GenesReunited

[Helen7]

Always of course, avoiding 'Ma-and-Pa' and 'No Tree' and limited interest in Private Trees.

I agree with you in general, Bob, but actually I sometimes take on these as a bit of a challenge, providing their surname is sufficiently unusual to warrant the investigation, or I have other hints (such as shared matches) to point me in the right direction. I have traced several 3rd and 4th cousins this way.

For example, a recent match popped up in my list (fairly high up at 63 cM) who had just himself and his father in his tree. Had he included his mother I'd have recognised the name immediately as one of my ancestral surnames, but all I had to go on were a couple of shared matches. Having failed to find his birth in this country, I was able to work out exactly how he is related to me courtesy of some excellent South African records at FamilySearch. I traced him back to his great-grandfather who had emigrated to South Africa in the late 19th C and who was my great-grandmother's older brother. Having discovered the marriage of said DNA match, I then found his wife's tree, which was full of detail including her husband's ancestors, thus confirming my research.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I agree with you in general, Bob, but actually I sometimes take on these as a bit of a challenge, providing their surname is sufficiently unusual to warrant the investigation, or I have other hints (such as shared matches) to point me in the right direction. I have traced several 3rd and 4th cousins this way.

That is the sort of a response I enjoy reading Helen and indeed provides an example of what can be achieved. I mentioned in an earlier posting that I too sometimes react to 'vibes' picked up in another's Tree, or more likely a shared match. I've not had your type of success, but perhaps one such is hiding around the corner. As I also said earlier, nothing is written in stone, and it is good to hear what can be achieved by delving into corners, so to speak. Thanks again.

 

[Helen7]

it is good to hear what can be achieved by delving into corners, so to speak

Oh, I love delving into corners! And I've found the records at FamilySearch so important in such delving. I traced another 3rd cousin - a 'No Tree' on Ancestry - via US records there (including the very useful 1940 census!), and although this cousin didn't seem too interested in tracing his family when I contacted him, he did at least confirm the name of his father which fitted nicely with what I'd found.

 

[peter]

In short I think DNA Trees follow the old computer concept of 'garbage in = garbage out'.

First you complain the trees are too small, then you suggest they're full of garbage. And why imply all trees connected to DNA results are defective (by your standards) when you know that isn't true.

You are entitled to research in any way you want, but please stop using this forum to criticise your own cousins simply because their trees are too small or too private for your liking. Everyone has to start somewhere, and if DNA has encouraged a new generation to take an interest in their ancestry that's surely a good thing, and they deserve your encouragement, not your contempt.

 

[Bob Spiers]

First you complain the trees are too small, then you suggest they're full of garbage. And why imply all trees connected to DNA results are defective (by your standards) when you know that isn't true.

Only you can latch on to a sentence or phrase in one of my postings and stand it on its head and interpret completely different to how intended. It happens often and I may well have to consider Grievance procedures?

I DID NOT suggest that all Trees are "full of garbage". NOR did I imply "all trees connected to DNA results are defective" (by any standard). I used the computer term Garbage in/Garbage out in EXACTLY the same way as when applying to bad computer input resulting in bad output, and it is the same with Tree content. In more simplistic and tongue-in-cheek terms, Trees on Ancestry can be "Good, Bad or Ugly".

A Tree is as good as it is irrespective whether done by a rank amateur or a seasoned researcher. I have and always will encourage effort, and praise Ancestry for encouraging 'new generations' to research their family history. But do stop defending the indefensible and especially stop referring to every other individual who owns an Ancestry Tree as my Cousin. (And spare me the fact that after the 10th or whatever generation, that may well be so).

 

[peter]

Only you can latch on to a sentence or phrase in one of my postings and stand it on its head and interpret completely different to how intended.

Perhaps it's because of the way you word things? If you were more positive in your postings it wouldn't matter so much, but if you are going to criticise other people you need to be more precise about who you are criticising and provide cogent reasons.

I have and always will encourage effort, and praise Ancestry for encouraging 'new generations' to research their family history

Unfortunately that isn't how it comes over in your postings, especially when you talk about "avoiding 'Ma-and-Pa' and 'No Tree'" matches.

But do stop defending the indefensible

Please be precise about who or what it is you consider to be indefensible.

and especially stop referring to every other individual who owns an Ancestry Tree as my Cousin.

You were specifically referring to trees connected to DNA matches, so yes - they're your cousins, whether you like it or not. (Unless you have a DNA match with someone you won't know whether they tested their DNA nor which tree, if any, they have linked to their results.)

 

[Bob Spiers]

Perhaps it's because of the way you word things?

