Hints at Findmypast

[KirstenB]

Hi Kirsten, I think you need more than 5 posts before you can attach a file. Please try and send it to me again.

Hello Tim, The "Upload a File" button is available at the bottom of this "post box" but if I upload the gedcom there rather than in our conversation who gets it? Sorry to be so dim.

 

[Tim]

Yes, I meant for you try the the PM that we're having.

 

[CeeJay]

I posted my, not that large tree (2700 people) to Findmypast 6 days ago and have not had a single hint. It seems to have loaded fine as far as I can tell but I do not even see the 'please be patient message' anymore. I can only guess they were simply overwhelmed by the response. Disappointing but no bad thing to have another back up copy in case of a multi system failure at home.
Interesting to read the comments on people harvesting great chunks of other people's trees, in the last few days I have come across 2 trees on Ancestry with 27,000+, and 34,000+ people and 6,000+ photographs . Fifteen years ago I would have been impressed, now I'm more cynical, as it has taken me that long to get to my 2700, and wonder where all the data came from. It does not help that within less than 5 minutes I found what I consider to be major errors in both trees. I'm not that keen on having my own tree in the public domain but I do look at others that are posted and if I find something connected to a nearish relative that I consider to be incorrect I contact the tree owner and explain where I think they are wrong. Does not always work, someone is still convinced my grandmother married a completely different husband and although my great uncle died in the Great War another person still has probate being granted for him in the 1950's whereas it was actually November 1918.

 

[Pauline]

I'm not that keen on having my own tree in the public domain

Although I haven't uploaded my tree at either Ancestry or FMP, it's been freely available on my own genealogy website for more years than I care to remember. People do help themselves to my information - and I can usually recognise it in other people's trees as often the exact wording or layout has been copied (along with errors I've since corrected!) - but on the whole I can't say it really bothers me. To me the real pleasure of family history is the actual researching, and I don't mind sharing it. (I don't include details of anyone living in my online tree.)

Occasionally I have felt put out by people using my information, for example, if I come across a website quoting what is obviously my research but attributing it to someone else. And I do get a bit miffed if people wrongly attach a whole chunk of my ancestry into their own tree but ignore my attempts to contact them about it.

But I've also had lots of fruitful contact via my website.

 

[Bryman]

Interesting to read the comments on people harvesting great chunks of other people's trees, in the last few days I have come across 2 trees on Ancestry with 27,000+, and 34,000+ people and 6,000+ photographs .

I didn't get where I am today by copying whole branches of other people's trees.
(Sorry to be a little flippant but that just shows my age and sense of humour.)

However, a year or two ago I did notice that one of the owners of a tree that I am permitted to view at GR had over 70,000 individuals in their tree. I have just looked again and found that there are now over 130,000 !!! I don't have the time to check for which branch(es) might be common to us both.

 

[Bob Spiers]

People do help themselves to my information - and I can usually recognise it in other people's trees as often the exact wording or layout has been copied (along with errors I've since corrected!) - but on the whole I can't say it really bothers me. To me the real pleasure of family history is the actual researching, and I don't mind sharing it. (I don't include details of anyone living in my online tree.)

What a joy to read Pauline and very close to my own views, aired many times. Although I relate to an Ancestry Public Tree your remark about people cribbing details is all to familiar. For instance I use Capitals for direct ancestors which when copied lock, stock and barrel are dead giveaways, as are typos or dates since corrected. I agree the pleasure is in the researching and I too do not mind sharing. As for living persons Ancestry will merely recall them with a gender icon, no name or pack drill.

Occasionally I have felt put out by people using my information, for example, if I come across a website quoting what is obviously my research but attributing it to someone else. And I do get a bit miffed if people wrongly attach a whole chunk of my ancestry into their own tree but ignore my attempts to contact them about it.

