Lack of Response from New Contacts

[Bryman]

I have rather a large number of 'New Contacts' (16) that have not yet replied to my contact request. The oldest request was raised in 2015 and the latest in 2020, about 2 months ago. Peter offers to send a reminder if a reply is not received within 2 weeks but the order in which such contacts are displayed makes it easy for me to overlook any tardiness. Peter has sent reminders to several contacts on my behalf but many still do not respond. I am now resigned to not getting replies from most that are still on my list.

The current order of display appears to be in alphabetical sequence of surname but only the initial of the surname is shown. I think that it would be more useful if the order of display is based on the date of request sent. I am not looking to give Peter extra work but I am assuming that my suggested change would be fairly trivial to implement.

Up till now, I have not made a note of those for whom I have requested a reminder, nor when I made the request, so may have asked for a reminder on more than one occasion for some contacts. Others may have been completely overlooked by me and even have left LC due to lack of contact. If Peter does keep such a record then repetitions would be avoided but I would rather that I don't trouble him unnecessarily.

Ideally, from my point of view, the reminders would be triggered automatically without me having to check but that would require more programming effort on the part of Peter and I hesitate to make any such request.

Would suggested changes along any of the lines mentioned above be seen as benefit by other members, or does nobody else have more than a couple of non-responders?

 

[Pauline]

I currently have 8 people in my list of non-responders, and have likewise wondered why they are in alphabetical rather than date order. Cousins and Relatives seem to be listed in date order, so it seems odd that those in the top list are not.

Sometimes it is not too much of a problem, but in December last year I had 5 new contacts who didn't respond, and with 2 in the list from December 2014 mixed in among them, it did get a bit confusing.

When Peter sends out reminders, I find that a bit over 50% of contacts have then responded although not necessarily with that much enthusiasm. But if there is no response after the second reminder, the chances are there never will be one. So as time passes it seems more than likely the list of New Contacts yet to reply will only get longer, so having them in date order would really help.

 

[peter]

I think I've worked out how to reorder New Contacts but I can't test it now as the server is being backed-up.

 

[peter]

Should now be sorted with newest at top - please confirm.

 

[Bryman]

Should now be sorted with newest at top - please confirm.

Looks pretty good to me except possibly the oldest shown above second oldest - odd. Thanks.

 

[peter]

Looks pretty good to me except possibly the oldest shown above second oldest - odd. Thanks.

They're sorted in the order in which the matches were discovered.

 

[Bryman]

They're sorted in the order in which the matches were discovered.

That might seem rather odd to someone who doesn't know when the matches were discovered but I am not going to complain as I think that there is almost no benefit to be gained by me from changing that order further. Thank you for making the change so quickly. I am sure that it will help me, unless I now get everybody to reply to my contact requests very quickly! Let's hope that nobody is inconvenienced by the change, although I suspect that very few will even notice.

 

[peter]

That might seem rather odd to someone who doesn't know when the matches were discovered but I am not going to complain as I think that there is almost no benefit to be gained by me from changing that order further. Thank you for making the change so quickly. I am sure that it will help me, unless I now get everybody to reply to my contact requests very quickly! Let's hope that nobody is inconvenienced by the change, although I suspect that very few will even notice.

The order will generally be the same, and sorting the way I've done it is very much simpler. 98% of members have 0 or 1 new contacts - I only have 1 and he's only sitting there because I can't chase up my own contacts (data protection).

 

[canadianbeth]

What do you say when you contact a new match? I do not know just how to start. Messages I have sent through Ancestry have mostly been ignored and I wonder if I am not saying the right things. How does everyone else begin? I have two new contacts at LC and have yet to figure out just what to say. (I was hoping they would contact me first )

 

[Pauline]

What do you say when you contact a new match? I do not know just how to start. Messages I have sent through Ancestry have mostly been ignored and I wonder if I am not saying the right things. How does everyone else begin? I have two new contacts at LC and have yet to figure out just what to say.

With Lost Cousins you don't have to say anything initially. All you have to do is click the link to send a request, decide if you want to allow email addresses to be exchanged and then wait for the other person to respond. When they do you will get an email notification, and then you can start corresponding - either by sending a message via the site, or if both have allowed it, by email.

So it's not like Ancestry as you will already have had a response from a new contact before you have to think what to say, which makes it much easier. Once in touch with a new contact, I start by thanking them for their response (or for the contact, as applicable) and will probably then briefly outline my connection to the people we've matched on and ask about their connection - or something along those lines. I also tend to keep my first message fairly short and wait to see what develops.

 

[Pauline]

I am wondering what the best thing to do is when you make a new match, contact is established on the website, and then there is no further response. As mentioned above, I will send a brief introductory message or email (if the responder allows their email address to be seen) but then sometimes just don't hear anything back.

I don't want to harass people if they are busy but it kind of defeats the object of the exercise if making a match doesn't lead to at least a brief exchange of information. When there is no response, I usually send a follow up after about a week or so, and if my first approach was via email then, in case that went astray or into spam, I send the follow up via the website.

