RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Siamese Girl on Friday 25 August 17 00:10 BST (UK)
-
I know this often come up as a gripe, but about a year ago I shared with someone who has an Ancestry tree quite a lot of my research. I've never put my research on it (mainly due to most of it being done on bits of paper over the years which I've never got around to digitising) I knew they had put it on their tree without asking my permission but I've now had a look to see how far it has spread - one person has even posted my hand written trees online - the person I shared them with must have passed them on to them as they didn't upload them themselves. I see if "I ask nicely" I might be able to see what is obviously my own research on someone else's personal tree ..... I also gave the original person the parent's names of one of our shared female ancestors but not the research that I had done on that branch of the family, but they didn't pick up on the clue I gave them and I'm not sure I feel inclined to give them any further information.
I don't think a "would you mind?" would have come amiss or am I being too sensitive? After all they are my distant blood relatives and so what I know should be of interest to them and not really to anyone else so perhaps I should just share it but not look again to see what they have done with it?
Carole
-
Hi Carole,
sadly once it is "out there" it is out there.
An acknowledgement is simple courtesy.
As the original source and if the information needs any correction you have the right to contact said persons and point them in the "right direction".
The Genie caper is full of traps and sadly when information is incorrect some people don't take the hint to change or at least have a discussion.
All the best in your genie journey.
Jack Gee
-
I must admit this is my major gripe about people who keep their trees private on Ancestry. I know for certain that a considerable amount of my data has been filched and put into private trees and I am told I might be given access "if I ask nicely". I am quite happy for the research I put online to be shared, but I do like to be asked first. And it does outrage me that photos of my ancestors, of which I hold the originals, are now being used in ways I know not, and to which I have no access.
At one point I got so fed up with this that I made my tree private. But then it seems unfair that I then was able to use all the research available from the 'open' trees, without giving anything back in return. I don't mean by this plundering them, but using them as pointers for my own research, which can often be very helpful when I'm stuck.
I think I've said before on another thread that I think if people want private trees, they should then not be able to see and use the research of those whose trees are open to inspection. Unless of course there was an algorithm which would make a private tree open to anyone whose data had been used.
Regards
Grumpy GS ;D
-
It's just really irritating isn't it? Perhaps it irritates me me most because I don't have my tree on Ancestry and I know that the person I originally shared it with didn't upload my research themselves but handed it on to someone else without bothering to ask me first.
Perhaps very distant relatives turn out to be just as irritating as some of the closer ones can be at times ? ;D
Carole
-
In my research, I am careful to record sources. Where data has come from another researcher, I record the contact method as well. So, something like "Via Ancestry: Joe Bloggs" is my source.
However, if I upload to Ancestry, this is SOMETIMES thrown away. The event then gets "Unsourced citation" instead.
-
I'm a bit bemused by the problems people see in this - I am reminded of two things.
Once word 'gets out' - however that happens, and especially with the internet - it is rather like a good old-fashioned rumour. There's no control of how it may change, and it is no longer 'yours', it's public.
The other thing is the genie in the bottle, or Pandora's box. If I publish family information I try to be sure that it is correct, and that I don't mind it being published. Otherwise I keep it private, or I might discuss it without revealing any names, as an example of something interesting.
-
Well I would have had no objections if I had published my research online, but I don't and I just think it might have been polite of the person I shared it with privately could have asked me before handing it onto to someone else who then uploaded it.
Anyway, at least they've got some correct information on their trees now, to go along with the information that is absolutely wrong! ;D
Carole
-
I made my Ancestry tree private because stuff was filched. I asked one of the filchers, nicely and politely, if she could assist with something in our shared ancestry, just one little query - there was no response.
-
I made my Ancestry tree private because stuff was filched. I asked one of the filchers, nicely and politely, if she could assist with something in our shared ancestry, just one little query - there was no response.
I made mine private after my ex-husband started filching things to add to his tree (which I note is now also private, but was public at the time) and added details about my family which were not on my tree because they were - and still are - living relatives.
