard work to people who just seem to think that numbers of people make a great tree. If someone is related I'm more than happy to help and those that are just checking for a match I'll willingly help too as I know how much I appreciated the help I got from other GR members when I started. Just don't think there's any point in having thousands of people we can't find a connection to in a tree.

Sue

I too, had contact with someone who had 30,000+ in his tree. My family did fit in there somewhere but he was very evasive about details and told me that we had some illustrious connections but never said what. I lost interest.

I will open my tree for folks who have a genuine connection but I ask for details first.

I am pretty sure some folk are more interested in 'quantity' rather than 'quality' if you know what I mean.


Cx.

If people want to try and create the biggest tree in existance, that really is their problem, not mine. Such a tree is probably meaningless anyway and most people tend to steer clear of asking advice from the owners of mega trees. I also maintain a public tree on Ancestry and there permission is not required to view other public trees.

I am aware everytime I add a piece of information I have researched to my tree, it will be copied by others within a few days. I did try a little experiment on Ancestry to see if people who rapidly copy my reseach ever check the facts. I created a dummy person in my tree with a cryptographic name and birth location based on Olive Oil, Popeye and Sweepy. Sure enough this none existant person is now in other trees.

If anyone ever asks them about this fictional character, I wonder what their explanation will be?

Apart from all that I do keep an open tree as I believe research is for sharing.

Michael

I wouldn't trust its accuracy - he couldn't have had time to cross reference it. It sounds like he's too keen to build up any connection. Bear in mind - his tree won't reveal his source. Perhaps he's just copied a close relatives.

Liz

I have been in contact with someone with over 80 000 people in their tree, and there are census details attached, and many 'relations' with extra pieces of information added. Obviously I have not looked at all 80 thousand, just a random selection. It just shows that if you have all day, every day, for years, you can go off in whatever direction you want, and at any obstacle move on somewhere easier and keep going.
Pat

This topic, which pops up on this board every other week, divides genealogists like no other: some want to hug their research to themselves and others are willing to share their information.

Here are some random thoughts on the matter:

GR's primary purpose is for the exchange of genealogical information.

'Tree thieves' is a misnomer: they haven't deprived anyone of information.

I would rather have my 'correct' information in cyberspace than some fantasies I have seen. It is so time-consuming trying to persuade someone that their information is wrong. Generally they don't believe you.

After 30 years research my tree has fewer than 400 names. I am therefore in awe of anyone who has reached 1,000 entries.

Peter

PigletsPal,

I entirely agree that these massive trees are of little value to anyone. I would merely suggest that it is better to put out verified information rather than withhold it and leave a gap to be filled by fantasists.

I am simply surprised at the squeals of pain when people claim their tree has been stolen. It hasn't. They have shared their information but they still have it. It is also amazing, considering how often the issue is aired on this board, that there is a genealogist in the universe whoe does not know that others might attach their tree wholesale onto another. But in a couple of weeks' time ...

Peter

Come on then Peter,,open your tree for us all to have a good lok at,,we might be related to you ,,,you never know,,!! lol

Well after 7ish years reseaching I have 152 persons in my direct line tree.

I have a larger tree of 999 people (one more for the 1000!) being my direct line, their siblings and spouses (no children) and the spouse's parents. I also include second/third spouses of my direct line and their parents (no siblings) but record only shared children.

That is not to say I don't research the other families when I find something interesting it's just I don't include them in my tree and have the info in a separate file.

Keeping the trees restricted means I feel I know them and do remember that A married B and then married C when B died.
It also means I spend more time on 'putting meat on the bones' rather than chasing names.

But as they say 'each to their own' in how they wish to research and record.

Chris

I have just made contact with someone who matched an ancestor. She only matched through a sibling marriage, but a connection, nevertheless. I think she and I have the right idea.....

We are both only interested in certain lineage on our respective trees. We have shared email addresses and NOT TREES in this instance after communicating via message on genes to determine our connection. We will pursue this route with any questions we have on ONLY THE SPECIFIC ANCESTORS OF INTEREST.

Hope this helps.