Fed Up With Genealogy Tree Thieves

[jim1]

I suppose because every now and then a genuine family member makes contact which probably makes it worthwhile.Although most info.(not all) is in the public domain it's collating it all and making sense of it that takes all the effort.Out of about every fifty contacts I'll be lucky to get two genuine ones but they'll be worth it.

[Emsworthy]

Hi Indaloman,

It's not always public demain - that's the issue I'm ranting about anyway!  Yes, I've got my tree on Ancestry - very small at present, and I'm trying to add all the facts! (If you search for James Rosevear Blake, you'll find it under public member trees and see what I mean!)  In that case, I've put the details out there myself so take it for granted that they can be copied down by people.

The problem I have is when I get contacted via GR.  In the past I've had contact from people about an individual from (for example) Wickhambrook, which involves a good proportion of my tree.  They say they have also been researching that line from Wickhambrook and will open up their tree if I do the same.  Being the friendly soul that I am (I'm not always moaning!), I tended to share my tree as they sounded genuine, only to find that when I looked up their tree, it included them and them alone or at best a very small number of their direct family line.

So, it is the blatant copying of information that I haven't published that is my gripe - just goes to show they're not serious about genealogy if they haven't sat up night after night wondering just how many ways you can spell 'Edgley/Edgeley/Edgly/Edgely/Edgerly/Edgelery/...'  - you get my drift!

Regards, Emma

[jim1]

Hi Emma
What I tend to do now is ask more questions about who they are looking for and what link they think they have to my tree before unlocking it.If I think they are just trawling I don't let them see it.If your tree is linked to theirs by them and some of their info. is incorrect which it probably is (because they haven't put the hours in ) then that means there is your family tree in the public domain that isn't correct.

Jim

[Emsworthy]

I am very protective of them now...they are 'my people'!! 

Much of the time now, I am contacted about my distant tree - the ones related to me via marriages...even then, I'm wary of who I'm passing the information on to!  But when it's closer to home...pah!  Back off!!  And if anyone dares to touch Ephraim Warner, I'll have 'em!

Regards, Emma

[JAP]

phrishy, I have over 10,000 entries in my (unpublished - due to my own slackness) genealogical database - all as a result of my own efforts I hasten to add.  But I would most certainly not call myself a "name collector"    I might admit to being a collector of information

A vast number of the persons in my database are from my children's direct tree and all the proven branches, twigs and twiglets of this and of persons related by marriage.  Lots are from the two 'one-name' studies I am doing in an attempt to make connections to the former - the very rare name LOCHTIE/LOCHTY/LOUGHTY and the uncommon name MCLAUSE and all its variant spellings (approaching 100 variants so far).  Then there are the trees of people who were rumoured in family folklore to be connected e.g. Henry HACKING of the First Fleet (I've been unable to prove any connexion though it would be great to have a connexion with such a rogue - and I must say that I've learned a great deal in exploring Henry).  Then there are entries for 'witnesses' to events (ministers, witnesses, sponsors, informants, other people mentioned in wills, etc).  Etc, etc ...

I like to explore far and wide along the branches, twigs and twiglets because - in my experience - it is amazing how often something which seems very distant and almost irrelevant throws light on (or even solves) a puzzle of a person more directly connected.

Indaloman, I agree with you that it can't be called stealing if it's in the public domain but ...

Courtesy of another RC thread, I've recently been introduced to WorldConnect at RootsWeb.  On looking up names of interest to me, I've been struck by how often one is led to a site (let's call it Site B - and often C, D, E, etc) where it seems obvious (perhaps I'm wrong) that a GEDCOM has simply been hijacked holus bolus from an original site (lets call it Site A) and inserted into Site B,C,D, etc, etc, etc - to which is has absolutely no relevance!  I find it annoying in the extreme to be led to irrelevant site after irrelevant site only to find the same hijacked (and often wrong!) information! And, of course, with no source information given!

On the other hand, some of the WorldConnect sites are fantastic - well-researched and reliable (as we found on the RC thread I mentioned).  But the hijackers damage the whole project and would certainly deter me from taking part i.e. providing a GEDCOM.  Though, as it happens, I came across one site there which was obviously genuine and I was able from my database - not a related  person as far as I know but (NB phrishy!) from my one-name research - to clarify/correct something for that researcher (who responded immediately).

Emsworthy, I guess you won't be so trusting in future!  The old adage "Fool me once ...", etc (the original - not the Bush mangling) ...

If I finally get around to publishing my information, it will be in the public domain - but it certainly won't be in the form of a GEDCOM which can be so easily hijacked  

Cheers,

JAP   

[avm228]

The person who added my unconnected family to her own actually had over 10,000 entries - to my mind a clear case of being a name collector only.

I don't understand this.  I have a little over 10,000 people in my family tree (not the one on GR, which I don't bother adding to or updating any more, but my own personal one).  Every one of them is genuinely related to me and I'm genuinely interested in.  If you follow branches across and down as well as up you do eventually have huge numbers of people - it's just the nature of things.  I'm sure there are people out there who hijack other people's trees but I am not one of them, and I really don't see how the size of one's tree is an indication of any such thing.

Anna

[avm228]

I like to explore far and wide along the branches, twigs and twiglets because - in my experience - it is amazing how often something which seems very distant and almost irrelevant throws light on (or even solves) a puzzle of a person more directly connected.

I couldn't agree more, JAP!

Anna

[Jo New]

A vast number of the persons in my database are from my children's direct tree and all the proven branches, twigs and twiglets of this and of persons related by marriage. 
I like to explore far and wide along the branches, twigs and twiglets because - in my experience - it is amazing how often something which seems very distant and almost irrelevant throws light on (or even solves) a puzzle of a person more directly connected

I agree, i think of my tree and its branches shoots, twigs etc as all my childrens relatives
also this week i found a rellie on my father in law side of the family, living next door to my mother in laws side of the family, 70 years before they met and married each other

have fun whatever way you look at it
Jo

ps i have mine on tribalpages
  

[phrishy]

OK so that's put me in my place.

I still don't condone somebody adding my entire family, including myself and living parent, who was only married into the line, not directly descending from it, being added on to somebody else's published tree,  after agreement had been made that there was in fact, no connection to the family being searched.