-
I have a a private tree on Ancestry. It is not because I want to take from others or don't want to help others. It is private because 1. it is a work in progress and I have had it drummed into me never to publish unfinished research. 2. I have cryptic notes in my tree for my use as I'm tryng to figure things out, I doubt someone else would understand my own shorthand so could cause confusion. 3. I have been given information on the condition I don't make it public. 4. My tree has the married father of an illegitimate child and I do not know if the legitimate descendants know and I do not want to be responsible for them accidentally finding out (although I would tell them if they specifically ask).
I don't take from other trees. The most I do is look at other trees to either decide whether I will contact them or not or to get an idea of record sources to look at, ie which original record sources to look at. I'm sick of this idea that owners of private trees are somehow bad people who steal from others.
-
When my Ancestry tree was public, I would get very annoyed when I saw a record or photo that stated "originally shared by" so and so - (the name of the other member). But I knew jolly well that the cert. or photo was taken from my tree, as I always add a special little mark into the corner of each before I put them onto my tree! That's one of the reasons I changed it to private.
Sadly though, I think some photos and stories from private trees still come up in a search, and people can simply copy them! I'm certainly not averse to sharing things from my tree - after all, it's in the T's & C's, and if we didn't share our stuff, probably none of us would get very far! But if another member doesn't bother to introduce themselves first, from the "send message" link, and let me know their relationship, say thank you when I say " go for it" - it's pretty poor form!
I recall writing to Ancestry once asking what would happen to my Private tree when I die, and no subs coming through. They told me it would become public.
-
I don't take from other trees. The most I do is look at other trees to either decide whether I will contact them or not or to get an idea of record sources to look at, ie which original record sources to look at. I'm sick of this idea that owners of private trees are somehow bad people who steal from others.
I agree with pharmaT. I don't copy other people's trees - in fact I've long since stopped looking at them as I found I was getting too worked up about some of the ridiculous errors ! I'm doing my trees for my own pleasure and interest and I pay handsomely for the privilege of using Ancestry , FindMyPast etc. If I choose to keep my findings private then surely that's my business . I always respond when others contact me for information , even when some people are incredibly rude in the way they ask and in most cases once I've given them what they want I don't even receive a reply.
I wouldn't dream of telling anyone else how they should manage their tree and I'm not sure why anyone would think that that's appropriate.
-
I don't take from other trees. The most I do is look at other trees to either decide whether I will contact them or not or to get an idea of record sources to look at, ie which original record sources to look at. I'm sick of this idea that owners of private trees are somehow bad people who steal from others.
I agree with pharmaT. I don't copy other people's trees - in fact I've long since stopped looking at them as I found I was getting too worked up about some of the ridiculous errors !
I'll sometimes have a quick browse of other people's trees if I'm really stuck, in case they've spotted something I've missed. (Of course, I only use it as a hint, and check the records to back it up.) Am I being greedy, since my own tree isn't public? Maybe I ought to give something back. I don't mind other people using my research, it's not as if I'm losing anything. I just haven't got round to uploading my tree in full - too many better things to do!
-
I was amused / angry once to see a photograph (in fact I bet if I look I can still find it)
That I had restored - with my own 'inimitable' style -- describe as being a specific member of my tree. For instance the photo was maybe my Great Nan and this person had - borrowed it - and attached to my Aunt..
She was actually a contact of mine on Genes' - and from there she sent me an email, telling me of her great discovery....
'okay'
So I did advise her - NO whoops - cos I imagined it to be a genuine error.
But as I said, I will go peep and bet I still find the error today.
Because I do 'Restore' my pics before adding ( - and lately ALL is private ) in my early days of Ancestry Use - I would share with very very close cousins precious personal pics... but suddenly began to see my Ernest Clarke jnr - attached to a totally different Ernest Clarke from Timbuctoo or somewhere.. 'so we also have '''photo grabbers'''
I do love to find a photo - but will NOT add unless I can verify. Have in the past and found out later NOPE wrong Fred Jones.
So NOW my tree's are privately private :)
and I am going cos --- I am rabbiting.. and I have my new FTM - to get on with :)
xin
and housework :( :( :(
-
ps I am going to put in my will that my subs must be paid forever ... but of course they wont.
