Genes Reunited replies

[ambers]

I didn't realise that Friends Re-United members could create a Tree on GR.

Maybe  part of the problem is that many started a Tree just because they could , but don't really have any interest in Family Re-search. 

I have come across Tree's with just six people in, and also when checking out the matches to others Tree's (when I know exactly who should be there) it goes no further than their mother and father......with many Contact emails not being opened.

Ambers

[Roobarb]

    ... yes you do have to be a paid up member to post and receive messages ...

I am not (nor ever have been) a paid-up member of GR.

I can create a GR tree online — don't know if I can up/download a Gedcom, I've never tried.

A paid-up member can send me a message, which I can reply to.  I can't initiate a contact, I have to wait for someone to contact me.

Even if someone gives me access to their tree, I can't view it without paying for a subscription.

K.

I am a paid up member so if the people I've contacted are not, on that basis they should be able to reply. I only contacted people who had dates of birth for the individuals in their tree and I checked separately whether their spouses/parents were there before I wrote. If people are misusing GR in this manner it just makes a farce of the whole thing. In fact I may contact GR and ask what on earth is going on. Why bother paying my membership if I get nothing out of it? 

[walkerpete]

I don't think the number of people on a GR tree is indicative of interest!

I have just 19 on mine, from my ex wife to my paternal 3GGF. I keep it that way following an unpleasant copying incident as discussed elsewhere on RC. I usually tell new contacts this isn't my main tree storage site, especially if it's say a maternal line contact!

I would be interested in the reply Roobarb might get from GR about how people use the site.  I don't see what they can actually do about it. They can't force people to respond. It is to GR's advantage to have as big a database as possible even if we mortals can't get at the potentially useful bits!

I know I've had some useful contacts through GR but they are getting rarer which is where we came into this discussion.

[BumbleB]

I agree with walkerpete about only having a skeleton tree on GR, and I wouldn't dream of putting a tree on A*y.  I, too, tell people that it is not my main tree, but that if they want specific information on any person, then they can have it.  As for usefulness, perhaps I'm biased, but I have found cousins on three of my main lines, through GR, who I would never have come across by any other means, and as an only child of only-child parents I've never known cousins or aunts and uncles, other than the ones I called "aunt" and "uncle".  However, now that I've made contact I know that a lot of those so-called relations really were blood relations.  I just wish I could make contact with someone on my dad's line 

BumbleB

[Roobarb]

I wouldn't denigrate the value of GR, I've certainly had some useful contacts in the past but am finding the current situation very frustrating. I don't have all of my family tree on GR, apart from anything else I couldn't cope with all the emails asking me if so and so was a Victorian bride! However, I do look for ancestors on there who may be part of my wider tree, in the hope that it may lead me to more information about the closer ones.

I've written to GR, will let you know what they say.

I too wish I could make more contacts on my dad's line BumbleB, but at least I've had a couple. Good luck! 

[BumbleB]

Thanks Roobarb.  Just wish I could find someone who is researching such wonderful names as Fairbank Kendall, or Jennings Kendall - my great grandfather's brothers.  But no, no such luck    Obviously haven't looked for a while and now see someone has Fairbank on A*y but hasn't been on-line for 6 months    Still, I have sent a message 

BumbleB

[bevj]

I am a paid-up member of GR and use it quite a lot, and I must say that I have made some interesting contacts through the 'Search Trees' function.   However,  I agree that in many ways the site is a shambles.

Currently on their woefully disorganised message boards there are various threads about this problem - people not getting a reply to PM's.  I think that it could be easily solved, if only GR would add a 'Last active on...' entry to a person's profile.  If I could see that Joe Bloggs hadn't been on the site since 2009 I wouldn't bother to send him a PM.

Unfortunately, as walkerpete says, nobody is obliged to reply to a PM even if they are active members and see the little envelope in their inbox.    Personally I think that a lot of the '11 million surnames' database is made up of free members who signed up a long time ago and subsequently lost interest and who at some later date changed their email address.  I can't see GR being very interested in doing anything about it, as they wouldn't be keen to lose 2 million or so 'members'.

Bev

[Roobarb]

Interesting that it's on their message boards.  I haven't had a reply from GR yet, perhaps they don't work weekends.  Or maybe they have replied but it doesn't trigger an email and I have to go into GR to see it. 

[Roobarb]

I got this reply on Monday:

"I'm not sure if you're referring to an email sent out by our marketing department or if one of our staff members have recommended the site but we'd like encourage everyone to try and build their family trees. So many people are discovering they have an interest in their family history every day and the Genes site is designed for both beginners and experienced researchers. With new members and their trees the site will generate new matches and new contacts for you.

I hope this helps "

This was my reply:

"No, to be honest, it doesn't help! The problem I have is that I have sent a number of messages to people whose ancestors are matches but I don't get any replies, although I usually did in the past. If people are encouraged to post their details but are not really interested in family history (perhaps they see it as something like Facebook) then they are unlikely to reply. Whilst I appreciate that people don't reply for a number of reasons it seems to be the norm now. I know that this problem is being encountered by a number of family historians. It is pointless providing me with matches that come to nothing. It would also be helpful if the website told us when those people were last online and if they are actually GR members.

This problem is not encouraging me to renew my membership and I will certainly think twice about doing so."

I then received this one today:

"Thanks for your email. I do appreciate your disappointment at not receiving replies but I am afraid we cannot make it compulsory for members to answer emails, as I am sure you understand.

When you send another member a message, it is delivered directly to their inbox on the site. We then also send an email to their registered email address advising them that they have received a message from you.

Some members may have changed their email address, but not changed it on the site. This will mean that emails from us letting them know they have a new message will be going to their old email address. There is no time limit for how long messages are allowed to stay on a member’s registration and will be seen when the member you have written to logs in again.

Also, we don't have a facility whereby we can tell you how active a member is, or when they last logged in.

Hopefully you will receive some replies soon."



What a waste of time writing to them, they haven't told me anything I didn't already know. If people don't log in to see a message when they've received an email alert, to me that says they're unavailable at that address or just not interested. My bet is on them not being interested.

Don't think I can be bothered to write to GR again, it seems totally futile.