"Stolen" tree

[zilkens]

I like many of you I expect, I have my family tree on both "Ancestry" and "Genes ReUnited". Several weeks ago I was aproached by a person on "Genes" who shared a couple of my ancestors from around 1700 commenting on this and at his request I allowed him to simply look at my tree. This I agreed to, but just before Christmas I discovered that this person had tranferred ALL my tree on to his on both sites without my permission. I have complained to both sites and asked them to remove all the names. I have received no reply from Ancestry but Genes said they would remove the names of my living relatives only, which they immediately did.
I also received an email from the person concerned who said he would remove all the rest, but after 3 weeks he hasn't done this.
Can anyone advise me on what further action I can take as I feel extremely disgusted and robbed of all MY hard work over several years, and I am now having second thoughts about letting anyone else look at my tree. This is a shame as it this is happening all because of one bad apple.
Ken Staveley

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Hi Ken,

Welcome to Family Tree Forum

I can't imagine why people wish to do this? How do they find the time in the run up to Christmas as well?? I never open my tree to anyone now, because the same has happened to me.

[vikki brace]

Hi Ken

Welcome to the boards.

I have to say I have no idea why people do this, it happened to me when I was fairly new to all this. He copied the lot - Genes had to remove the living names in the end as he wouldn't.

The good news is that becasue I was new to it, there were quite a few mistakes which he now has in his tree :D

Sadly I don't think there is anything ancestry will do either except maybe remove living people.

[jean]

Hello and welcome. I think there are quite a few on here who like us have had the same thing happen. I am now very wary and only open my tree if they can give me precise details. I also have a distant relative that has transferred my details very incorrectly but refuses to answer my emails.
Unfortunately I think it is a case of learning from our mistakes.

[KiwiChris]

Hi Ken and welcome to the site. I think that we have all had this happen and we learn by our mistakes, however once the information is out there then I have found that it keeps getting passed on to people we don't even know.

I had a similar problem on GR when my family tree including living relatives, but full of mistakes, appeared on the tree of someone I had never heard of. The link was very distant, via a second marriage. The original can only have come from me, but like chinese whispers mistakes had crept in somewhere along the line. I informed the person that there were errors, but not what they were and asked for living people to be removed, which they did only to reinstate them a week or so later. This went on a number of times.

In the end I wrote and told him how I felt about my family, many of whom I personally knew, appearing on his tree, where to him they were just names, especially where the information was incorrect and asked him to remove it. To his credit he eventually did as asked.

I no longer have much of a tree on GR, just people I am actively searching for, so opening a tree is not an option, I make sure the link is real and email any relevant information. I don't ever supply anything more recent than my grandparents generation, and if the link is a long way back, not even that much.

[Durham Lady]

I took all of my tree off GR a few years ago only keeping my name on. I contacted someone on GR over a name we had in common and allowed her to view my own Tribal Pages website, within 2 days she had transfered every person to her GR tree, even those who were not in any way related to anyone on her tree. She removed some and even though I asked her to remove the rest she hasn't. I just hope she can answer to anyone who asks how she is related to them.
Name collector comes to mind.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Ken

Sorry to hear this has happened to you - it happens to loads of people, including me.

I never open my tree to anyone now, ever. If I think they have proved we share an ancestor, I send the relevant info in an email.

Ancestry is an American company, and they do not use the same privacy laws as we do in the UK, so they are very unlikely to remove even living people from someone else's tree. And after all, the dead ones may be their relatives too.

OC

[Kim]

I had someone copy my tree on "gr" but to my suprise they spelt all the names wrongly and put wrong d.o.bs and place of birth so it didn't upset me and "wasn't copying!" What was the point of that?? :(

[karensainsbury]

Hi Ken,

I thought I was immune to this until a few months ago I had 3 people on GR do the same to me in a matter of a few weeks. The most annoying thing is that my hot matches & all tree matches are now useless because these 3 just come up every time. I now delete all my hot matches without even looking at them.

[Len of the Chilterns]

This happened to me a couple of times on GR. There's only two explanations that occur to me, the first is that they are deranged. The second, more plausible, is that they sell on the information. I have since removed my trees not only because of that but also because "matches" were becoming a nuisance by the sheer weight of numbers.

[Christine in Herts]

I now delete all my hot matches without even looking at them.

If you aren't going to look at them - you know you can cancel the option on your ?account page... wherever it is you keep you email address and such like, is also where you can opt out of newsletters, HotMatches and so on.

---

I have got a fairly skeletal tree on GR, but I don't update it. If people ask to see it I explain that it's both out-of-date and skeletal, but - if they have more than a passing connection - I'm willing to share info on that particular bit of the family by email.

In general terms, I'm not much bothered by name-collectors - it's a different hobby, that just overlaps. I'm probably guilty of that, a bit, myself, but I try to [a] make sure I credit my sources and [b] follow it all up with some work of my own. It would bother me if living names appeared on other folks trees, so I've now changed living names to "Living" (not just the GR thin-veil disguise) and round off DoBs to an approximation.

