Author Topic: Private Thanks - No Thanks!  (Read 1806 times)

Online Mike in Cumbria

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,883
    • View Profile
Re: Private Thanks - No Thanks!
« Reply #9 on: Monday 16 April 18 13:01 BST (UK) »
RTL, I have sent you a pm to thank you for raising this.
Como le dijo el mosquito a la rana, "Mas vale morir en el vino que vivir en el agua"

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline River Tyne Lass

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,361
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Private Thanks - No Thanks!
« Reply #10 on: Monday 16 April 18 13:14 BST (UK) »
Oh, Mike .... your posts do make me laugh ;D ;D ;D!  What a wind up you are .. in a nice way!  ;D ;)

Well, I don't mind if such notices appear on the pm system as long as they are on the main thread as well...

You better be careful I will be sending that polar bear after you which was last seen outside your vehicle in the snowy weather - if you don't watch out. ;)

 
Conroy, Fitzpatrick, Watson, Miller, Davis/Davies, Brown, Senior, Dodds, Grieveson, Gamesby, Simpson, Rose, Gilboy, Malloy, Dalton, Young, Saint, Anderson, Allen, McKetterick, McCabe, Drummond, Parkinson, Armstrong, McCarroll, Innes, Marshall, Atkinson, Glendinning, Fenwick, Bonner

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Online rosie99

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 27,894
    • View Profile
Re: Private Thanks - No Thanks!
« Reply #11 on: Monday 16 April 18 13:15 BST (UK) »
I agree that 'Thank you's'  should be made publicly and not by PM.  I notice that often even these are made and people are named and others who have also replied are ignored.

In this case River Tyne Lass at least you had a thank you all be it by PM.  ;)
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline River Tyne Lass

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,361
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Private Thanks - No Thanks!
« Reply #12 on: Monday 16 April 18 13:34 BST (UK) »
Many thanks for your post Rosie.

I do agree that when someone posts a thank you to a pm it is often to just one person and several others who have also contributed to the end result often end up as unsung heroes, so to speak. 

It is often a group effort which enables information to be found.  I know when I am searching I often take cues and direction from posts which may be appearing as I am going along.  One such occasion happened to me recently when I was able to find the end story directly as a result of a previous post.  It is better to thank publicly then all who have spent time on a search will feel happy.   :) 

Regarding, Mike - okay Rosie ... I won't set that polar bear on him just yet. ;)  See Below:

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=789007.0

Conroy, Fitzpatrick, Watson, Miller, Davis/Davies, Brown, Senior, Dodds, Grieveson, Gamesby, Simpson, Rose, Gilboy, Malloy, Dalton, Young, Saint, Anderson, Allen, McKetterick, McCabe, Drummond, Parkinson, Armstrong, McCarroll, Innes, Marshall, Atkinson, Glendinning, Fenwick, Bonner

Offline River Tyne Lass

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,361
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Private Thanks - No Thanks!
« Reply #13 on: Monday 16 April 18 15:06 BST (UK) »
Someone ... naming no names .. has just sent me a pm which has made me laugh.  They have said they are now planning to use my phrase along the lines of "We are not search engines.  We are human beings. ..."

This has given me another idea.  Perhaps when I see a post by someone asking for look ups who does not acknowledge - I should be like 'Little Britain' and respond with ...

 "Computer says no"  ;D ;)

Only joking, of course!

Conroy, Fitzpatrick, Watson, Miller, Davis/Davies, Brown, Senior, Dodds, Grieveson, Gamesby, Simpson, Rose, Gilboy, Malloy, Dalton, Young, Saint, Anderson, Allen, McKetterick, McCabe, Drummond, Parkinson, Armstrong, McCarroll, Innes, Marshall, Atkinson, Glendinning, Fenwick, Bonner

Offline chris_49

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 783
  • Unknown Father - swiving then vanishing since 1750
    • View Profile
Re: Private Thanks - No Thanks!
« Reply #14 on: Monday 16 April 18 16:23 BST (UK) »
When I was a newbie I was mildly admonished by somebody (forget who) for not being thankful enough which I thought was a bit off. (Anyway sorted out eventually - by PM!) So go easy on newbies. I was unthanked by one recently but then I realised that they were new and had thanked me earlier on in the thread.

I'd rather be thanked by PM than receive offer-effusive praise along the lines of "I want to have your babies!" (funny, it's only men who say that.) One word is enough.