What do others do in this situation? How soon - and how many times - should you send a follow up message? At what stage do you give up and accept the other person is just not interested? (After all, it only takes a few moments to say 'sorry, really busy, will respond asap'.)

 

[peter]

Of course they're interested - otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to correspond. But they may have other things that are more pressing: they could be ill, they could be travelling, they could be caring for loved ones (especially now), or they could just have a stack of correspondence to deal with. Or your messages could have ended up in their spam folder.

Whilst in theory it only takes a few moments to acknowledge a message, this depends on the person you've written being reasonably tech-savvy, used to being in this situation, and someone who doesn't get flustered when overwhelmed.

Also they might well take the view that their time is better spent dealing with the correspondence rather than sending holding messages - after all, that's the quickest way to do it.

 

[Pauline]

I'm aware of all of that and I said I didn't want to harass people. However, because emails sometimes get lost or get treated as spam, it seems to make sense to send a follow up message just in case.

Which takes me back to what I was asking - how long is it best to wait before sending a follow up, and should you do it only once or keep trying?

But the reality is that sometimes - for whatever reason - people don't reply.

 

[At home in NZ]

Reading this discussion prompted me to go to LC and do another search, I got zero matches yet again.
Most of my matches have been non blood relatives so there is no incentive to follow up if the contact doesn't answer.

I have one outstanding new contact from 16 May 2014. I didn't follow that up because I don't need further details for that branch of my tree.

 

[peter]

But the reality is that sometimes - for whatever reason - people don't reply.

People get ill, people get dementia, sadly, people die. Of course there will always be a few people who are unable to reply, but it's important to realise that it's a very small minority.

 

[peter]

Reading this discussion prompted me to go to LC and do another search, I got zero matches yet again.

There's always a chance of a match, but you're most likely to get a match when you have added entries to your My Ancestors page. And according to my records, the last time you did that, you did get a match.

 

[Bryman]

Most of my matches have been non blood relatives so there is no incentive to follow up if the contact doesn't answer.

I disagree. There may be little incentive currently but I have already had instances where subsequent research identifies a new blood connection for an existing individual previously known only via a connection by marriage. I then update the connection for already entered census references but the already matched LC members do not get re-alerted to the change of status so are unaware, unless I know who they are and can inform them accordingly. I therefore suggest that all LC members respond to any contact requests they receive even if it does not look like a promising family connection at that time.

Currently, all LC members will have more relatives by marriage than blood relatives but if everyone perseveres then the reverse may eventually prevail.

I do not advocate that all LC members should include all census entries in their tree (!) but close non-blood relatives should be an essential part. For instance, I do include the birth family members of a non-cousin spouse where some of those members do appear in the census for a LC year.

 

[Pauline]

People get ill, people get dementia, sadly, people die.

Naturally I’m aware of all these possibilities but as well, people’s enthusiasm and interest in family history can vary over time so sometimes people will not be feeling sufficiently motivated to reply. But my question was about good practice when people don’t reply rather than the reasons.

Of course there will always be a few people who are unable to reply, but it's important to realise that it's a very small minority.

It is still a minority but unfortunately not a ‘very small’ one.

Is there some way in which someone can indicate at Lost Cousins that they are temporarily unable to correspond with new matches? People who are ill, extra busy, going through some kind of crisis or simply experiencing a temporary loss of enthusiasm may not want to actually close their account, but at the same time may not feel able to engage in family history correspondence for the time being.

I don’t like feeling that I may be inadvertently harassing someone by sending a follow-up when they don’t reply.

 

[At home in NZ]

my question was about good practice when people don’t reply

It's a fair question, perhaps worth setting out a protocol in the My Cousins page.
A thought for Peter to consider.

Personally I would follow up about 4 weeks after initial contact then again another 4 weeks and if there is still no response, leave it at that.

 

[peter]

Naturally I’m aware of all these possibilities but as well, people’s enthusiasm and interest in family history can vary over time so sometimes people will not be feeling sufficiently motivated to reply.

But the example you used as the start of this particular discussion was of someone who had agreed to correspond, but then didn't reply to a message. It would be unusual for someone's enthusiasm and interest to fade that significantly in a matter of days or hours.

Is there some way in which someone can indicate at Lost Cousins that they are temporarily unable to correspond with new matches? People who are ill, extra busy, going through some kind of crisis or simply experiencing a temporary loss of enthusiasm may not want to actually close their account, but at the same time may not feel able to engage in family history correspondence for the time being.

There isn't, and the main problem with introducing such an option is that people would forget to turn it back on again.

I don’t like feeling that I may be inadvertently harassing someone by sending a follow-up when they don’t reply.

Why not say that in your message to them - then you've covered all the options?

But bearing in mind that all messages sent via your My Cousins page come from my address, not yours, don't you think that someone who felt harassed would be likely to contact me first? I'm the one in the firing line, not you - but I'm not worried. Why? Because I don't get emails from members who are feeling harassed - the problem you're imagining doesn't exist.