Genealogy Chat

i must say that i agree iwth clive and grampa i have about 550 names in my tree and i have bought numerous certs to prove the link and spent hours in libraries and sat at this computer but if i find somone who i think has a connection i get in touch and tell them of what i think is the connection. if i have done this and there is a mutual agreement to view each others tree then i am glad to do so. even if they take the names i have and put them in their tree they are not stealing my tree. my tree is mine and i add and delete names when i can. its great to find a connection and just recently i have found about 4 very distant cousins through this contact and we have helped each other. if i have opened my tree to someone and there is no connection i cant see why they would want to take the names / love linda x x

Clive I have written before on these Boards about my deep dismay at the sheer volume of MIS-information which is available on the Internet in the form of 'genealogy'. I have also said that I do not want to be party to the increase of MIS information on the Internet. So, if I am approached by a member who has 30,000 people in their tree, I am suspicious to say the least and I want to know how much of it is accurately researched before I give any of my information. If it is merely a collection of other people's research I am not interested enough to give them my Joe Bloggs, even if they can show a connection - I dont know that there is a GENUINE connection and am frankly fed up with checking other people's trees. I have in the last few months been contacted by 7 different members regarding one person in my tree. They are all descended from this one woman. Sadly, she died aged 4 and the death is plain to see for anyone who had even glanced at the PR. Five of these members have copied the information from each other. I have told all 7 of my findings - only one has removed this woman from her tree. The other six will presumably gaily pass this MISinformation around until it becomes set in stone. In this case I feel perfectly justified in 'controlling' what information I give out. Were you and I to establish a firm connection, I would give you one generation, with the promise of more if you wanted it. You then have the option of doing the further research yourself, or of coming back to me for more. The choice is yours - I do not see that as in any way controlling behaviour. OC

I agree that if you have anything but a tiny tree, and have invested a lot of time and effort into it, that you should share with caution, and perhaps take careful steps to establish the bona fides of someone's connection before doing so. BUT, the issue that I raise is over the wish to retain 'control' once you have decided to share: the information isn't yours, however much effort you have expended in assembling it. I do not share indiscriminately, but if I wasn't ready to share, then there would be no point in being a member (unless I hoped to prosper by being just a taker, rather than a giver). The best relationship with a complete stranger on GR (who might well be a very distant, but unknown, relation) is to have information that can be exchanged to mutual benefit. They are few and far between, but I have gained much valuable information (and saved a lot of time), in taking others' less than scholarly research, which would have been denied me had I only been prepared to reveal my knowledge generation by generation, like peeling the layers of an onion. There are those who have the patience for that sort of game, and there are those that don't. No doubt, if I have an unlimited amount of time to devote to my research, I can arrive at the same destination with or without the help of others, but I am not obsessed with my research, and I don't particularly like being on the receiving end of controlling behaviour in others.

Well said Tina. I agree with everything you've said. The ramifications of sharing family history need to be considered before any tree opening! Cheers, Horatia

Clive I think most of us on GR are happy to share our information with other people who are genuinely researching the same line, or part of the same line. There are, however, a few drawbacks which bear pointing out to people considering opening their GR trees to other people. The first is that by opening one's GR tree you reveal everyone who is on it, and as has been pointed out by other people, it is pretty unlikely that anyone else will be connected to more than half of your own tree. Once they have that information, they can take it away and broadcast it at will - there is no way of stopping them. So why should we mind revealing research to people who are unconnected? Well, even you say that you are happy to share with people who have a link. Are you happy to share with people who do not have a link? How remote a link to you accept? Would you be happy to share you research, which has doubtless cost you a considerable amount of time, effort and cash, with someone who was then going to sell it on to someone else? How do you know they are NOT going to sell it on, especially if they cannot establish a genuine link with your tree. I had a request to view my tree recently from a person with 22,000+ people in their tree. What was the connection, I enquired? After some questioning, I established that the connection was that my g-g grandmother had a brother who had a daughter who married someone who had a sister who married someone who had a sister who married someone who had a sister who married someone who had a brother who married this persons g-g grandmother. I find that connection a bit too remote, personally. Added to which, the lady who my contact had identified as my g-g grandmother's brother's daughter, was not in fact his daughter (family skeleton!). Had this person obtained the birth certificate, they would have known this fact. Actually, I never open my tree these days. Once I am happy that a link has been established, I send a report from my off-line tree only including that line in which they are interested. That allows me to send far more detail, including the notes about my own research and sources, and also photos where appropriate. I don't think that it is strange or selfish that many of us wish to check out the 'credentials' of the people we share our information with. It's a bit like creating a work of art - you put a bit of yourself into it and need to feel that this is appreciated by the recipient. Also, many of us feel quite close to certain of our ancestors who we have researched in depth - even if they lived 200 years before us. They become friends and we value the integrity of the information which is disseminated about them. This is not an occasional hobby for many of us, it is an obsession! Tina

