Lost Cousins Referrals

[Bryman]

None of the 14 people who had been referred by friends or relatives quoted a referral code.

Might that suggest that those receiving the referral from a friend/relative do not really appreciate the significance of that referral code?
Or does it simply show that nobody is using the LC referral process to invite friends/relatives, at least not with a successful outcome?

Most of my attempts have been more of an exploratory nature, hoping to follow up with the more formal offer when a spark of interest is shown. So far, this has not been successful and perhaps I need to hint (?) at the possible help that I can give even at the time of LC introduction. However, I still think that the biggest limitation is that I frequently don't know how to contact relatives that I have identified but do not know. A 'pushy' introduction when contact details are discovered would probably send them running a mile in the opposite direction. Do other members have ideas/suggestions about how best to tackle this situation?

 

[Liberty]

Most of my attempts have been more of an exploratory nature, hoping to follow up with the more formal offer when a spark of interest is shown. So far, this has not been successful and perhaps I need to hint (?) at the possible help that I can give even at the time of LC introduction. However, I still think that the biggest limitation is that I frequently don't know how to contact relatives that I have identified but do not know. A 'pushy' introduction when contact details are discovered would probably send them running a mile in the opposite direction. Do other members have ideas/suggestions about how best to tackle this situation?

Bryman, you describe exactly my experience and feelings. I tried to explain this in an earlier posting as being similar to striking up a conversation on long train journey (would you agree?) When I make contact with someone it is not with a feeling of cousins falling into one another's electronic/virtual arms. Rather, we are 2 people with an interest in family history whose trees overlap. Time enough to get chummy when we find how closely we are related, or how deeply we want to go into research, etc. A lot of these acquaintances dry up pretty quickly as the response is e.g 'her brother married a GG aunt by marriage of mine, so I'm not really interested in going further into her family'. In these cases, I wouldn't care to push LC beyond the recommendation I usually drop into the 1st or 2nd exchange.

Re the question of how people find LC, interesting to see peter's statistics. -I think in my case there was a link on a FMP page (which I ignored for a long time!)

 

[Liberty]

I've now added a paragraph to the How Referrals Work page to highlight this feature.

Peter, good to see this. To be picky - should you say 'you can use that as a template by clicking the

symbol on the 'My Referrals' page'

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Couple of updates:
FTAnalyzer 3.6.0.0 will have a Lost Cousins Referrals report that will have similar information to the refer a relative button. I still need to work on the look of the report and in particular get the sort order to match the sort order of the report but I'm not quite sure how Peter has sorted the data on the referrals page 2 I think its in census reference order then order of individuals as entered? Could you confirm please Peter? BTW would it be possible to display the census reference at the head of each group? That would allow users of the referrals report a much easier way to cross reference the referrals page on the site. BTW2 I hope it would have your permission Peter to put a link to the refer a relative page on the referral report. I know it requires them to login and I'll put text to that end on the report.

My Canadian cousin who I referred a couple of weeks ago and caused the start of this sub-forum and thread, has joined and she did use the referrals code I sent as it shows all the matched people on my page. So I'm not sure why she isn't showing up as having used a referral code in the stats?

 

[peter]

My Canadian cousin who I referred a couple of weeks ago and caused the start of this sub-forum and thread, has joined and she did use the referrals code I sent as it shows all the matched people on my page. So I'm not sure why she isn't showing up as having used a referral code in the stats?

I gave the figures for the most recent 30 people to join, which meant going back 3 days - your cousin registered 7 days ago, but only logged-in for the first time yesterday.

 

[peter]

Re the question of how people find LC, interesting to see peter's statistics. -I think in my case there was a link on a FMP page (which I ignored for a long time!)

There was at one time a link on one of findmypast's results pages, but it disappeared some years ago - it dated back to the time before they were taken over.

 

[Liberty]

There was at one time a link on one of findmypast's results pages, but it disappeared some years ago - it dated back to the time before they were taken over.

Mm. I wouldn't know when it was. I see I have been a LC member since 22nd April 2011, so I suppose that's the answer.

 

[peter]

I'm not quite sure how Peter has sorted the data on the referrals page 2 I think its in census reference order then order of individuals as entered? Could you confirm please Peter?

