GenesReunited

[Liberty]

Not great for searching as such, but if you've found an ancestor elsewhere, it is quite easy to do a search on Genes for others with the same surname in the same place, and in the same household as that forename. The results then generally appear in order so you can see where one household ends and the next begins. Very helpful for hints as to parents/spouses/children. I don't know if you can do this on other sites, but I find this one very user-friendly

 

[Margery]

I was disappointed with Genes Reunited. I kept getting "hot matches" and they turned out to be not mine at all. There seemed to be one contributor who had some extremely vague connection to my family, who just collected names. No doubt he had lots of time to go through BDMs, both in England and Australia then post them to his tree. He did not reply to my emails. I have not renewed my subscription.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Yes the most annoying feature of Genes Reunited is the "barely luke warm" matches they do. Unfortunately their matching algorithm is flawed they match on name and date and not on place (or only vaguely on place). Their user base which is massive contains an enormous number of people who send messages such as "Hi there I see we have a match are we related?". Now since you can't see the hot matches they see and with just under 8000 people in my tree (a hefty percentage of which are from my one name study), I have 33 pages of hot matches so I'm not about to trawl through 33 pages to see what they are talking about.

I just don't get when someone is sending a message to someone they never met why they can't observe the guidelines on Genes Reunited and as an absolute minimum give a name, date and place, ideally more than one. Is it really so hard to change "Hi there I see we have a match are we related?" to "Hi there I see you match with my Joe Bloggs, b.1855, Birmingham, are we related?". It's my pet hate using that site the users who are far far too vague.

So my hint of the day to GR members when contacting someone for the first time, give as a minimum a name, date and place (doesn't have to be very detailed). Then before you click send re-read the message and think, "hmm could someone know what I'm talking about from that or would they need to be clairvoyant to work out what I'm talking about"

That said I've made dramatically more connections - over 100 - via GR than via any other site.

 

[Mike]

It used to be my favourite site. Mostly thanks to the excellent feature for displaying trees. It was without doubt the best one I have ever encountered. Sadly they binned it and replaced it with an "improved version" when they upgraded the site.

Like many other long term members I have since let my membership lapse because of this. Pity.

 

[AnneC]

It used to be my favourite site. Mostly thanks to the excellent feature for displaying trees. It was without doubt the best one I have ever encountered. Sadly they binned it and replaced it with an "improved version" when they upgraded the site.

Like many other long term members I have since let my membership lapse because of this. Pity.

Me too. I also had problems with them "losing" my correspondence...I would look at a contact, which showed a last date of our contact, but then went on to say that I had never had contact with that person. To be fair, they did then trawl through the archives and recover the messages that I knew I had lost (sent them to me by email, not put back in GR inbox) and offered to look for any more if I gave them names. But how did I know what I didn't have?! Luckily I had taken copies of the more relevant messages and attached them to my Family History records. I agree with Mike and Alexander that I have found the most information from people on GR than from any other sites, in fact the very few "cousins" I have found I already knew through GR.

 

[Mike]

Yes Anne I also have a very similar story about lost correspondence and also a positive experience of helpful support staff. What I found was that when members left the site all details are deleted including their correspondence with me. Luckily they were able to retrieve the 'emails' from a backup. My fault for not keeping copies of course but you don't normally expect things to disappear from your inbox just because someone has left the site.

 

[Heilan Lass]

I used GRU many years ago and did get several contacts from that source. About half a dozen were "good" contacts, but by far the majority were of the "we seem to share relatives - can you give me access to your tree" type. The one really good exception was a contact from one of my lines that I knew very little about, who happily shared lots of info with me (and I did with her), and we are still in touch. Then I started hearing tales of how many folks were simply collecting names and stopped using the site, and I've also removed all my tree records just in case the data wasn't as secure as I hoped. The only reason I continued to use the site was to cross check their census search results with Ancestry and FMP at times when I didn't have an active sub to either - sometimes if a person appears to be missing on either of those they show up on GRU - but more usefully searches on GRU, even without a subscription, could give you a place of birth instead of just the Registration District which was very helpful if you were running on PAYG credits and didn't want to waste them. I must admit I haven't done this in the last wee while so things may have changed.

 

[Tim]

Like most people, GRU was one of the 1st sites I used online, it was cheap and lots of people were using it.
But it sounds like my experiences match those that have already been mentioned.
And it was getting to the point that I was expected to give more info than I was receiving. People didn't seem interested in the quality, it seemed to be about quantity.
The final straw for me came when they sent me a link to subscribe at a reduced rate to continue my membership. The link didn't work, after many emails from me saying that I've accepted your offer but its not working they told me I was too late and it had expired. I never went back.

 

[Liberty]

I am a bit abashed to have apparently recommended a site that so many people dislike.
It was the search facility for families etc I recommended, rather than a paid subscription. And, as Heilan Lass says, you can see a place of birth on the free search
I concur on the irritating messages- at present there is a 'template' message which merely says 'may I view your tree' to which the only possible response is 'Why?'. However, I have made more/better contacts (my mother's unsuspected 2nd cousin only last week) than ever through LC, much as I wish it were vice versa

 

[Alexander Bisset]

I would concur with you Liberty. The site is a decent site its just in dire need of a revamp to help reduce the level of cluelessness of its users. Simple things like a default message that puts into the message the name, date place of the person in their tree they are talking about rather than the default message being show me your tree.

The users aren't being deliberately obtuse its just the site makes it exceptionally easy to post utterly pointless messages that require the receiver to be clairvoyant to understand what they are talking about. My recent examples...

Subject "Please would you give me access to view your tree?"

Hello Alexander, i think your Joseph is in my tree as well, i would be intertested to see your tree as i have got into a muddle before that and think my older generastion is wrong regards <name hidden>

I have 61 Joseph's in my tree. Where do I start? Do I mention I'm not psychic?

 

[Carla]

I started my research in Genes reunited and have used it as my base site ever since. My ancestral tree was started there purely for the reason it is so simple to fill in. It is a bit 'old hat' but has it's uses. As i have grown in experience with GR i have learnt to question anyone that requests access to my tree. In the past i have allowed someone, only to find they have 'pinched' research i spent ages finding. I did get the last laugh when a mistake i had made was stolen ( and i say 'stolen' because i did not give permission!). I corrected the error, and in an evil moment did not tell the person for some time.

 

[Tim]

I am a bit abashed to have apparently recommended a site that so many people dislike.

Take heart Liberty, we've all used the site and I think its a very good place for anyone to start. But after a while, you move on.

However, I have made more/better contacts (my mother's unsuspected 2nd cousin only last week) than ever through LC, much as I wish it were vice versa

LostCousins is still a young site, and people don't fully understand it yet. This is one part of the forum, to help people with who they can add, helping to knock down brick walls so that you can add more people, its information and education.
Remember that its free to add as many relatives as you can find, and every household you add, increases the chances of someone else adding the same household. Its a win win scenario!

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Its a win win scenario!

Phrase of the day! Or should I shout plagiarism?

 

[Fern49]

I am a bit abashed to have apparently recommended a site that so many people dislike.​

Take heart Liberty, we've all used the site and I think its a very good place for anyone to start. But after a while, you move on.

Nicely put Tim.

 

[Tim]

Phrase of the day! Or should I shout plagiarism?

[March 18th] If I can offer some thoughts on 2 different parts of your post?


I think these are exactly the type of entries you should be making into LostCousins, and where you're most likely to find unknown family members.


A lot of these people could actually be related, but you've been unable to go back far enough to prove to your own satisfaction that they are related. So by adding them and getting a match may help you and them to establish the link that you both require. It sounds like a win win scenario.

You could, but not this time