I have a contact that I used to be in touch with all the time, and her tree is still private. so hopefully this means she is still around somewhere :)
xin
-
Also beware of Find a Grave harvesters who take large chunks of people's work to create bios without permission sometimes identifying their burial places on the flimsiest of evidence such as some of the family are buried in one particular cemetery. The information on Find a Grave has now found its way onto Ancestry and Family Search so I've been alerted to my copied data and the mistakes made by the person that did the copying >:(
I no longer put my information out there as there's no way of controlling what happens to it. I've seen my information come back to me in Ancestry hints with copying mistakes. I shouldn't have to track down mistakes on sites like Find a Grave and try to get them corrected or removed. Large chunks of my research was taken from my website without permission. I don't bother now with websites and online trees it's not worth it when you look back on what you contributed and what you got back in return.
Blue
-
This is the person who took stuff from my website without permission she ignored two e-mails from me last year. Both e-mails were polite and about corrections. She has an interest in the surname Holland so zoomed in on my Holland stuff:-
https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=mr&MRid=47665455
Blue
-
I haven't got my tree on Ancestry but others who have shared ancestors have their trees on Ancestry including information that they got from me in the first place. There's nothing I can do about it, and also the fact that numerous trees - that I can't find any connection to - have my g.grandfather and a couple who they have as his parents. Now I can't find my g.grandfather's beginnings but what I do know is that he was not the son of the couple shown on Ancestry. I was in touch some time ago with a genuine ancestor of this couple and he knows that his ancestor with the same name, is not my g.grandfather. It makes no difference, people will put on Ancestry what they want to, also because it's default is America, I've got ancestors on other peoples' trees who have been born/lived/died in USA even though none of them ever left England.
-
My family tree is public, but if someone wishes theirs to be private they have the right to do so.
I did get sometime ago a message saying I had got an ancestor married to the wrong person and therefore my descendents were wrong. Meaning? I am not who I am then?? :o
My tree goes back to 1605 and every bit of info has been double or triple checked and everything fits in nicely to the jigsaw puzzle right up to present day.
I have never looked at other peoples trees, because I like to collect info by myself or ask questions on the Forum. I can understand why some people keep theirs private and thats their prerogative.
Steve
-
I haven't got my tree on Ancestry but others who have shared ancestors have their trees on Ancestry including information that they got from me in the first place. There's nothing I can do about it, and also the fact that numerous trees - that I can't find any connection to - have my g.grandfather and a couple who they have as his parents. Now I can't find my g.grandfather's beginnings but what I do know is that he was not the son of the couple shown on Ancestry. I was in touch some time ago with a genuine ancestor of this couple and he knows that his ancestor with the same name, is not my g.grandfather. It makes no difference, people will put on Ancestry what they want to, also because it's default is America, I've got ancestors on other peoples' trees who have been born/lived/died in USA even though none of them ever left England
Sometimes that can be quite amusing - and if you keep an eye on the original, pretty obvious mistake, you can watch as it gets copied by person after person and spreads through Ancestry. Sometime in the dim distant past, someone came up with a family of 6 children born in a village in Essex. One was real and his name is in the register but the other 5 aren't there and the years when they were supposed to be born, during the Civil War and after, no records were kept at all. It's easy enough to look at Essex registers online and I went through the whole volume with a fine tooth comb just in case the family were noted down elsewhere as a group as sometimes happens - I even tried to trace the supposed children's lives - any marriages, children, deaths, but they just didn't exist. As you say people just make up bits, shoehorn the right/similar names into their tree and form the most bizarre and unlikely "relationships" I've even seen men recorded as fathering their own fathers on a couple of occasions.
Carole
-
My friend informed me last week a member of her family had researched the family history and has got back to 1690. They have not bought one certificate or visited any Archives, but managed this in less then a couple of weeks. ::) and guess where they have copied it all from!
The trouble is genealogy is "fashionable" so half the people are not interested in proper research they just want to have something to show off.