It should be in the same order as when the My Ancestors page is sorted by household, ie by census then by census references, then (within each household) in the order in which the individuals in that household were entered. But at the moment there's a difference in the way that the members of the household are ordered - they're sorted by age (descending), then surname (ascending), then forename.

However, since FTA won't know which order they were entered, perhaps I should leave the sort within the household as it is?

BTW would it be possible to display the census reference at the head of each group? That would allow users of the referrals report a much easier way to cross reference the referrals page on the site.

At the moment I can't see an easy way to implement that.

BTW2 I hope it would have your permission Peter to put a link to the refer a relative page on the referral report. I know it requires them to login and I'll put text to that end on the report.

No problem including the link, but if they do have to log-in they'll be taken to the home page afterwards.

 

[peter]

Might that suggest that those receiving the referral from a friend/relative do not really appreciate the significance of that referral code?
Or does it simply show that nobody is using the LC referral process to invite friends/relatives, at least not with a successful outcome?

It probably shows that existing members don't appreciate the advantages of using their My Referrals page - but it could also indicate that they're contacting several friends at the same time.

Most of my attempts have been more of an exploratory nature, hoping to follow up with the more formal offer when a spark of interest is shown. So far, this has not been successful and perhaps I need to hint (?) at the possible help that I can give even at the time of LC introduction. However, I still think that the biggest limitation is that I frequently don't know how to contact relatives that I have identified but do not know.

If you've identified them but don't know how to contact them doesn't that usually mean they're not researching their tree?

A 'pushy' introduction when contact details are discovered would probably send them running a mile in the opposite direction. Do other members have ideas/suggestions about how best to tackle this situation?

I wouldn't dream of mentioning LostCousins in the first email - I'd normally only do so once it has been established how we're related (or that we're not related). Until I know who the common ancestor is I won't know which parts of my tree are relevant.

 

[Liberty]

I wouldn't dream of mentioning LostCousins in the first email - I'd normally only do so once it has been established how we're related (or that we're not related). Until I know who the common ancestor is I won't know which parts of my tree are relevant.

Interesting. I go on the basis that if someone has gone to the effort of e.g. compiling a coherent tree on Ancestry (and there are plenty of incoherent ones!) they would be interested in LC. Whether or not we are related is not really the point. Else why would we recommend it to 'mere' friends?

 

[Alexander Bisset]

But at the moment there's a difference in the way that the members of the household are ordered - they're sorted by age (descending), then surname (ascending), then forename.

However, since FTA won't know which order they were entered, perhaps I should leave the sort within the household as it is?

It would certainly be easier to replicate a sort order of census, census ref (where entered in GEDCOM), age (desc), surname (asc), forenames, if you are happy to keep it like that on the webpage.

Is there a specific census ordering say on importance? ie: does 1881 England & Wales get pushed up the queue? I seem to have England and Wales 1911 followed by England and Wales 1841, followed by England and Wales 1881, and lastly Scotland 1881 so I'm not sure what the ordering is. I don't have any other years/countries entered.

PS. I don't actually have a cousin with an email address of test@test.com hopefully I never got to the stage of that getting added to the database.

 

[peter]

Interesting. I go on the basis that if someone has gone to the effort of e.g. compiling a coherent tree on Ancestry (and there are plenty of incoherent ones!) they would be interested in LC. Whether or not we are related is not really the point. Else why would we recommend it to 'mere' friends?

Whether we are related may not matter, but it does nevertheless determine which type of referral we use.

 

[peter]

It would certainly be easier to replicate a sort order of census, census ref (where entered in GEDCOM), age (desc), surname (asc), forenames.

Is there a specific census ordering say on importance? ie: does 1881 England & Wales come at the head of the queue, or is it just sorted on year so 1841 comes first?

The censuses are sorted based on the internal census codes, which were chosen for historical reasons. I'll PM them to you shortly.

 

[Liberty]

Whether we are related may not matter, but it does nevertheless determine which type of referral we use.