Skelcey (Skelsey Skelcy Skeley Shelsey Kelcy Skelcher) - Warks, Yorks, Lancs
Hancox - Warks
Green - Warks
Draper - Warks
Lynes - Warks
Hudson - Warks
Morris - Denbs Mont Salop
Davies - Cheshire, North Wales
Fellowes - Cheshire, Denbighshire
Owens - Cheshire/North Wales
Hicks - Cornwall
Lloyd and Jones (Mont)
Rhys/Rees (Mont)

Offline River Tyne Lass

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,361
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Private Thanks - No Thanks!
« Reply #15 on: Monday 16 April 18 16:35 BST (UK) »
Yes, I agree to go easy on a newbie - give them the benefit of the doubt. 

I have gone easy on a newbie. :)

I suppose people have their different ways of responding to information.  Some responses may be succinct and some may sound a bit gushing.  It all depends upon the emotion experienced at the time.

I once saw a man who looked overwhelmed at the archives and he kept saying along the lines of "I have found her!  At last!  Look it is really her!"  and insisted I come over to look even though I didn't have a clue who she was. 

I once was very effusive when one of my own brick walls came tumbling down thanks to the help of someone who contacted me after my appeal for help over a needle in a haystack ancestor.  This was before I was on RootsChat.  I was sent information, photos etc.  I will remember that day until my dying day.  It meant so much to me and words could not express how grateful I am to that person either then or now.  I was ecstatic.  I went into Oscar speech - but I am not going to apologise for that. ;D ;D

One word is enough or many.   :) 

Conroy, Fitzpatrick, Watson, Miller, Davis/Davies, Brown, Senior, Dodds, Grieveson, Gamesby, Simpson, Rose, Gilboy, Malloy, Dalton, Young, Saint, Anderson, Allen, McKetterick, McCabe, Drummond, Parkinson, Armstrong, McCarroll, Innes, Marshall, Atkinson, Glendinning, Fenwick, Bonner

Online LizzieW

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,238
    • View Profile
Re: Private Thanks - No Thanks!
« Reply #16 on: Monday 16 April 18 18:04 BST (UK) »
So, in my opinion - PRIVATE THANKS - NO THANKS.

I do agree with you. On the occasions I've been sent thanks by Personal Message I've replied by saying I'm grateful for the message, but asked the person concerned to please repeat the thanks on the relevant thread. In this way everyone viewing the thread can see that its been properly acknowledged. 

When this happens I usually thank them for their message and tell them I'm going to post it on the thread so everyone can see the thanks.  I usually get an apologetic response saying that they'd not thought of doing that!

Offline River Tyne Lass

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,361
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Private Thanks - No Thanks!
« Reply #17 on: Tuesday 17 April 18 09:56 BST (UK) »
Hi LizzieW,

Thanks for your post about what you do in such circumstances.  I have tried that as well and I have also done things Jen's way.  The most recent time this has happened to me I did try a friendly, helpful style approach explaining that I would like them to post on their main thread where I had already posted several look ups.  They said they would and then nothing.  Their first response to me had been along the lines of 'Thanks .. yes that seems to be him.'  (Between us we had a total of 4 pm posts.)  I would much rather that they had said this on the main thread. 

What I have found puzzling is why some people make public posts giving lots of detail to ensure that it is easy for others to offer help.  Then once answers or look ups are found (and I am not referring to more private/confidential areas - I understand about privacy for that) they suddenly decide to switch to a pm.  This can often lead to a string of researchers feeling up in the air about whether the recipient felt the information to be accurate, interesting helpful, etc. 

On some where on here I am sure there is something along the lines of 'dislike the use of personal messaging unless of a sensitive nature ...  RootsChat is a public forum'..  This just makes me wonder when did saying thank you become something of a 'sensitive' nature'? ???

However, it is interesting to note on your post that some people have responded to you saying that they had not thought of putting thanks on the main board.  I once responded to a pm as you did - but as I say, I would much rather that this had come from the horse's mouth.
Conroy, Fitzpatrick, Watson, Miller, Davis/Davies, Brown, Senior, Dodds, Grieveson, Gamesby, Simpson, Rose, Gilboy, Malloy, Dalton, Young, Saint, Anderson, Allen, McKetterick, McCabe, Drummond, Parkinson, Armstrong, McCarroll, Innes, Marshall, Atkinson, Glendinning, Fenwick, Bonner