Open tree requests GR

[bubblebelle]

Hi everyone

I just wanted to ask if you feel I am being pedantic not automatically opening my tree, to requests. on GR.

I have put in lot's of hours in devloping my tree and it includes so much more information than just names and dates, some of it personal and only of interest to someone with an interest to that branch of the family.

If I make contact with someone, I always make sure I let them know who I am interested in and a bit about them, so the recipient knows who I am interested in and my relationship. So I feel somewhat irritated when someone just give me a name opens their tree and says I can look to see what relationship they have.... especially when the tree doesn't open (probably a GR fault...I know)

If they are reasonably close, ie not a tree bandit. I do take the time to put all the info together in PDF format from my computer tree programme, so why can't they just take the time to let me know about their relationship.

Sorry grumpy rant over... but I just wondered if it is me just being grumpy and pedantic.

[JBee]

No - I agree.

I often get people opening their tree to me - but as I'm not a member any longer I can't see it anyway. Often they have thousands on their trees which makes it look rather tenuous anyway.

If I get a message I ask who they think they're related to and if it seems correct I will email them the bits of info that would assist them or advise that there is no connection.

I work with my Tribal pages trees 2 public and 1 private where I add notes and photo's and also have them on ancestry where I attach the relevant certificate references and census.

[Jill on the A272]

I've had people contact me who have opened their trees without realising (you have to remember to untick a box)

My tree, (such as it is) is only open to a handful of people. I now only keep a very basic pedigree there with minimum info but add or take away such branches as I'm working on - which led to a complaint from someone related to the 2nd husband of my ggg aunt that she could no longer see "her" family.

[bubblebelle]

Glad I'm not alone then. Sometimes I feel a bit of a heel others I feel totally justified.
Jill I am much like you.
JBee I'll have a look at tribal pageS

Merry Christmas

[Guy]

I can never understand people who don't share their research.
You can't take it with you when you die.
You do not lose anything if someone copies your research.

Part of the joy of family history is sharing, before the internet family historians shared with each other sometimes at considerable expense.
With the advent of the web sharing has become easy and cheap.

I have made material available on the web since 1997. Since that time I have been contacted by thousands of family historians. Some I have helped some have helped me sometimes other people have benefited. During all those years no one has ever complained they have lost anything through the material available and I certainly have not lost only gained.

I long for the day that family historians share with each other as we used to do before many became paranoid and afraid of losing out by sharing.

Perhaps I have been in the game too long and should consider packing it all in.

Please remember what goes around comes around.
If you help someone, they may help another. That other person helps someone else and eventually someone helps you.

Cheers
Guy

[bubblebelle]

Guy.

I have absolutely no problem sharing information, and have spent many a long hour preparing info for such purposes BUT there are things in my tree that go beyond dates names etc. Things that are only really relevent for that branch of the family. A fourth cousin of my mother does not necessarily need full details and information of my Dads 4th cousin. I use my tree as a family history resource not just a list of names and dates. One ancestor has 15 pages of notes, all of which have been shared in one way or another by myself or others to me. But those 15 pages would have no relevence to most others on my tree. This is why I have a family tree programme that prints off all the relevent information for whichever branch of the family is being researched and shared, names, dates, notes, photo's.

As you say through sharing. I have found so much out and helped a lot of people too. If you want to check up look at this website.

https://www.melville-connections.co.uk/webpages/john_pope_mystery.htm

although information on there is still not completely correct. So yes I do go out of my way to help, when people take the time to give me a few details rather than I've opened my tree you do the rest.

I may be having a bad day but I understand what I am saying. I understand what you are saying too. I just wish people would give a little detail, ie my ancestor is Joe Bloggs, not I've opened my tree, please share.

[Uncle John]

I always try to be helpful, but I only very rarely open my tree, and only to people who are already in it. Mostly it's clear that there's no connection or there's no match after I give a few details. But occasionally something more interesting happens, as with my "Birmingham Cathedral" thread, where there's a genuine common ancestor.

