Should I bite the bullet - a MyHeritage dilemma

[At home in NZ]

All that has been proven so far is how little the 1% of forum members who post regularly know.

I think that says it all, we don't know because we are not interested in it.

At my next genealogy meeting, I will ask questions of the members as to whether any of them use or have used MyH and if they have found any benefit over and above Ancestry, FMP and FS. My 'friend' is one of the members.
I'll report back after the meeting which is on Thursday 11 August.

 

[peter]

I think that says it all, we don't know because we are not interested in it.

I'd like to think that most LostCousins members, and certainly most members of this forum, are more curious than the self-selected few who seem to have an opinion on everything.

 

[Sue_3]

I am researching most days, and although the majority of that research relates to UK records, I do have numerous reasons to look at records for people who lived in, or traveled to, a long list of other countries around the globe. I started before online records were available and began making use of them as soon as I could. In all that time I have never found that I wanted to access something that was only available via MyHeritage, apart from the matches to my uploaded DNA files. That doesn't mean they don't have any 'exclusive' records, but it does explain why I am not tempted to take out a subscription, despite being a curious person?

 

[Bob Spiers]

are more curious than the self-selected few who seem to have an opinion on everything.

I was brought up to have opinions and 'speak up for yourself' (my mother's words), but seemingly belittling people having an opinion on everything is a bit 'pot calling the kettle' from someone who rarely shies from voicing an opinion; and, indeed, why shouldn't you?

Matters on which I have little opinion are outside of Forum topics, but that still leave a good many which are only of passing interest. Things like the complicated breakdowns aired on DNA, or Covid (and I think a good many others would add IT topics to the list; but I do not). Those of little or no interest I just read and pass on.

The upside of all this is when I DO have an opinion, be sure I will express same and I daresay the same applies for other (so called) 'opinionated' people. Long may their opinions be aired.

 

[peter]

The upside of all this is when I DO have an opinion, be sure I will express same and I daresay the same applies for other (so called) 'opinionated' people. Long may their opinions be aired.

By all means give your opinion when it is asked for, but when facts are sought, confine yourself to facts.

 

[At home in NZ]

The upside of all this is when I DO have an opinion, be sure I will express same and I daresay the same applies for other (so called) 'opinionated' people. Long may their opinions be aired.

As they should be, it's called partaking in the discussion.

 

[Bob Spiers]

By all means give your opinion when it is asked for, but when facts are sought, confine yourself to facts.

Very 'schoolmasterish' and the equivalent of saying, 'speak only when spoken to' (or its textural equivalent).

We can't all know facts being sought, but we may have an opinion on the matter and we do not need to be asked because it is -as athNZ says - partaking in the discussion*. Opinions are important and even if not specifically factual, they may well concern, influence or jog a memory about a fact. The Forum thrives on opinions.

*Or course an opinion may sometimes divert from 'topic', but that's a different matter and may need to be re-channelled.

 

[peter]

The Forum thrives on opinions.

If this forum was thriving the discussions wouldn't be so dominated by a handful of members.

 

[At home in NZ]

If this forum was thriving the discussions wouldn't be so dominated by a handful of members.

Perhaps a question should be asked, why is it like this?
Is the Forum now irrelevant?
Are there too many competitors, outside of genealogy, that people prefer to spend their time on? e.g. Facebook, Twitter and the like?

 

[peter]

Perhaps a question should be asked, why is it like this?
Is the Forum now irrelevant?
Are there too many competitors, outside of genealogy, that people prefer to spend their time on? e.g. Facebook, Twitter and the like?

There are other mediums, and there are certainly some Facebook genealogy groups which are quite popular, but I suspect that for most family historians personal contacts tend to dominate. When I asked LostCousins members some time ago about communicating with them via Twitter (which can be a very useful tool) the response was overwhelmingly against the idea.

I set up the forum primarily as an information resource for LostCousins members - not only is there a limit to the amount of detail that I can include in the newsletter, the way in which the forum is structured usually makes it easier to find relevant information.

There are inevitably some topics which are not covered in either the newsletter or the forum, or where the coverage is insufficiently detailed, or out of date, and being able to ask questions on the forum is a valuable benefit of forum membership - not least because forum members include some of the most experienced LostCousins members.

 

[Bob Spiers]

If this forum was thriving the discussions wouldn't be so dominated by a handful of members.

I don't think this unique to LC but perhaps lessons can be learned from other Forums.

I have been a member of the Birmingham History Forum for ages (say 10 years plus) under a username, and although I seldom make routine visits as I do with LC, (indeed my status as 'Brummie Babbie" was static for several years) I do get email alerts when someone responds to a previous posting of mine, and -more often - when the Moderator team remind of activity on a topic of my interest however long ago. The later is very useful. This year since about March I have been active in responding to both alert types, and my status has risen to 'knowledgable brummie' yet this has been achieved with just 28 posted messages, earning 17 reaction points, and 3 trophy points - but goodness knows how I qualified for those.

But the thing I notice on my visits is that Moderators are very active and the same names appear time and again - responding within messages and offering useful pointers -and of course the usual amount of ubiquitous regulars with 'Mega' & 'Master' status tags and they crop up time and again regardless of the topic chosen. I recognise the same names and find them welcoming and of course knowledgeable about Birmingham, and this does not seem to stop a fair amount of 'New members' trying the site for the first time.

With my other occasional Forum visit (Roots Chat and a registered member for ages) I can't recall many email alerts and everyone posting seems to be labelled as 'Roots Extra' although -as with the Birmingham Forum- a handful of 'Veteran' contributors. A useful site if stuck on a genealogical matter and able to login and browse numerous topics to see if any ring a bell. Can't always say it works, but I have been known to be carried away on a totally different topic, and adding my own comments. I doubt my status will change much though.

Bottom line: Stick with it and accept the status quo which I think many will agree the Forum is pretty good as it is.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Perhaps a question should be asked, why is it like this?
Is the Forum now irrelevant?

On this occasion I do not agree, the Forum is far from being irrelevant and should continue as is unless we can learn from other Forum sites. But please NOT social media even though I too have an occasional dabble with Midland Ancestor and a couple of Irish genealogical sites.