I word things the way I see them and if I write 'the cat sat on the mat' I do not expect criticism because I did not specify the breed of the cat or whether the mat was hessian or woollen.

Unfortunately that isn't how it comes over in your postings, especially when you talk about "avoiding 'Ma-and-Pa' and 'No Tree'" matches.

Yes I avoid such Trees and (as you pointed out yourself) I am entitled to research in the way I want and comment on why I do so.

Please be precise about who or what it is you consider to be indefensible.

Now to this I could write an essay, but will suffice to just highlight the many times you rush to defend what to me (and others) seems indefensible, or at least worthy of further debate not just stifled with a rebuttal.
#1 Poor often idiotic transcriptions. #2 (any) criticism of FMP. #3 search algorithms not fit for purpose. #4 website updates that confuse rather than improve and, apropos the previous comment, #5 suspect or inadequate Ancestry Trees. I could go on but you asked me to be precise and so highlight the salient points where criticisms should be aired and not just thrown out because they touch a raw nerve.

You were specifically referring to trees connected to DNA matches, so yes - they're your cousins, whether you like it or not

Now here you have touched on a personal distaste on the overplay of the word cousin (not perhaps a good thing to air in a Lost Cousins Forum), but given the times I have told someone they are not second cousins, but first cousins once removed and have them challenge same (my own daughter was one such) I have a deal of sympathy for their misunderstanding. Of course a DNA match is, by definition, with a 'cousin' of sorts and just as in a packet of Liquorice Allsorts, I bypass the ones I do not like . What I was really emphasising was that general Ancestry Tree Owners were NOT necessarily cousins nor necessarily anyone appearing in their Trees, so I was not necessarily criticising a cousin.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I realised we have veered off the Genes Reunited (GR) topic and was about to unfollow the discussion when I happened to revisit GR to find I had a message awaiting from March 2021. It is quite unlike me not to respond to messages, and can only think that as a non-subscriber to Genes that I was no longer entitled to email reminders. I was pacified a little when I realised that the message was a follow on from a topic I had answered way back, and just missed out on a supplementary question raised and which to this day remains unanswered but I intend to put that to rights.

Surprisingly the Tree showing under 'My Tree' is ultra basic of which I have no memory. The last time I viewed the Tree on GR it was a full Gedcom import and I intend that it should again be so. I am a Registered Member (rather than a Subscriber) so whether this will be allowed I am about to find out. But meanwhile I have apologised to the Messenger, explained the situation, and promised to respond forthwith - albeit nearly a year after the question was raised.

Edit: Silly me I had forgotten the format of a GR Tree and that it only showed Immediate family and one clicked on tabs to Ancestors, Descendants and of course Full. However it has accepted a new Gedcom and so is currently up to date but doubt it will generate anything new -but you never know.

 

[peter]

Yes I avoid such Trees and (as you pointed out yourself) I am entitled to research in the way I want and comment on why I do so.

But you haven't commented - you've merely told us that you ignore people with very small trees (or no tree at all), even if they are your cousins, without making it clear why you do so.

You are entitled to research in the way you want, but if you want to promote your methods on this forum you must explain your reasoning.

Now to this I could write an essay, but will suffice to just highlight the many times you rush to defend what to me (and others) seems indefensible, or at least worthy of further debate not just stifled with a rebuttal.
#1 Poor often idiotic transcriptions. #2 (any) criticism of FMP. #3 search algorithms not fit for purpose. #4 website updates that confuse rather than improve and, apropos the previous comment, #5 suspect or inadequate Ancestry Trees. I could go on but you asked me to be precise and so highlight the salient points where criticisms should be aired and not just thrown out because they touch a raw nerve.

The only item in that list that has possibly come up in this discussion is 'inadequate Ancestry trees'. So what do you consider to be inadequate - are you talking about the very small trees that belong to the beginners that you claim to encourage?

What I was really emphasising was that general Ancestry Tree Owners were NOT necessarily cousins nor necessarily anyone appearing in their Trees, so I was not necessarily criticising a cousin.

You specifically talked about DNA trees, so yes - you were necessarily criticising your cousins.

 

[Helen7]

I realised we have veered off the Genes Reunited (GR) topic and was about to unfollow the discussion when I happened to revisit GR to find I had a message awaiting from March 2021. It is quite unlike me not to respond to messages, and can only think that as a non-subscriber to Genes that I was no longer entitled to email reminders.