-
Its a metaphor for life after the internet, isn't it?
The words 'hell' and 'handcart' spring to mind. ::) ::)
-
I prefer to do my own finding out and searching, but from time to time I'll browse specific individuals on other Ancestry trees, and several times I've found what seem to me to be glaring errors - my great grandmother assigned a different husband, and a few extra children ... and that tree built on from one of the "extras" - Sorry, no. Not that lady! A man mixed up with his cousin, my direct ancestor, with a very similar first name and the same surname, and of course the wrong family assigned, via, I thought at first, careless research, until I saw several other trees copying the same error.
I contacted the people with these trees, even pointing out how the two families had become confused, and separating out the confused lines for them, adding certificate details and a parallel run of census references in two cases that should have shown how a little more care in matching details would have made it obvious they were on the wrong branch ... but in most cases they happily continued sawing it off behind themselves, and the errors remained on show.
It compounds the innocent errors when people simply disregard through laziness the effort of revising their "own" research and findings.
On the two occasions people have kindly pointed out that I'd made an error, assigning in one case the wrong baptism, where the dates were very similar, and the parents' names the same, and in the other where I'd killed off a young member of a family in error for her cousin, I've been very grateful, and when I've checked it all out properly, amended my own records, with grateful thanks to the person who pointed it out.
-But it is as jillruss says, all part and parcel of everyday life now. I remember trying so hard to convince students years back that copying out slabs from internet sites did not, in my book, equate with personal and original research, but it still happens....
-
My friend informed me last week a member of her family had researched the family history and has got back to 1690. They have not bought one certificate or visited any Archives, but managed this in less then a couple of weeks. ::) and guess where they have copied it all from!
The trouble is genealogy is "fashionable" so half the people are not interested in proper research they just want to have something to show off.
A cousin informed me that she had "researched" our family going all the way back to the 1400s (or something like that) -- over the weekend!
Her research must have gone something like this:
- make a cup of coffee and crack open a bag of potato chips
- do a Google search on our surname
- open a Word document
- copy/paste, copy/paste, copy/paste
- brag about how easy it is to research going back 500 years
- job done, move on to conquering the world
:-\
Regards,
Josephine
-
Hah!
- And of course it's all accurate! It must be - it's from the Internet!
-
It is the blatantly obvious bloomers that tickle me, all the trees that have one of my ancestors giving birth on both sides of the Atlantic, less than six months apart.
Then there are the trees that have members of my family born before their grandparents. Not to mention all the baptism, marriage, burial and census images attached to people as the sources, that have no relation to the person concerned. ;D ;D ;D
-
The ‘stealing’/’filching (whatever term that may be used) of photos, documents, online trees or anything that is termed as ‘User Provided Content’ on Ancestry seems to constantly cause outrage >:( >:( The cold facts are that once you have accepted Ancestry’s Ts&Cs, you have licenced them (for free) to use ‘User Provided Content’ in virtually any way they please :( Once uploaded your photo is just another record in a searchable Ancestry database, and will remain there for as long as Ancestry exists. It is the same as a parish record image for example, although in this case the owners of the records have licenced them for a fee not free, no reason to ask the original owner for permission to use it on a tree. Here are the Ts&Cs in all their glory, section 3 containing the relevant information
http://www.ancestry.co.uk/cs/legal/termsandconditions#UserContent
The original post on this topic is a completely different situation as I understand it. If providing information privately I think I would have expected a courteous ‘would you mind’ before passing it on to someone else.
Simon
-
They have not bought one certificate or visited any Archives, but managed this in less then a couple of weeks. ::) and guess where they have copied it all from!
But, of course, Ancestry's TV advert gives the impression that it's just a matter of going to their website, typing in your own name and then pretty soon you will have a tree.
-
;D :D ;D. That's a bit like the tap dancing Trivago ad Lizzie W - just type in .......... Etc! Magic!
-
I know someone on ancestry had copied a bit from my tree as I made an error with a name and had guessed the date of birth and it looks like they copied it.
