Unfortunately there are many more people for whom family history is a casual interest than there are serious researchers, and my impression is that most of the big websites have evolved in a way that encourages a lazy approach.
-
Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!
-
It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here
I've made a Match!!
- Thread starter Tim
- Start date
emjay
LostCousins Member
One in particular! I have a 'private' tree on Ancestry of direct lines which I put on years ago. Just been on for a search of my family names on public trees hoping for a connection as I do from time to time. Some rubbish on there,even when there are sources they are often of the wrong folks.
Last edited:
I congratulate you, Gillian. I wish I had! But"never say die", as my grandmother used to say.
jorghes
LostCousins Superstar
Oh that's a shame!
This particular link is one which confirmed something which I had added to my tree but had kind of doubted the veracity of, simply because it seemed to involve a split in the family - my ancestor (as all my ancestors have) emigrated to Australia with a number of his siblings; his father lived and died in his Scotland but his grandfather (and various uncles and aunts) emigrated to Canada. I had thought it vastly strange that some members of a family would emigrate while others remained behind, especially if it was the parents as well - but considering this link is from the Canadian part of the family, it helped to confirm that this strange pattern of emigration did happen.
Gillian
LostCousins Star
I'm so pleased for you, Jorghes. You must be chuffed. Mine was in a part of the family about which I have very little information. So I sent the person the little I had, hoping he'd reply with lots of new information. But he didn't and I don't like pressing the issue. I may make more of an effort one day if I get more interested in that branch of the family.
Realistically, the chance that your cousin was working on that part of his tree at the time your email arrived is quite small (there are parts of my tree that I haven't revisited in years). So he might well have put your email on one side, intending to answer once he'd had a chance to refamiliarise himself with that part of his tree - but then forgotten all about it (sometimes life takes over).
That's assuming that he received your communication in the first place - if you emailed him direct your email might not have got through his spam filter. Even if you sent a message via your My Cousins page it might not have been received.
So my advice is to ask him whether he received your original enquiry (enclosing a copy in case he didn't). Never give up on your cousins!
Britjan
LostCousins Star
Since I started researching Canadian soldiers who served in WWI I have come across all kinds of permutations about who emigrated and who stayed behind in various families.
jorghes
LostCousins Superstar
It was definitely a strange one for me at the time!
When I researched my Calver relatives who went to Toronto I noticed that it was the older siblings who stayed behind, either because they were already married or because marriage was in prospect. Nevertheless there were still 5 sons in that big family who joined the Canadian Expeditionary force (only 4 came back).
PaulC
LostCousins Member
So far I've only matched with two actual cousins on this site, both in the last few months. The first was quick to respond to my initial contact, though never replied to the message I sent. Still waiting for a reply on the second, although it's been a full month since the first request was sent...
Last edited:
As far as I can see you haven't asked me to send a reminder - on the My Cousins page I suggest doing that after 14 days. There's absolutely no guarantee that your cousin has even seen the email - some email providers are very fussy about the emails they deliver to their customers, and automatically generated emails are the most vulnerable. I've now sent a reminder, which hopefully will get through.
By the way, the number of cousins you've found is slightly higher than would be expected based on your entries so far (I've allowed for the fact that a quarter of the people you've entered aren't relatives - I notice they've produced an additional 3 matches).
As the Superstars of the forum can tell you, the secret of success is to focus on cousins recorded in the 1881 Census - and as you're around a generation younger than me (and many, perhaps most, other members) you've probably got twice as many relatives on that census. So there's enormous potential to find more cousins!
PaulC
LostCousins Member
My bad, thanks for that Peter!
Good to know, didn't really know if that was good or bad to be honest! What is the "match potential" exactly, the website doesn't seem to explain other than to say "the higher it is, the more cousins you're likely to find". Is it actually the average number of matches we can expect from the ancestors we've added so far? Or something else?
Those 3 additional matches are all from research for my local war memorial, seemed like a good result since they rely mostly on the 1911 Census, better than I've been doing with my actual relatives.
It's an estimate of how many matches you should get with people you don't already know, basely purely on the number of entries you've made from each census appropriately weighted.
It is a good result compared to the number of entries, but I can tell you why - it's because (in almost every case) you've only entered one person from each family. When you enter your own relatives they're connected to each other (even if they're not in the same household), so whilst the number of matches you get is the same, the chances are that there will be multiple matches with a single cousin. For example, your 2 cousin matches involve 9 and 10 relatives, 19 in total.
Kate
LostCousins Member
I was just skimming this thread and feel quite encouraged. My match potential is only 3.1742 which seems quite low by some standards. My matches in the past have been people that I had contacted ages ago elsewhere, the sister of someone I had emailed before and a cousin whose common relative was on the periphery of his tree and mine, so neither of us could share anything!
Yesterday I had a match with a lady who was polite enough to tell me she would come back to me on Wednesday when she had more time. This is on a branch I have just started on so I am looking forward to it!
To be fair, on my husband's side I matched with a lady and we were both able to help each other, which is what it is all about.
I was wondering if there was a maximum number of households entered with out any matches!
I shall keep on entering ancestors.
Yesterday I had a match with a lady who was polite enough to tell me she would come back to me on Wednesday when she had more time. This is on a branch I have just started on so I am looking forward to it!
To be fair, on my husband's side I matched with a lady and we were both able to help each other, which is what it is all about.
I was wondering if there was a maximum number of households entered with out any matches!
I shall keep on entering ancestors.