[Peter Evans]

Guy,

I am in total agreement with you as I simply cannot understand this dog-in-the-manger attitude. Over the years I have spent hours on research and pounds buying hundreds of certificates but I don't begrudge passing the information to others even if they are so-called tree bandits. In fact I would rather have my version of my genealogy going the rounds than one I consider erroneous.

Peter

[Olde Crone Holden]

Before the internet, sharing was difficult and a very measured process. I probably only got one contact a year before the internet and it was very easy to know whether we were related or not - a couple of snail mail letters sorted that out and neither party was interested in just copying willy nilly...and didn't get the opportunity either.

Now though, it is open season on family history. The world and his dog has lashed up a tree on the internet and anyone can copy anything with one click of the mouse. No checks, no mulling over, no discussion, any old rubbish can be tacked onto any other old load of rubbish.

Even worse, anyone's careful, accurate, expensive research can be tacked onto any old rubbish tree, rendering all that careful work completely useless.

I don't open my personal tree to anyone. I will discuss and exchange information on the PROVEN connections between us but see absolutely no need to open my tree to anyone as at least half of it will be irrelevant anyway.

What is the point of sharing, or giving, information where there is no proven connection? You are doing the contact a mis-service by loading them with information which has no bearing on THEIR ancestors and thereby helping to perpetuate the thousands of rubbish trees on the internet.

OC

[Guy]

Before the internet, sharing was difficult and a very measured process. I probably only got one contact a year before the internet and it was very easy to know whether we were related or not - a couple of snail mail letters sorted that out and neither party was interested in just copying willy nilly...and didn't get the opportunity either.

OC, I take it you are referring to the common method of contact by post or telephone. However before the advent of the internet there were other means of sharing.
Trees were deposited at libraries, archives and societies such as the Society of Genealogists etc.
When one deposited ones tree there was no way to tell how many people viewed it or copied it.
A percentage of those who did made contact and others deposited their own research.
Often it is because of such sharing that many lineages are available today.

Now though, it is open season on family history. The world and his dog has lashed up a tree on the internet and anyone can copy anything with one click of the mouse. No checks, no mulling over, no discussion, any old rubbish can be tacked onto any other old load of rubbish.

Even worse, anyone's careful, accurate, expensive research can be tacked onto any old rubbish tree, rendering all that careful work completely useless.

That has always happened, it did not start with the internet.
In fact during the 16th and 17th century a type of genealogist scoured the land. These Heralds as they were called often constructed pedigrees to suit the whims of their "client".
More recently in 1885 Marshal General Plantagenet-Harrison, H.K.G. published his Yorkshire Pedigrees which contained dubious pedigrees
It is very telling that one group of people who guard their research preciously are the group of people who forged pedigrees in the past. I think the reason they restrict access is fear of exposure.

I don't open my personal tree to anyone. I will discuss and exchange information on the PROVEN connections between us but see absolutely no need to open my tree to anyone as at least half of it will be irrelevant anyway.

What is the point of sharing, or giving, information where there is no proven connection? You are doing the contact a mis-service by loading them with information which has no bearing on THEIR ancestors and thereby helping to perpetuate the thousands of rubbish trees on the internet.

OC

Some people do not restrict their research to one family.
Some such as members of the Guild of One Name Studies (GOONS) research all references of a name. Others search all families from a village or an area of the country either as a task in itself or as part of a wider local history project
Just because you take a family oriented view of research it does not mean others have the same narrow targets.

Other subscribers mention their fear of people inaccurately tagging one tree on to another but that could happen in any circumstance.
Any true researcher checks the information they receive whether it comes from a public record, church record, another person's research or anywhere else.
I have often found the people who make the most noise about so called name gathers are the very people who cannot be bothered to check research and just add blindly to their trees.
Cheers
Guy

[scuda]

Any true researcher checks the information they receive whether it comes from a public record, church record, another person's research or anywhere else.