I too get a bit miffed when people do not respond when contacted and it is usually a sign that the person is just a 'Collector' I once messaged a lady who had posted a Newspaper clipping relating to a family Tragedy circa the mid 1800's and asked if I could use same as the person was a Great x 3 Grandfather. She not only responded but we found out we were cousins (once removed) which led to both of us granting 'guest' access to our Trees. I added the clipping acknowledging her as the originator but noted it used elsewhere without so much as a nod to its origins.

I suppose just as we encounter bad manners in life we should not be too surprised that they exist online. At least the Forum conducts itself well.

 

[Bob Spiers]

ago I did notice that one of the owners of a tree that I am permitted to view at GR had over 70,000 individuals in their tree. I have just looked again and found that there are now over 130,000 !!!

Such trees were par for the course in My Heritage (MH) , particularly with US researchers who seemed to relish adding anyone just because they had the same surname. Sadly it also has to be said some Aussie MH Trees were no better but thankfully there were exceptions. As for learning the same claims can be laid at GR doors, I am quite distraught.

 

[PhilGee]

.... As for living persons Ancestry will merely recall them with a gender icon, no name or pack drill.

Oh dear, I must have died I found a public tree yesterday with my details shown (year of birth based on the GRO index was wrong - I was born a week before Christmas!).

Phil

 

[peter]

Although I haven't uploaded my tree at either Ancestry or FMP, it's been freely available on my own genealogy website for more years than I care to remember.

It's very different when you keep a tree on your own website - the name collectors who frequent Ancestry aren't going to stumble across it. For those who insist on sharing their research without first vetting the recipients, having it on your own website is the best option.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Oh dear, I must have died I found a public tree yesterday with my details shown (year of birth based on the GRO index was wrong - I was born a week before Christmas!).

I presume you mean Ancestry? Not quite sure I understand the 'GRO-week before Christmas' bit Phil, except presumably the GRO year was out by perhaps a year, but more interested in how you discovered the other Tree showing your details. Was it via a Ancestry Hint within your own Tree (Public or private) or by a 'Other Trees' search and still within your own Tree. If so in either case, Ancestry would most likely (I have no way of knowing for sure) deduce you had found 'yourself' so to speak, so would reveal your detail.

That is just my theory, that it is (apologies to Python)

 

[Pauline]

It's very different when you keep a tree on your own website - the name collectors who frequent Ancestry aren't going to stumble across it.

They clearly have stumbled across it - whether directly or indirectly - as I regularly come across what I can recognise as my research in Ancestry trees, many of which seem to have no obvious connection to me.

 

[PhilGee]

I presume you mean Ancestry? Not quite sure I understand the 'GRO-week before Christmas' bit Phil, except presumably the GRO year was out by perhaps a year, but more interested in how you discovered the other Tree showing your details. Was it via a Ancestry Hint within your own Tree (Public or private) or by a 'Other Trees' search and still within your own Tree.

Bob,

I'm being terse again I was responding to an Ancestry reference, so didn't repeat it - and it was in response to a "tree" hint against another person in my tree (apart from a couple of "outline" trees, mine are private/searchable)! It is possible they inadvertently set my status to "died" without a date entry - the profile has "death unknown".

re: GRO etc, like many people born after late November, registration was in the following January and that year was used on the tree.

Phil

 

[Bob Spiers]

as I regularly come across what I can recognise as my research in Ancestry trees, many of which seem to have no obvious connection to me.

Amen to that and I noticed recently after adding actual birth dates for 3 family members found in the 1939 Register, two Trees out of a list of 5 from 'other Tree hints' suddenly 'acquired' those birth dates. Whilst it could be said they followed the same path as me, I very, very much doubt it.

 

[peter]

They clearly have stumbled across it - whether directly or indirectly - as I regularly come across what I can recognise as my research in Ancestry trees, many of which seem to have no obvious connection to me.

Ah, but it won't necessarily be the people who found your website who have used the information incorrectly. Sadly those well-meaning people may have added your information to their own public trees where it was found by name collectors with little or no connection.