Sure. But you said "I wouldn't dream of mentioning LostCousins in the first email ". I wouldn't set up a referral at the time of the first email, but I do tend to get in a plug for LC at an early stage. As I, and Bryman, (and others, I think?) have indicated, we rarely feel we can go further than a recommendation.

I wonder if some of these exchanges between us have been based on a confusion between a recommendation (Are you a member of LC? I can thoroughly recommend it [etc, etc.. up to an including] If you'd like to join let me know, as I can set you up with a lot of census entries to get you going.) and a full-blown referral. I do a lot of the former, and very few of the latter.

 

[peter]

Sure. But you said "I wouldn't dream of mentioning LostCousins in the first email ". I wouldn't set up a referral at the time of the first email, but I do tend to get in a plug for LC at an early stage. As I, and Bryman, (and others, I think?) have indicated, we rarely feel we can go further than a recommendation.

I wonder if some of these exchanges between us have been based on a confusion between a recommendation (Are you a member of LC? I can thoroughly recommend it [etc, etc.. up to an including] If you'd like to join let me know, as I can set you up with a lot of census entries to get you going.) and a full-blown referral. I do a lot of the former, and very few of the latter.

It's not something I'd do on a first date, but if it works for you, great! However from what you've said ("a lot of the former, and very few of the latter") it would seem that perhaps it isn't working very well?

I believe that people are more likely to take my advice once we've got to know each other. If somebody I'd only just met recommended a site to me that I'd never heard of I'd naturally be cautious - how could they possibly know it would be right for me?

 

[Liberty]

It's not something I'd do on a first date, but if it works for you, great! However from what you've said ("a lot of the former, and very few of the latter") it would seem that perhaps it isn't working very well?

I believe that people are more likely to take my advice once we've got to know each other. If somebody I'd only just met recommended a site to me that I'd never heard of I'd naturally be cautious - how could they possibly know it would be right for me?

This is a real conundrum and I'd REALLY like it if more people could throw in their ideas.

I try to steer what seems to me a middle line. At one extreme is never mentioning LC at all. (Obviously Not Good, and missing the point.) At the other extreme is a full-out Referral at a very early stage. (Very Likely to put people off.) What I try to do, if looks as if the other person is genuinely interested in genealogy/family tree (and not necessarily the same tree as me) is suggest they have look at the LC site, read a NL or two and think about joining. If we seem to be related, I say that I can start them off with some census references. (I have had a couple of responses to the effect that they make plenty of contacts via ancestry; I have had one who said he was already a member and not got any benefit from it)

You're quite right - it ISN'T working, but I don't see that my technique is badly at fault. By your own account, the referral system doesn't seem to be as big a success as it deserves. Is it like double glazing, where most sales are done to people who actually know the salesperson? [It used to be that firms would recruit youngsters, purely to get the sale to a granny who was otherwise resistant to salesmen] The three successful referrals I have done have been (1) to a 2nd cousin once removed, and (2) to two (very far-apart) 5th cousins who were as interested as I was in finding out the minutiae of very distantly related 19century ancestors.

You understandably lament the fact that so few LC members use the referral system. But nobody has come up with a good model for implementing it. Bryman's comments suggests he has similar experiences to mine, Alexander speaks of referring a second cousin (?), most other forum members have kept their counsel. Is it the case that referrals are successful only if (a) the invitee is evidently so closely related that we can immediately share details of a great number of close relatives or (b) we have developed a close relationship, as existing friends or via chatting over family history? If so, then recruitment through personal recommendation (whether via Referral or more informally) is likely to be small, as we will each only have few people who fit into the category. To push the double glazing analogy a bit further, the cynical firms who took on the youngsters knew they would only get one or two sales through them, though the kids often kept on trying to sell. Perhaps my 3 successful Referrals is all I am likely to achieve? (I can add an informal recommendation to a personal friend who joined up, but that won't show on any analysis). You have a figure for how many LC members have used the referral system - do you have figures for how many each of those has 'recruited'? Are people successfully referring more than a handful?

 

[Alexander Bisset]

If somebody I'd only just met recommended a site to me that I'd never heard of I'd naturally be cautious - how could they possibly know it would be right for me?