I have subscribed to GR for years, and in the early days made a lot of contacts through the site - some of whom I have stayed in touch with, or reconnected via Ancestry or Lost Cousins. Although I haven't had any new matches for ages, about a year ago I received an email to say I had a new message. It turned out it wasn't from a relative, but from a woman whose hobby was collecting memorial ribbon bookmarks and then trying to find living relatives of the people commemorated. She contacted me to see if two such ribbons for people with my surname were relatives of mine. They were indeed and she sent me scans of these, which I really appreciated. At less than £9 a year I feel it is worth keeping up the subscription, though I haven't updated my tree there in ages.

 

[Kate]

Hello Helen, I thought GR was nearer £20 now, but your story about the bookmarks is lovely. I was once contacted via Ancestry by someone who had bought a great great aunt's birthday book as part of a job lot! I appreciated that she had sought me out as it added detail to my tree. Every little helps. Distant cousins are useful if you want to go back but I need closer relations to give me details of the ones I know about.

 

[Helen7]

I thought GR was nearer £20 now,

I renewed my subscription in November 2021 and it was £8.96 for a 12 month Standard membership. Looking back through my records, in 2008 it was £9.95 then went down to £7.96 for a few years before going to £8.96 in 2014 where it has been ever since.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Hello Helen, I thought GR was nearer £20 now

I renewed my subscription in November 2021 and it was £8.96 for a 12 month Standard membership

As it happens I checked only yesterday with a thought I might consider a new subscription (I doubt I will but that's another matter) and the current Standard annual one is £20.04 so Kate is right. The Platinum subscription (includes the 1911 Census) is -wait for it - £80.04. The odd pennies come about because they relate it to a monthly amount (x 12) even though one payment will be taken at commencement of the subscription. Of course in both instances they offer a 6 month and a 1 month plan at increased monthly rates.

I have no recall or records to check what I paid previously, but in my minds eye GR was always around £10 and I just renewed; until the day I decided not to of course.

 

[Helen7]

and the current Standard annual one is £20.04 so Kate is right.

So does this mean I'm getting a discount as a continuing subscriber? I'm certainly only paying £8.96 a year, as I have for the past 7 years as I said. My recent auto renewal initially failed as I'd changed my credit card and I had to supply the new details to renew manually, but it was still the same price. Obviously Standard membership doesn't provide access to any records, though I get email alerts and can contact other members, ask to view their trees and use the message boards (which has been useful to view my previous messages). I certainly wouldn't consider paying £80 a year, as I get all the records (and more) via my Ancestry sub for less than that (including the perennial 50% discount of course).

 

[Bob Spiers]

So does this mean I'm getting a discount as a continuing subscriber? I'm certainly only paying £8.96 a year

I suppose that must be the answer Helen and the only way to test that is for someone else who is also a continuing subscriber to confirm their renewal is the same (hopefully) as yours. Probably explains why I always thought GR subscription was around a tenner by renewing each time.

 

[peter]

I thought GR was nearer £20 now

I renewed my subscription in November 2021 and it was £8.96 for a 12 month Standard membership. Looking back through my records, in 2008 it was £9.95 then went down to £7.96 for a few years before going to £8.96 in 2014 where it has been ever since.

Genes Reunited have always had a policy of giving better rates to continuous subscribers. But for quite a few years the price for new subscribers has been £20 a year (give or take a few pence).

 

[Helen7]

Genes Reunited have always had a policy of giving better rates to continuous subscribers.

So the opposite of the policy adopted by Ancestry - and, for that matter, insurers and energy companies. Good to see loyalty rewarded for a change (I know FMP do too).

 

[peter]

So the opposite of the policy adopted by Ancestry - and, for that matter, insurers and energy companies. Good to see loyalty rewarded for a change (I know FMP do too).

Coincidentally it was a policy that Genes Reunited introduced long before they merged with Findmypast - it goes back to 2003 0r 2004 when Genes Reunited increased their subscription from £7.95 a year to £9.95 a year (and then I think it went up to £9.95 for 6 months).

In defence of insurance companies, my car insurance quote was down a few pounds this year. Sadly the house insurance went the other way.

 

[At home in NZ]

I word things the way I see them and if I write 'the cat sat on the mat' I do not expect criticism because I did not specify the breed of the cat or whether the mat was hessian or woollen.

 

[peter]

I word things the way I see them and if I write 'the cat sat on the mat' I do not expect criticism because I did not specify the breed of the cat or whether the mat was hessian or woollen.

Bob, you have been criticising other family historians who aren't in a position to defend themselves, so you shouldn't be surprised that I have sprung to their defence. In future be more specific - whether you are praising or criticising - so that others know whether to ignore what you're saying, take it on board, or challenge it.