Hobbyist/Serial Posters

[Erato]

Aren't we all hobbyists?  While I agree that it is wrong to publish or to make commercial use of information obtained on RC without acknowledging the source, I don't see any problem with investigating "anybody who has ever lived in a particular place," for example.  I don't see why everyone has to have exactly the same hobby or the same interests.  Why should people be restricted to investigating relatives?  I don't think I've ever posted a query about a totally unconnected individual but I do sometimes undertake mini-investigations of totally unrelated people because they are interesting or because they might shed some light on my own people.

[CaroleW]

I don't see any problem with investigating "anybody who has ever lived in a particular place," for example.

I don't see any problem with it either - as long as it's financed with their own subscription(s) and they use their own time and efforts to look up all the various census entries. 

This particular member just selects the names from a free census entry then posts for lookups on earlier/later censuses so the info can be recorded on a database.  Many of the people researched were not even born in the particular village - just visitors or short term residents so are often found in other areas on other census entries.   This poster has a counter of over 3,000

The odd couple of hobby lookups etc to help somebody advance in some way is really neither here nor there.  I think this post is about the "much wants more" poster
 

[Ruskie]

Aren't we all hobbyists?  While I agree that it is wrong to publish or to make commercial use of information obtained on RC without acknowledging the source, I don't see any problem with investigating "anybody who has ever lived in a particular place," for example.  I don't see why everyone has to have exactly the same hobby or the same interests.  Why should people be restricted to investigating relatives?  I don't think I've ever posted a query about a totally unconnected individual but I do sometimes undertake mini-investigations of totally unrelated people because they are interesting or because they might shed some light on my own people.

I agree completely.

Not that this would ever happen, but I don't think it would be possible to restrict lookups or photo restores to only family of the OP, and it would encourage more deception as anyone who wanted help for others may be inclined to fib about relationships.


I will see if I can find examples of 'misuse' via details provided by Carole though none of them sound familiar. I must be unobservant. 

[CaroleW]

Hi Ruskie

Will be happy to provide details via pm

[Ruskie]

I don't see any problem with investigating "anybody who has ever lived in a particular place," for example.

I don't see any problem with it either - as long as it's financed with their own subscription(s) and they use their own time and efforts to look up all the various census entries. 

This particular member just selects the names from a free census entry then posts for lookups on earlier/later censuses so the info can be recorded on a database.  Many of the people researched were not even born in the particular village - just visitors or short term residents so are often found in other areas on other census entries.   

I suppose it depends what they are using the database for. If they sell it, then this is not really the thing to do, however if it is given away, then I think it is acceptable. Would acknowledging the help of rootschat make this more palatable? Has anyone suggested they do so? Without being familiar with Carole's examples, I am wondering if could it just be an innocent omission rather than deceit. 

Added: Carole, yes, please send me a PM with an example. 

[groom]

As I see it, the problem certainly isn't people who are doing a family tree for a friend, who are trying to put together details for a war memorial or who are trying to reunite photos etc with their correct owners. It is those who ask for multiple look ups of completely unrelated people, as in the example quoted by Carole. They are also usually the ones who when given information from perhaps the 1861 census,  then say, "What about the 1851 and the 1871?" with no please or thank you. When it is suggested they need to buy a certificate, the answer is usually, "I wanted to find the information without having to do that."  That's when alarm bells start to ring for me!

[CaroleW]

I suppose it depends what they are using the database for. If they sell it, then this is not really the thing to do, however if it is given away, then I think it is acceptable.

Neither applies here - just a hobby

[Ruskie]

I'm not sure that requesting help with lookups bothers me if it is just for someone's own enjoyment and interest. If the information found is used for commercial purposes, then that is a different matter.

[DavidG02]

They are also usually the ones who when given information from perhaps the 1861 census,  then say, "What about the 1851 and the 1871?" with no please or thank you. When it is suggested they need to buy a certificate, the answer is usually, "I wanted to find the information without having to do that."  That's when alarm bells start to ring for me!

I have tried not to get on my high horse here but this sentiment also bothers me. I see many threads that seem to be continuations of previously answered threads. i.e ''Looking for Joe Bloggs'' followed by ''Now looking for Mary Bloggs mother of Joe''. Its as if the person , either is too lazy to look for themselves, or doesn't understand the concept of the thrill of discovering something themselves. Or they could be taking the P.

If I am stuck I will ask a question then set off in search , now along the right track courtesy of RC , and find my own information. I figure if there is anything more it will be generously posted.

Takes a deep breath.