Ancestry - lack of replies

[chris_49]

This thread is moving from "Lack of Replies" to "Rude replies".

I've never had an outright rude one (I just get ignored) but GR has or had an option to reply wiith just the brief "Sorry, not my relative". I got one of these in reply once, and thought it was a bit brusque - after all there was only the one MacDonald Green on England & Wales birth records.

It turns out that there are two MacDonald Greens on the 1939, one in Barnet who is obviously the one registered there 1901, and mine in Warwickshire born 1900 who married my relative and has appeared out of nowhere.

So as well I wasn't tempted to fire off a rude reply.

(unless he was a bigamist??)

[chris_49]

 "Please do not contact  us again. we cannot possibly be related, our social spheres are vastly different"

I think this shows a sense of insecurity on this writer's part. Amongst my dozens of contacts there is just one who is genuinely posh (this is the lady who is related to Mrs Jacob Rees-Mogg). I've always found her helpful and friendly. I asked her how she felt having one common-as-muck relative (the one she shares with me, obviously) amongst all the high-born ones, and she didn't mind in the slightest.

There's a skeleton in every family cupboard.

[IgorStrav]

There's a skeleton in every family cupboard.

Not entirely true.  I don't have anyone 'high born' in my tree. 

[Andrew Tarr]

I just can't understand why anyone would not want to have an error pointed out.

A lot of people hate being made to look careless or foolish, even privately.  Anyway why should someone else know more about their family than they do?

[ThrelfallYorky]

What an interesting thread!
I've messaged people on "Ancestry" a few times, hopefully, as Mart'n'Al suggests, clearly written, making names/dates/connections concisely, and explaining what I'd like to clarify, or "correct", and usually have had replies, even if the person cannot help / is not linked with the "one I want"/ does not wish to discuss it.
All - so far - have been courteous, if not all very elegantly written - does it matter as long as good communication takes place?
I've always replied to messages I get, either confirming a link, or accepting a correction, and seeking help, or guidance and explaining, or at times explaining why it isn't the same person they think it is.
From time to time I've had to explain, as Kiltpin did, exactly why person A in their tree is not person B in mine - and usually seem to have  managed to get the message over, although not everyone bothers to "do their corrections" , probably because it'd lead to a lot more untangling of errors!
I really do like Andrew Tarr's lovely description of coming up with a theory and then seeking only the  facts that support it - and here I fear many people are far too swift to act on "hints" as if they are "facts" without checking it all out, certainly not seeking out original sources.
But that will always happen. If they are happy with that, then there's nothing more that can be done.
The very few who then follow up an initial communication with what really amounted to "So, just do the entire job for me, unto the fifth generation, supply all dates, censuses, birth marriage and death dates and locations... because I can't really be bothered ...." will get a courteous reply suggesting where they can further their research.
(And the same happens on here, doesn't it, someone puts a query up, loads of people kindly use their own resources, getting heaps of information, putting it on here, and then there's the wait for the person who put the original query up to confirm, or thank the people who have magically done weeks of work almost overnight - that is, if they get back in touch.)

[sallyyorks]

I just can't understand why anyone would not want to have an error pointed out.

A lot of people hate being made to look careless or foolish, even privately.  Anyway why should someone else know more about their family than they do?

An upside of having an error pointed out is that you then have a whole new line to research and discover 

[ThrelfallYorky]

Exactly! Some of us see that as a challenge and an opportunity, but those with the "I'm bound to be right" blinkers on, simply miss out!

[Paulo Leeds]

Welcome to Rootschat.

I am afraid this often happens, a lot of people are not interested in responding to messages. I think of all the people I have messaged over the years, no more than  a quarter have replied.

If you look at the profile of the person you wish today contact, some have not been active for a long time, it is rarely worth  trying to message them. Also, if they have thousands of names on their tree, they are usually name collectors and not serious researchers.

I suggest you just sit tight and wait, occasionally some people respond many months later.

Good luck.

Why do some people simply 'name collect' - always wondered that!

[chris_49]

Why do some people simply 'name collect' - always wondered that!

I thought of referring you to the long thread https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=698504.0 but having skimmed it I think you'd be none the wiser. Much annoyance that people do this, and counterarguments but not much theory as to motive.

I hesitate to trivialise the hobbies of those who collect stamps, or train numbers. or (bird) twitchers but amongst the latter there is much opprobrium directed against those who claim to have seen a rare bird on flimsy evidence. Same for those with badly researched trees?