If everyone on someone's tree is a blood relative, no matter how distant, then I don't call that name collecting (IMHO). Of course, we have to put spouses on who AREN'T blood relatives but their children ARE blood relatives. That's not name collecting in my book! If it is, then I am also a name collector; but don't view myself as such! ;-) My classification of a name collector would be someone who contacts me about my father's relatives and then promptly puts many of my mother's relatives on their tree! I That is my own personal classification of a name collector - what do others think? I have also shared my info with someone who promptly copied it (with my permission) but then put wrong dates and birthplaces. I have many times contacted her on here and demanded that she change my father's birthplace or my grandmother's birthplace (both deceased). I don't mind sharing; but I am appalled when I see the information I have freely shared with them reproduced in such a slovenly fashion. I'm not saying I don't make mistakes myself; but I don't make scores of them as this contact of mine made. I don't mind saying that I was highly offended to see my grandmother's and father's personal history degraded with incorrect information. I owe it to my close relatives to see that they are recorded as correctly as they can be in history, and that is what I shall do as long as I'm alive and I make no apology for that. It's careless people like my nameless contact who make some of us less willing to share. I now tend to check people out with a few messages to see how dedicated and conscientious they are before I send them a family history report from my offline tree. I never open my tree on here because I don't want the name collectors putting every one of my relatives on their tree whether they are related to them or not! Yes, my family history is shared by others, and I am happy to share my info with them; but only up to the point where they have a connection and I refuse to share it with those who I foresee will be careless and thus broadcast incorrect info around the internet where it may be accepted as fact by other researchers. Cheers, Horatia

My Tree on here has over 9,000 names in it which are all blood relatives and their spouses. My offline Tree is about twice that size. I also have other family Trees which have been given to me which do not yet connect to my Tree. I consider myself to be not only a serious researcher, but also a resource to others. Whenever I come across someone who has a link to any person on one of these Trees I will happily share it, after all, they may never come across the person who gave it to me. Always with the proviso that I cannot guarantee its accuracy. I am sure that at heart each and every one of us would love to go to a website, type in their name, and be presented with their Family Tree, 100% complete and accurate. I would like to think that is what we are all striving for. I certainly cannot understand the attitude which some people have that their Family Tree is a valuable possession, are afraid of someone stealing it, and feel that sharing it somehow devalues it.

Clive Regarding the IGI, there is certainly plenty of accurate information on there. The problem comes in sorting out what is accurate and what is not. I have a very high standard of proof for my direct ancestors. I have a SLIGHTLY less high standard for very distant twigs, in as much as I don't usually buy certs etc, but I am always concious that I am risking utter accuracy, and am driven to investigate them thoroughly. I don't open my tree to anyone - why should I? Unless I find a previously unknown sibling (extremely unlikely) then anyone connected to my tree will at most, only be connected to half of it. And my contacts through this site are usually so far back as to be nearly meaningless in terms of a blood relationship. I give out information freely, but one generation at a time. I have NEVER had anyone question my research, it is just swallowed whole. And I have never had anyone suggest that we share the cost and time of researching a difficult ancestor. All this has made me rather cynical, I am always a giver, never a receiver. I don't mind giving - but I will do it on my terms, and my terms do not include feeding a name collector. OC

I have to admit that I don't understand the basis for complaint if someone uses the information in a tree you have chosen to share. Why did you share it? I also don't understand the constant references to 'name collecting'. Anyone would think that there was something wrong about having a large tree, or that somehow it is indecent to include anyone at all unless you have obtained all possible certificates, and can prove, beyone reasonable doubt, your ancestry. There is a proper place for thorough research: one's own direct ancestors being an obvious starting point, but once you are in the realms of distant cousins, or following lines of spouses to see whether an existing family name might crop up again after a generation or two (and make a second blood link you would otherwise have missed), I see no problem with using whatever information is to hand, even though I personally choose to verify anything I take from a third party. Am I a name collector? I have a tree of c3500 souls, but I believe myself to be related by blood or marriage to over 95%, and the remainder are only there because I am either trying to make a connection, or I have put together family groups where frequently occurring or repeated names make identification difficult. My tree represents thousand of hours of work, and I consider it to be a work-in-progress. From time to time, while looking at a particular branch, I realise that I have made a mistake, and I revise. If I find a new connection (and I have made dozens through GR) I will often extend my tree with material (particularly if I can verify it), so that I have lots of information about 5th, 6th or more cousins, and all their descendants/spouses. I read comments here that there is NOTHING of value in the IGI - what rubbish - and that somehow a tree is 'personal property' rather than a collection of facts about those gone before us, whose memory is not for us to control or own, but something to share and even celebrate. My only objection to sharing is that I have on accosion found my immediate living family included in someone else's tree, including personal information including dates & places. It can be difficult to avoid, given the tree-building tools provided by GR, but that is an invasion of privacy.

hmmm. I know what you mean...I gave part of my tree to a family member, and within days he had copied it all on to his family wed page.....I wasn't very happy, but OK...my fault I suppose for trusting him....but he has copied half of it wrong, wrong dates with the wrong people, wrong places of death etc. I thought about emailing to say 'at least put it on right' and pointing out what was wrong.....but thought 'blow it' why should I make extra work for myself....but it shows you really must doubt check all information you find on the web. also noticed a patten here, it always seems to be people from aboard that do this! its almost as if they are only name collecting!!!!. sorry but just stating a fact... Lilly

to others , they may not have your best interests in mind. Some peeps are tree collectors, doesn't matter whether they are related or not. It kinda takes away from the otherwise good nature of this site.