That's the crux of the matter, Guy. In the past, those involved in compiling family trees were researchers (not necessarily good ones, admittedly), today so much is easily available that many newcomers imagine that research is a matter of scouring various websites for an online tree containing a name they recognise and adding the information to theirs. Many of them don't even think about checking anything.

scuda

[Wary Winnie]

In the early years, I happly shared my tree with whoever asked. I made some good contacts this way. It was a couple of years before I learned that I should 'hide' living relatives, and then I found my details on a free site for the world to view - and all wrong! Where I married only once, this free site showed me as twice married (concurrently!) and mother to my second cousin's children - who were born at the same time as my own children - making me a bigamist. It went on to name my children and grandchildren and show them as descendants of my second cousin and not of my husband. Whilst I was able to contact some and have some changes made, I could not contact all who had copied the wrong info. I now ask how they are related and who they want to know about. I then send them what info I have on the person they are interested in. However, there is nothing I can do about the incorrect info which has been published on the internet and which probably is still copied.
I have since found out that a couple of my original contacts are in no way related to me at all. They just collect names to add to their own tree to boast about how vast it is!???

[Jac]

Interesting discussion I have had some great contacts by opening my tree and have found some inaccurate info being passed on also but I guess thats life.I try not to stress too much. Living in Australia and being the only one of my family here, without the internet and help from others I wouldn't have much of a tree. I also check the sources and buy the certs etc when I can to confirm the research.

[bubblebelle]

I really set the cat among the pigeons with this one.

As previously stated I have no bother sharing info, but I do not open my tree. My initial comment was related more to the way some people ask you to share that info. Maybe I am old fashioned and like a few niceties.

Those that do get the a comprehensive pack of info. In the case of the request yesterday... just the basics.

Perhaps though the way I share info, makes more work for me and more work for the recipient, because they will have to type in the info. However most recipients are delighted by what is sent, and I have made some great contacts both in a genealogical sense and on a personal level.

[Janet]

I have to say that the most lucrative work for me this year has been very short e mails to various people regarding very narrow family names in specific areas. One of many such ones was an e mail to GOONS regarding the Tebbutt family/families in Northants. I have been researching and in touch with many people regarding this name over many years, mainly by snail mail before the internet. My Tebbuts were in Brigstock Northants and for years I was stuck in Brigstock, but now my short e mail has found the link into Benefield and Sudborough. This is all I wanted, a clue out of my village. I know the various families well enough and had already done a lot of work on the Sudborough Tebbutts to suspect that was where mine were from, but without the link it was circumstantial.

This is what I call sharing, when people work together to find these missing links. So where do trees come into all this?? Why do we all get hung up on trees?? Why do we have to have anybody's tree?? Until we had GEDCOM files, trees were mainly done by hand and very specific, too much like hard work to write up 10000 individuals on a tree! I run a Family History Group locally and the first thing they learn from me is "Forget the Tree". When you have done your research then consider a Tree!

My new Family History Programme Family Historian 4 is absolutely brilliant as each individual is named to the root person as Great Grandfather. Great Uncle, Wife of Great Uncle, No Specific Relation, Fourth Cousin Twice Removed etc! It helps me to realise the boundaries of my own tree and whereas I like to find marriages for various great uncles and maybe their children, then the boundary may well stop there, unless the interest is specific to me. If I am doing a village study for my own interest then that will go somewhere else quite separate from my tree.

If we can all just get used to the idea of asking a question about a specific person or family in one particular place then there will be no problem with sharing and no problem with needing access to another's tree.

A very Happy Christmas to everybody.

Janet

[Olde Crone Holden]

Guy

I said that I do not open my PERSONAL family tree to anyone.

I do have two other trees which I call hobby trees, both are villages in which I have a genetic interest, lol and I have done a lot of research which has grown into two rather large trees.

I happily share these with anyone. Both trees are clearly labelled as work in progress and my sources clearly named. It is up to the viewer of these trees to then check what I have done...I haven't spent much money on these but they do represent endless hours of work from parish records, census returns and so on.

I take your point about genealogists in previous centuries. I too have some extremely dubious pedigrees reported to the College of Heralds. The point there though, is that the Heralds were recording what the head of the family TOLD them...who was the Herald to argue with them. This is reflected more recently in census returns - the returns are what the head of the household SAID, not necessarily the truth. I take the attitude that all reported information has to be checked back to source material. This is obviously quite difficult when dealing with mediaeval information but it can be done using other paper sources such as Wills and land manouevres.