Unless you ask users of your website not to add your information to their public trees then inevitably some will do so.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I'm being terse again I was responding to an Ancestry reference, so didn't repeat it

Yes, I should be used to it as my wife likewise sees no point in qualifying things on the assumption we are still on the same subject as a moment or two previously; even though I have perhaps been reading or otherwise pre-occupied. Many a discussion ensues!

like many people born after late November, registration was in the following January and that year was used on the tree.

I've lost count of the times that occurs in my Tree - including my late father born in December with a registration the 1st quarter of the year following. If others (and ourselves when researching the more remote ancestors) only have the GRO to go by then of course that is what we record. As you say the obvious answer to someone recording you as deceased is them 'ticking' your box' as deceased, which will automatically record 'Unknown'. I hope you told the person you were alive and well?

I once had, and still have, a Robert Spiers born in the same year as me -and more or less the same place - who sadly is truly deceased. I could live with that (pardon the pun) as I am shown with a middle name (and there are of course other family variations) so it is obvious which is which. At least I thought it was until I updated my 'Genes' Tree with a Gedcom, and shortly after my 'namesake' was shown as the 'Home' person. I found this odd as the Gedcom was uploaded from Ancestry where I am clearly the Tree Owner. A repeated Gedcom didn't change the position so I made contact with GR and they adjusted it manually. Although many Gedcom updates have been added since, the situation has not re-occurred.

 

[PhilGee]

Bob,

I have contacted the owner and been resurrected - the connection between us is very distant, via a "by marriage" maternal uncle (and 5 changes of family name plus upwards 5 or six generations to the common point!).

I had a similar "name" problem to you in my paternal grandmother's family - two cousins Anne Talman Jones b. 1832 in Southwick, Wilts. which FTM mixed on a regular basis after I added the second via a GEDCOM merge. However, deleting and reloading the tree stopped the confusion (and I still use a GEDCOM merge to update the tree)

To get back on topic I uploaded a GEDCOM to FMP with my separate trees merged (I have trees based on "earliest direct ancestor", each containing the "family in common") and have yet to get any hints, though it has only been 5 days or so! My "paternal" tree has quite a lot, but that's been there for a long time.

Phil

 

[trebor]

I have had my tree on FMP for some time now and get a lot of hints (mostly the general GRO BMD ones but also others which are of more interest) some of which I have accepted and incorrect ones rejected. If I upload my current tree so that new data is available will those accepted / rejected hints be remembered or will the process start afresh?
Alternatively is there a way to merge my current tree with the earlier one on FMP?

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have contacted the owner and been resurrected

Glad to find you have come 'alive'

I have trees based on "earliest direct ancestor", each containing the "family in common")

I must commend your choice of wording, so concise and apposite. It would have needed a paragraph at least to convey the same meanings.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have had my tree on FMP for some time now ......If I upload my current tree so that new data is available will those accepted / rejected hints be remembered or will the process start afresh? ......Alternatively is there a way to merge my current tree with the earlier one on FMP?

As someone who has only just (last week) uploaded a Tree to FMP I am unable to answer your question from an FMP point of view. However if Ancestry is anything to go by when I update an existing Tree (which I do two or three times a year, retaining the old name but adding a new suffix like a number or date) Ancestry will archive the old, accept the new and hints will start over again. In a way that's logical to a computer (which if nothing else is a logic machine) as you have uploaded a 'new' Tree and what went before is of no consequence.

I will leave it to more experienced FMP Tree owners to answer your 'merge' query and will be interested in the answer(s).

 

[Katie Bee]

Surprise surprise - I now have a tree on Find My Past!
How did that happen?
May 30th I tried loading my tree as mentioned before in this discussion, and failed miserably.
FMP says of those attempts:- Gedcom import - import failed - Please make sure your file is in a GEDCOM format and then try again.
June 3rd my tree was created in 11 minutes.
I did not load it, so how was it loaded?
The only reason that I knew about it was that I received an email from FMP today with some hints for my tree.
The wonders of modern computers.