Online tree etiquette

Useful places to look up facts

Moderator: Global Moderators

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Post by DavidWW » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:07 pm

garibaldired wrote:Hello All,

I think the key word here is sharing. I love to share my tree with other people who also share theirs! It's a question of give and take.
Indeed!
garibaldired wrote:I would not publish anybody else's research on the net, or elsewhere, without their permission and without acknowledgement of their work.

I would expect the same courtesy in return.

Regards,
Meg
These for me are the key points.

Unfortunately not everyone surfing the web observes such courtesies, there being many stories of folks' trees turning up in those of others, without there ever having been any contact.

Worse still, there's plenty tales of folks' trees turning up on commercial CDs, i.e. CDs sold for profit.

My advice would always be to ca' canny in terms of first contact with strangers, and get to know them first via email exchange, maybe a telephone call of two if that's practical, before getting to the point of exchanging information.

Call me cynical if you like, but I've read too many horror stories, so that I'd advise that an initial step of info exchange should only be on a very limited basis, and that it should not include detailed info on living people.

Every genealogy programme that I know of has a facility to split off a certain branch and create a separate set of data files.

A hint that I read somewhere many moons ago, again a bit cynical, but realistic, is then to create 2 or 3 deliberate errors in these data files, so that if ever any debate arises as to where someone got the info, they'll find it difficult to claim that the source was elsewhere.

If you are ever using an Ordnance Survey map and come across a glaring error, it's not; it's been inserted on exactly the same basis :!: :twisted:

David

SarahND
Site Admin
Posts: 5582
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:47 am
Location: France

Post by SarahND » Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:10 pm

DavidWW wrote:If you are ever using an Ordnance Survey map and come across a glaring error, it's not; it's been inserted on exactly the same basis :!: :twisted:
Really:?: :?: :!: I know that I used to catch students who had shared information during an exam when I would find a series of identical, wrong answers on their papers :wink:

A few years back I was shocked to find, on someone's online tree, my husband's parents (both living at the time), he and all his siblings and some of their children-- three generations of living people :!: There I was as well, with two of my children, with their names garbled and one of them with the wrong gender :!: I consoled myself with the thought that at least the "information" about my family was incorrect, so no one could do anything with it! After I asked her repeatedly to remove the living people, she finally changed all the first names to "Living", leaving the surnames intact :? I never corrected her mistakes on my family 8) Just in case... :twisted:

Regards,
Sarah

sheilajim
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: san clemente california

Post by sheilajim » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:43 pm

Hi All

When I was starting up on Genes Reunited. I thought that I didn't want all this information out on the web. I didn't put in any living relatives and omitted any reference to my father and my husband. I have not updated my tree on Genes Reunited and don't intend to. I find it too scary. So far I have had only one real contact. She didn't have any more info than I had but she sent me a picture of my Grandmother's sister.

Sheila
Sheila

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Post by DavidWW » Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:50 pm

Just thinking about what I wrote earlier ...........

And it occurred to me that I should differentiate between contacts from whatever source in terms of how they take place.........

(a) if your own research on possible living relatives leads you forward to possible distant cousins in far distant countries, and they respond along the lines of "Hey, yes, we're also related to/descended from "John SMITH", then that's one thing in terms of the immediate exchange of information, as long as the possible connection is obvious and provable.

(b) if someone else's own research on possible living relatives leads them to contact you as a possible distant cousin in far distant countries, and your response is along the lines of "Hey, yes, we're maybe also related to/descended from "John SMITH", then that's also one thing in terms of the immediate exchange of information, as long as the possible connection is obvious and provable, and you take time and care to double check that there is such a connection before any exchange of info takes place.

(c) However, if the only comment is along the lines of "Hey, I think that we might be related" but without any obvious proof of a link, then ca' canny, as in my experience there may often not be any such connection, and providing all your information before the connection is proven is a premature step.

OK, yes, there's always going to be a good number of situations where there is a real and genuine possibility of a connection, but only further detailed discussion may lead to the proof of the link; this in the very sad context where there are many numpties out there who will do whatever is necessary to access and "harvest" your family tree info, and then sell it on to others !!

David

StewL
Posts: 1396
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:59 am
Location: Perth Western Australia

Post by StewL » Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:55 am

Hello All

I have had some good contacts through Genes which are proven along the lines of what DWW said, that is through specific lang deid yins, often they have been more than one relative, the best being 8. Although this individual had contacted me privately before we linked on Genes. I only have one contact who is a bit doubtful, so I havent included those people in my lines as yet. But to that persons credit, they possibly have done more research on that family than I have, so they may be correct. It is just that at the moment I cant find the link in my lot.
Stewie

Searching for: Anderson, Balks, Barton, Courtney, Davidson, Downie, Dunlop, Edward, Flucker, Galloway, Graham, Guthrie, Higgins, Laurie, Mathieson, McLean, McLuckie, Miln, Nielson, Payne, Phillips, Porterfield, Stewart, Watson

Tracey
Global Moderator
Posts: 2617
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 10:27 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Tracey » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:50 pm

A hint that I read somewhere many moons ago, again a bit cynical, but realistic, is then to create 2 or 3 deliberate errors in these data files, so that if ever any debate arises as to where someone got the info, they'll find it difficult to claim that the source was elsewhere.
I have been known to stick a fairy or two into my tree. Im not going to rant on about why :roll: but recently i have been contacted through Genes re by people just asking to view my tree without any explanation of who they are looking for even after me asking them - i hope they are not holding their breath. I have made some good contacts over the few years ive been a member and a few of us share all and work together but recently my membership ran out and im not in any rush to renew it. I also havnt met anyone who has researched one side of my family as much as i have - although they say they have - they havnt in truth, in which case i am happy to put anyone on the right path and share direct info but call me mean, i am not about to hand over all my hard work and thousands of pounds worth of information - proud of it as i am :-# :wink:
Scotland - Donaldson / Moggach / Shaw / Geddes / Sim / Gray / Mackie / Richards / Joel / Coull / Mckimmie / Panton / McGregor
Ireland and Scotland - Casey / McDade / Phillips / McCandle / Dinely / Comaskey + various spellings

pinkshoes
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Post by pinkshoes » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:57 pm

Nothing mean about it Tracey - I agree with everything you say, for exactly the same reasons. Besides, what fun can there be for anyone to receive all the info from someone else - I'm sure I couldn't make sense of someone else's tree without undergoing a heid transplant anyway.

I'm actually still quite shocked when I receive a "gonnie gies a look at yer tree" without any explanation as to why they might want to - even though I seem to be getting them every week at the moment.

Best wishes
Pinkshoes

LesleyB
Posts: 8184
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Scotland

Post by LesleyB » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:17 am

Hi pinkshoes
"gonnie gies a look at yer tree"
I also seem to get quite a few of these on GR. If I have had no previous contact with the sender and they cannot take the time to explain why they think seeing my tree might help, then I just ignore them ....! :mrgreen:

Best wishes
Lesley

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Post by DavidWW » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:34 am

LesleyB wrote:Hi pinkshoes
"gonnie gies a look at yer tree"
I also seem to get quite a few of these on GR. If I have had no previous contact with the sender and they cannot take the time to explain why they think seeing my tree might help, then I just ignore them ....! :mrgreen:

Best wishes
Lesley
I have to agree.

If someone can't take the few extra seconds to explain where they see the possible connection, then I would tend to regard contact on the basis of a message such as "gonnie gies a look at yer tree" as "genealogical phishing".

Were it an area of my tree where I'd had major problems, I might reply on the basis of being interested and asking for more info, but otherwise, like Lesley, I'd just ignore it.

David

Post Reply