I beg to suggest that you have to be REALLY keen to do this, it is tedious, and I doubt if any new researcher would know how to do it, even if they knew they ought to.

Janet - I too can never understand the obsession with trees. To me, a tree is a handy way to record information, but certainly not the only way.

I do not clutch my research jealously to my chest and refuse to share. But I am cautious about who I give it to. As Guy rightly says, I lose nothing if someone copies my tree and all the information in it. But perhaps my ancestors lose something, if they are copied, with mistakes, onto a tree where they do not belong? I feel rightly or wrongly, that I am now responsible for my ancestors and have a duty to ensure that they are correctly recorded for posterity. Perhaps I take the game too seriously?

OC

[the meercat]

i have a one name study man who does it all on the internet (thats copying other peoples trees from the internet and doing bmds.)just put your name on gr and he will tell you who all your mams family is etc by the next morning.
but he is desperate to know my great grandmas family but i have told the family to keep their mouths shut

he will never know,oh the power of it all makes me feel good.

[Janet]

OC Quite agree.

Meercat. Yes, there is a huge difference between so called one name studies and GOONS. I prefer GOONS myself, though if you do find someone doing a study of a particular locality then that can also be extremely lucrative. I have found many like that in Northants. I dabble a little in this myself but it is very time consuming so I do not do much though I have got to know many of the Northants families by dabbling, which in itself can help one's own Family History.

Janet

[Guy]

The tree is essential to good research.
Without a tree there is no way that relationships, time-scales, false leads etc. can be quickly considered and compared.

For some people a graphic chart is the simplest method for others an ahnentafel report is the tree of choice other prefer a pedigree chart.
All are types of tree.

BTW a herald was the King's representative and as such had the power to demand heads of family appear before him and fine those who did not appear. They had the power to strike down an achievement if not satisfied. In brief they were powerful men, not to be displeased.
Cheers
Guy

[Janet]

Guy

Are we not splitting hairs on this one? Of course one's research has to be organised in some way and I agree that if not organised there is a good chance of slip ups, but when I tell my people not to worry about the tree for starters, I am not suggesting that they ignore a family tree or whatever method they choose for organisation forever, but just that good research is the first and most important aspect of any work in family history, and how you organise the work once the research has reached a certain information level is up to each individual. I just get rather fed up when people want the tree first before the research, if they ever want to do any research! As said previously I only ever want a smidgeon of info to move my own case forward, I never want to see someone's tree as that is not my work. I love the thrill of the clues and the detective work and that is family history for me.

I really fail to understand why people have to open up trees to everybody else. To go back to my original point on the Tebbutts of Northants. I have done my homework well on my own Tebbutts in Brigstock and I knew what I wanted to further my research on this family. However, I also know about all the other Tebbutts and variants in Northants and Hunts, who are all related. I know this because I have extensively researched many of these Tebbutts in other villages, poring over the various villages in Northants CRO. I have made notes on wills, settlement certs, apprenticeship records just in case they fit into my family, so for someone to have just opened a tree for me would have taken away all that detective work I wanted to do to solve a puzzle. To my way of thinking if everybody doing family history has done their own homework on their own families, they will feel the same and will not want a whole tree opened up to them, right or wrong. However, when you reach a brick wall as I had done then it is nice to be given a clue. It was also interesting that the person who gave me the info from GOONS suggetsed he could take me back 4 further generations, but was just giving me the one clue in case I required to do my own research. How refreshing was that that he was on my own wavelength. Once he mentioned Sudborough I was away.

By the way, I am still recovering from a hard drive crash which has lost me a lot of my tree on family history programmes, and this was in spite of an external hard drive which had failed unbeknown to us 15 months earlier, and a back up on a memory stick which had also failed me! This was an incredible bit of ill fortune for me, but thankfully I have paper files, although unfortunately not organised into trees as I had become so dependent on the electronic versions.

Janet