Some people are naturally curious and trusting some are naturally cautious and suspicious. Personally since I am well aware of the nature of the internet I'm far more likely to investigate any recommendation that a new contact has made than suspect that they are out to trap me into something bad. It just comes down to our nature are we naturally trusting or suspicious.

My general approach to life is to assume that most people are to be trusted rather than to assume that most people are out to rip me off. That DOES NOT mean I throw caution to the wind, its perfectly reasonable to assume people are trustworthy and to take their advice whilst being careful.

On the point of "how could they possibly know it would be right for me" the answer is the incredibly simple "they can't", only you can know that. Unless you actually check out a site for yourself you can't ever know if its right for you. If they never suggest it you might never come across the site. To me there is nothing to be lost by suggesting they try the site and to be brutally honest if they are the sort of person who are going to get suspicious and negative about my attempts to help them then I'd really rather not get involved with them in the first place. I dislike that sort of negativity as a personality trait. My experience has been that sort of person typically is keen to get information on their family from me but is suspicious and reluctant to be helpful and share information with me in return, thus I'd really rather not deal with them, let them stew in their own negativity and paranoia is my view.

So on this one I am very very firmly in Liberty's camp. I will mention the LC site to contacts who are keen researchers, I make regular mentions when relevant in family history forums, but I'd only go to the point of making a formal referral once the individual had expressed a keen interest. I'm not going to ram anything down anyone's throat, but I am keen to promote the site as by helping individuals see the benefits and get them to enter their relatives as that benefits everyone else using the site.

 

[Bryman]

(I have had a couple of responses to the effect that they make plenty of contacts via ancestry; I have had one who said he was already a member and not got any benefit from it).

You're quite right - it ISN'T working, but I don't see that my technique is badly at fault. By your own account, the referral system doesn't seem to be as big a success as it deserves.

You are right. Your technique is not badly at fault but perhaps there needs to be a slight change in presentation (?). I think there is a reluctance by several people to get involved with too many family history sites. I have contacted people who use Ancestry or GR and who are happy to stay with what they are familiar with, not realising that LC is different and does not require the whole tree to be re-entered.The positive matching within LC is a very positive aspect but is not always appreciated immediately unless there has been experience of receiving mis-information from other tree owners.

Another of my contacts doesn't even use family history software and uses text to create/maintain charts in MS Word. This is all because none of his family circle have any other software with which to view his findings. Although this may have been simple at first, it must now be a nightmare trying to maintain. I have tried to suggest that he use a package and print charts to pdf which can then be viewed with a free reader but feel that this is beginning to become rather 'pushy'. I think that such advice should only be given when help or an alternative is requested by the other party.

Getting to that position is likely to be a slow process so we should not expect 'overnight' success in increasing the LC membership. Eventually the desired goal will be reached as long as we all stick with our efforts. First build a relationship and become trusted. Then ask questions which will lead them to ask for assistance or suggestions, to which the response would be to offer an introduction to the LC membership via the referral process.

 

[Tim]

If I could summarize, as I actually believe we're all on the same page.

Referring friends and relations is a good thing to do. But for the referrer it's not a quick or simple thing to do, being able to select a household at a time would be quicker and using the soon to be released new version of FTA will also help greatly. Using a previous referral is also going to help us.

The fact that we all do talk about LC and make referrals is also a good thing. How and when you do this with a new contact is down to both your own personal approach AND how the new contact responds to your various forms of contact.

When I make a referral I do point out that they don't have to do anything other than accept and enroll. This is normally quick and straightforward for them to do. After they do I go on to explain the further benefits of them adding the other members of their family lines, to make more matches with the lines that we don't share.

 

[Tim]

Peter, I do have a situation where I have just made a match. I'm cultivating the relationship at the moment as we only matched on 2 people out of a whole household, so it would appear they haven't entered the other members of the household. I'm also assuming that they haven't gone any further back in their research or maybe just not added it to LC yet.

So the question is, is there a way I can "add" the other households, a bit like a referral, to an existing member? Did that make sense?
I have added the data already and I'm willing to share the entries with them, exactly as I would if I was making a relative referral.

I also assume that the lack of further entries by my new match is the reason why we only have a match rating of 0.2 (you are related, but probably only by marriage) when we are cousins?