Lost Cousins Referrals

[peter]

Something I should have mentioned earlier is that half of all the referrals that have ever been made took place during the first 21 months that LostCousins existed, when there were far fewer members and the chance of making matches a quarter of what it is today (the total number of matches found was a twentieth of what it is today!). Even the newsletter was a pale shadow of what it is now.

Clearly it makes more sense to recommend LostCousins to other researchers now than it did then - indeed, many people would argue that the newsletter alone is worth signing up for. Yet for some reason fewer people seem to be spreading the word - whether by word of mouth or using My Referrals.

Any thoughts as to why this might be, and what we can do about it?

 

[peter]

So the question is, is there a way I can "add" the other households, a bit like a referral, to an existing member? Did that make sense?
I have added the data already and I'm willing to share the entries with them, exactly as I would if I was making a relative referral.

Somebody else asked the same question recently - it has always been on my wish list but the programmer pointed out a multitude of complications. My advice is to send your relative a spreadsheet with the data - it won't take them very long to enter.

I also assume that the lack of further entries by my new match is the reason why we only have a match rating of 0.2 (you are related, but probably only by marriage) when we are cousins?

It could also be because they haven't identified their direct ancestors, ie have only entered them a blood relatives.

Being able to distinguish instantly between cousins and contacts who are only related by marriage is one of the unique features of LostCousins (one that is probably under-appreciated). The good news is that your relationship can only get closer when more entries are made.

 

[Liberty]

I'm cultivating the relationship at the moment as we only matched on 2 people out of a whole household, so it would appear they haven't entered the other members of the household.

I have come across some strange anomalies - e.g. a match on the children in the household (as blood relatives) but not a match on the parents. And both the husband and wife being blood relatives (but not direct ancestors) but none of the children. You can't add them yourself to your cousin's records (I asked Peter this some weeks ago) so I think the only thing to do is start a dialogue and encourage your cousin to make the additions. I could perhaps add 'or corrections' as I think Peter is right that people are not necessarily entering direct ancestors as such. Perhaps that little dropdown table that gives you the Ahnentafel number scares them off? (I love it, myself)

 

[Liberty]

NEW ONE!

I sent a referral to a cousin (date 6 Jan this year) and I have just had a notification that someone wants to make contact with me. When I checked it out, I find it is 'Cousin Pat' who has NOT followed up my referral but joined independently. She appears under 'new contacts' but showing we have no relatives in common Can I email her (I have her address) and tel her to unregister and follow up my referral? There are actually only 7 or so relatives that I had flagged up for her, so it is not a major issue, but it seems a bit ironic given our recent discussions......

 

[Bryman]

NEW ONE!

I sent a referral to a cousin (date 6 Jan this year) and I have just had a notification that someone wants to make contact with me. When I checked it out, I find it is 'Cousin Pat' who has NOT followed up my referral but joined independently. She appears under 'new contacts' but showing we have no relatives in common Can I email her (I have her address) and tel her to unregister and follow up my referral? There are actually only 7 or so relatives that I had flagged up for her, so it is not a major issue, but it seems a bit ironic given our recent discussions......

It definitely seems that we need to be able to add 'referral' matches after a non-referral joining.
Peter, please can you revisit this, especially where the new joiner has not yet added any LC Ancestors?

Alternatively, we would just have to email a copy of the new report from FTA which is soon to be available.

 

[Liberty]

It does look, Bryman, as if adding references to someone else's record is pretty complex. At present, I am just wondering if my cousin can un-enroll and come back in via a different route (that of accepting my referral) I know a lot of sites recognise you when you come back in (to the extent that a new user can scarcely log in to the same site, if using the same computer) but LC is surely much more user-friendly. As I say, it would only be saving her half a dozen references, but it is still something to know.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Alternatively, we would just have to email a copy of the new report from FTA which is soon to be available.

The new FTAnalyzer report will only be of use if the user has added census references for all entries in my experience this isn't the case. It will be a help but its certainly not a cure all.

 

[peter]

It definitely seems that we need to be able to add 'referral' matches after a non-referral joining.
Peter, please can you revisit this, especially where the new joiner has not yet added any LC Ancestors?.

If a new member hasn't entered any relatives then I could potentially add in the referral code (that they haven't entered).

 

[alanmack]

I was unsure whether to pose this question here or on Red Dragon's running statistics thread as it would affect the interpretation of Match figures greatly. Would there be any way of distinguishing the matches from successful referrals from those produced by 'new business'?

 

[Liberty]

I was unsure whether to pose this question here or on Red Dragon's running statistics thread as it would affect the interpretation of Match figures greatly. Would there be any way of distinguishing the matches from successful referrals from those produced by 'new business'?

Interesting one. I think some weeks back someone reported a notification of a huge number of new matches, which proved to be a referral coming through. BUT this number (which was quite significant) did not seem to be reflected in Red Dragon's statistics. It looked then as if these sort of matches,although reported to the individual concerned, did not make it to the statistics. However, the point was never fully explained at the time, so I am not sure.