-
Can't help myself 🙄 Looking again at a tree that supposedly has one of my husbands ancestors... Lovely set of census images for the chap in question. I guess one out of three correct is not bad going. One had the wrong man, wrong wife, the other, wife with correct name but oddly in a completely different County. The fault of ancestry wiggling leaves and folk who believe in their ruddy advert, 😡
-
Exactly. We live in an age that expects instant results, and is often all too credulous and easily satisfied.
-
They have not bought one certificate or visited any Archives, but managed this in less then a couple of weeks. ::) and guess where they have copied it all from!
But, of course, Ancestry's TV advert gives the impression that it's just a matter of going to their website, typing in your own name and then pretty soon you will have a tree.
Since I was born in Scotland, according to ancestry I don't exist.
-
I get all this ::::
But the FACT is that in the future, Ancestry 'TREES' are going to become so.... messed up, that even the person who has the FACTS in front of them won't know what to believe.
I am at the moment reaching the age - where I have to make sure my TREE passes into the right hands, or comes with me ( wherever I am going :) :) )... I am going to have to specifically explain instances like, the Couple who work from Spain ( who I have written to time and again) and have my ggg married to some American 9 year old have got it WRONG. very wrong...
I actually came across a new tree - being compiled by a very very close blood line relation!?!? but we just dont get to see each other due to a family ..... uhm upset :( argh... anyway on reading it. She had a wonderful tree all copied from Ancestry.. and lots of my filched pics etc...from a time when my tree was public...
She only had to ring or call and it would have been given..
xin
-
Since I was born in Scotland, according to ancestry I don't exist.
Surely there's some relatives who will throw their money around and get a cert or two for the price of a pint?
I do wish the Scottish post-1855 certs gave a wee bit of a clue about the parents. When most boys are called David, John, William or James it can be hard to know whether the birth registration is your relative or not. I've gone down the wrong path a few times, but also had some hunches that have paid off.
-
Since I was born in Scotland, according to ancestry I don't exist.
Surely there's some relatives who will throw their money around and get a cert or two for the price of a pint?
I do wish the Scottish post-1855 certs gave a wee bit of a clue about the parents. When most boys are called David, John, William or James it can be hard to know whether the birth registration is your relative or not. I've gone down the wrong path a few times, but also had some hunches that have paid off.
I find the certificates are good with the information on parents, much better than English ones for cross referencing.
-
Sorry - I meant the indices. Yes, the certs are great, but picking the right one can be tricky.
-
Interesting discussion.
Personally I don't use Ancestry except for on occasion going to my brother's account (I'm listed as a user of his account.) to read something new he's discovered, or to add a bit of info.
My personal interest in our genealogy is to focus on remembering and documenting the stories of our family that my brother may be too young to have heard. For me, the stories about who they were and how they acted are more important to me than adding leaves. And also in encouraging my mother and aunts (now the three eldest in my family - with the exception of our newly discovered great uncle) to remember their stories.
Actually, that "add a leaf" thing DID work for my family on Ancestry. LOL they should pay my brother to make a commercial! My brother posted a picture of my grandfather and his fortunately unusual last name and it was found by my great-uncle that we never knew existed in Poland. And now two halves of our family have been very happily reunited. Uncle Kaz had the same exact photo of my grandfather, minus a crease that happened somewhere along Babcia's (Grandma's) travels.
And of course none of it would have happened if my Mom hadn't told me the truth about my father's father when I was 18 or if I hadn't later shared that with my brother. (Dad lied to us about his parental status all his life, even when confronted with the photo.)
So NOW both sides have an extended tree and we're all excited about it.
Granted this was (I assume) done with permission on both sides.
I understand wanting to keep your photos/documents to yourselves or at least to be asked/thanked/credited for your research. I also understand wanting to keep others from making stupid mistakes such as a relative who gives birth on both sides of the ocean within 6 months. I'm not sure what a cert is so I don't know how that plays in.
However for me, the idea of searching our genealogy is that the more brains and the more research that can link up, the better. So if any Adamski's or Cathers' or Bunell's want to share their trees or brain power I'd be all for a concerted effort! And I'm sure my brother would agree.