Christine

[poytheboy]

I'm another victim of this type of hijacking of personal information. Both my parents have unusual names and one of them is rare enough for me to know that if the name crops up I am a direct blood link. I foolishly opened up my tree and allowed someone with a link so distant in the past with a common surname for about half a dozen people linking into my fathers family in the late 1700's -I didn't think my tree would be of any use, but I was wrong - they actually copied 6 generations of not only my mother's and father's family,also had to the cheek to spell places wrong, get year dates mixed up. Why do people collect names and pass them off as there own research. For nearly 20 years I've scoured parish records, collected certificates, listened to family stories, many of which I've been able to prove with documents. I'm not on Gene's anymore. My account expired, but I changed my name to initials and these form part of the one name on there, and I've had at least 6 people via email asking for me to open my tree as they think they are related! so if you surname is Y then we must be linked LOL

[Paul Barton, Special Agent]

The good news is that becasue I was new to it, there were quite a few mistakes which he now has in his tree :D

The trouble with this, though, is that if he allows others to copy his tree the same errors will infect their trees. At the end of the day we're all on a quest for the truth.

I acquired information about somebody and her family the other day through BMD records. When I introduced myself through GR and she saw my tree she instantly withdrew access to her tree and demanded to know what was my connection with her family. I explained and immediately removed her and her family from my tree. A couple of hours later, after a conversation with her dad, she got back to me, said everything was OK and reinstated access to her tree. Which goes to prove, if you behave decently you'll get what you want, because she and I are now avidly sharing information and having a great time!

[Dead Rellies]

I had something similar happen and the cheeky mare has re emailed me requesting i let him have another look at my tree. he can go boil his head.

[Jennie H]

On FTM it is possible to make pdf copies of parts of the family tree. If anyone is interested in one of my names I will give them a copy of the relevant person plus a few more rellies. After a while of emailing it is usually possible to find out if someone is genuine-and probably has a lot more info than me!

[Asa]

I don't see the problem. If we have our trees available for other people to see, what else are they there for but to share the information? I've only once been fortunate enough to have anyone whose researched (properly) any lines back further than me but I used to shared my research with many people. It irked once when someone didn't bother to copy the information correctly but it's ultimately her loss, not mine. Personally I am much happier doing my research myself and I wouldn't copy anyone's tree without checking as much as I could.

Living people are a different matter. I don't think people should put them in their tree, never mind give anyone else access to them.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Asa

I have no problem sharing with those who are genuinely related to me, but like you, I never pass on information about living people - the information is not mine to pass on.

What I do have a problem with is those who do NOT have a genuine connection to me, or else the connection is so tenuous as to be meaningless - the second wife's second husband's grandmother of my seventh cousin.

My tree is now floating round the ether, attached to a tree which now has over 100,000 names in it, none of which mean anything to me. The join is wrong for a start.

What annoys me even more is that he took all my notes too, and other people's notes appear in the tree, giving the whole thing a spurious look of an accurate tree which has been researched in depth.

You say that at the end of the day, what we all want is an accurate tree. I think you are being over-optimistic there. It is very evident to me that most people are quite happy to have any old rubbish on their tree as long as the names look right. I am amazed at the number of people who accept my work without ever questioning it, even when I have made stupid typos that make someone aged 500 when they died!

And depressed at the number of people who, having received several generations of "their" family from me, never, ever, come back with any additional information.

OC

[Asa]

Morning OC

Er no I didn't say that the end of the day most people want an accurate tree! Far from it, I think that many people would be happy with a made up line back to Noah.

There are different interests under the umbrella of genealogy. People are entitled to trace any tree they wish to trace and for some of us, bloodlines are not the be all and end all - I'm an adoptee and have been tracing my adoptive family tree for over 20 years. I'm very interested in connections between families in my area, not all of them 'belonging' to me but they all tie in to mine in various (and tenuous) ways and - for me - provide a fascinating historical background to my tree. I've never made this research available to anyone else en masse but it has enabled me to help many other people with their trees.

The notes thing is difficult. If for example, I have been given information from someone about a relation I don't want to cough up money for, I would make a note of their notes and also that it came from them. A secondhand source is better than none at all.

Having said all this, I prefer to keep my tree to myself these days.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Asa

Indeed, I always credit other people with information (on the very few occasions I get that information!).

I am talking about the more personal notes, such as my lengthy dissertation regarding correspondence I entered into with an archivist.

My notes say "I have a letter dated da de da de da" and that is exactly what appears on the huge tree! I wish I could be there when someone asks the tree thief for a copy of that letter!

I do agree with you, there are many different levels of family history research at which people operate. I just wish there was some shorthand way of identifying what sort of researcher you are communicating with and how serious and accurate they are, or want to be.

I too have sketch trees for two villages and I am happy to pass this work on. It has cost me very little other than time and I always emphasise that they should bmd it for accuracy. If they do, they never send me copies of the certs!

But my own, personal tree, I never open to anyone and I drip feed the information a generation at a time, mainly to see how interested and committed they are. You would be surprised at the number of people who never come back to ask for another generation. Or perhaps they are researching it themselves?

OC

[Asa]

I agree with you about the lengthy notes OC - I would personally have felt the need to ask to copy them, let alone claiming them as mine. As you say, they'll end up looking very silly at some point.

I also wish people came with a bit of info about what sort of researcher they are as it isn't always initially obvious. Perhaps we should ask for references: )