 

[Tim]

I suppose technically the fact they weren't reported is correct. These weren't matches I made because of Lost Cousins. I'd made contact via Ancestry and so in theory had already matched up with all our common relatives. I referred her and gave her all our common matches, so she didn't enter anything.

On the other hand, I have just made a match with someone else, someone I didn't already know, just 2 matches mind, so it will be interesting to see what happens if they add the remainder of common relatives.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

On the other hand, I have just made a match with someone else, someone I didn't already know, just 2 matches mind, so it will be interesting to see what happens if they add the remainder of common relatives.

That could be another use for the new Lost Cousins referral report in FTAnalyzer ie: emailing a new contact a list of common relatives they are missing. It would need an option to only filter matches though but that's easy to add.

 

[Liberty]

I suppose technically the fact they weren't reported is correct. These weren't matches I made because of Lost Cousins. I'd made contact via Ancestry and so in theory had already matched up with all our common relatives. I referred her and gave her all our common matches, so she didn't enter anything.

So..it might be that the new matches that show up on Red Dragon's reports are solely when Person A makes a new entry into LC, and person B already has it entered. If B has 'given' the ref to A via referral then it will not show up on the statistics. In which case, no way to compare the figures as Alanmack suggested. It might have been a nice side benefit, but probably not worth agonising over.

 

[Tim]

So..it might be that the new matches that show up on Red Dragon's reports are solely when Person A makes a new entry into LC, and person B already has it entered. If B has 'given' the ref to A via referral then it will not show up on the statistics. In which case, no way to compare the figures as Alanmack suggested. It might have been a nice side benefit, but probably not worth agonising over.

So if our assumption is right, then we know how many new non referred matches there are as Red Dragon kindly reports this. And the figure of referred people matches is known as it tells me on my referrals page how many I just referred. So in theory it would be possible to use the date they joined and this value to give a total for a week.

But what would this figure actually tell us? If our assumptions are correct, then the figure provided by Red is actually more meaningful, it's the number of matches between Lost Cousins, people unknown to each other.

 

[Liberty]

So if our assumption is right, then we know how many new non referred matches there are as Red Dragon kindly reports this. And the figure of referred people matches is known as it tells me on my referrals page how many I just referred. So in theory it would be possible to use the date they joined and this value to give a total for a week.

But what would this figure actually tell us? If our assumptions are correct, then the figure provided by Red is actually more meaningful, it's the number of matches between Lost Cousins, people unknown to each other.

You know how many matches for you, (and I do for me) But I think the original question from Alanmack was relating to the whole of LC, which we would only get by people reporting individual successful referrals.
And I agree that the really significant figure relates to the 'surprise' matches*. This making of new contacts is rather what LC is in existence for, isn't it?

(*These MIGHT be to people we are already in contact with, unless we started off our relationship by telling each other all our census entries - and told them every time we added someone new. One of my contacts is someone who, like me, has a lot of the 1881 population of Sheringham entered. We have agreed that we are only distantly connected by marriage, but once in a while I add a new household and get several new matches with her. I suspect we are actually connected by marriage several times over)

 

[alanmack]

So..it might be that the new matches that show up on Red Dragon's reports are solely when Person A makes a new entry into LC, and person B already has it entered. If B has 'given' the ref to A via referral then it will not show up on the statistics. In which case, no way to compare the figures as Alanmack suggested. It might have been a nice side benefit, but probably not worth agonising over.

and

So if our assumption is right, then we know how many new non referred matches there are as Red Dragon kindly reports this. And the figure of referred people matches is known as it tells me on my referrals page how many I just referred. So in theory it would be possible to use the date they joined and this value to give a total for a week.

It is to be hoped that this is the way it operates. Otherwise the results would be heavily skewed by the referrals. If it were an advertising matter the A.S.A. would be on your tail sharpish.

 

[Tim]

It is to be hoped that this is the way it operates. Otherwise the results would be heavily skewed by the referrals. If it were an advertising matter the A.S.A. would be on your tail sharpish.

Alan, I've had 2 instances where the people I've referred are not reported in Red's New matches figures.

And also nothing is actually being advertised, Red is just reporting for our own consumption and merriment.

 

[alanmack]

About the advertising, that was understood. My poor choice of words perhaps but I did use the phrase "if it were . . ." first.

I wonder if Red could outline how he compiles the figures for us? Might clear up some of the questions.

 

[Tim]

About the advertising, that was understood. My poor choice of words perhaps but I did use the phrase "if it were . . ." first.

I wonder if Red could outline how he compiles the figures for us? Might clear up some of the questions.

I know, my reply was tongue in cheek.

My understanding of what Red does is this: Each week they record the figures published in the subscribers only area of the LC site, and then merely subtract one week from another. Red only shows us the changes week on week, and not the totals.

 

[alanmack]

I think then, Tim, that we are in need of a 'tongue-in-cheek' smiley

Any volunteer artists?