Genes Reunited - Tree Search Facility

[peejayess]

|computer|
I have had a problem recently locating individuals identified by the "hot matches" from GRU once access to the trees has been allowed.

It appears that once a persons tree has more than a certain number of entries that the search facility wont work.

Below is a copy of the response to my query to GRU:
"Thanks for your email. Both the other members have loaded a large tree to the site of several thousand names. This does mean that it may not display correctly, if at all, in the full tree view.
You should be able to see it in the Immediate Family view, when you first open it, but it probably won't display in the full tree view. In the Immediate Family view you can scroll up and down the tree and also search it for specific names."
Our development team are working on making this possible and I am sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards, Genes Reunited Support Team


Regards

Pete

[ChristineR]

Hi Pete
I have moved your post from Genealogy Software, to here - seems more appropriate, since GR is not software.
:)

[genie60]

Hi Pete,

A word of caution, if someone has a tree with several thousand names on it I would be very careful, they could be name collectors - I have come across these before on GR. I have both mine and my husband's relatives on my tree and it still only comes to around 380 people. I don't see how anyone can have a tree with thousands of names on.

They are usually very eager to allow access to their trees, but I have found that they cannot say what the connection is to my family,

Genie60

[susan-y]

I tend to agreee with genie60.. I have some pretty large families on both my and my husband's sides and I have less than 800 people on my tree. The other day I did a match with someone and was brushed off when I asked them about their relationship to the couple we matched with. I'm wondering if they had just added whomever to their tree for the sake of numbers. I may have some members out on a limb, but at least I know their relationship in the family.

Sue

[ChristineR]

I don't see how anyone can have a tree with thousands of names on.

My tree has many, many, thousands of names on it. :) A combined tree with my husband.
I do not just record my direct line, but all blood relatives. And then I like to know the history of the family that they married into, so I trace them back to their arrival into Australia to find their nationality. I find it extremely interesting to flesh out the lives of my cousins.

I do tend to get carried away sometimes when wandering up twigs, so I am often able to help with others when they find a mutual relation.

If I choose to export a gedcom with 'all ancestral related' for my husband from my PAF file, the number will exceed 13500, a similar number for my own (a lot we share, as we are 6th cousins).

Any 'name collecting' that I do is so I can help cousins of my cousins, not so I can boast about the number.

[LynA]

I don't see how anyone can have a tree with thousands of names on.




I'm similar to ChristineR. I've looked at my family tree files. My line has over 1400 individuals on it (only 26 of them listed on GR!:)). They are all blood relatives and their spouses. I haven't done so much work on my husband's line so there are only 241 on that.

I must admit there are certain individuals I have been intrigued by and found a lot of information about while others are still just names waiting to be fleshed out.

I also admit to some name collecting. I have a "Misc" file for names I have come across in my research which MIGHT fit one day but I don't claim as my own at the moment. None of these are listed on GR or any other site. I was really pleased recently to be able to put two correspondents (neither related to me as far as I know) in touch with each other when I spotted a family link. They have been able to exchange information and photos with each other now. That made it so worthwhile.:)

LynA

[SBSFamilyhistory]

I currently have about 360 on my GR tree, but if I spent the time adding in the information recently researched, I would have something in the region of 1000 people. This is because I am including siblings and their families where I can get the information.

[Margarets60]

My tree is also quite large as I am researching my husband's family and his cousin's family as well as my own. |book|I do have a pet moan however: |soapbox|which mainly concerns people on A****** who,at a time when my tree was public, "acquired" my family on all sides and attached it to their own on sometimes quite dubious research.Others then presume these links to be accurate and copy them to their own trees.This in turn leads to A******* giving me the shaking leaf hints which have often been corrupted even further.|banghead| Its a bit like Chinese whispers.:) Amongst many errors,a while ago I got a link to my own mother in law which stated that she had died in Hospital, Chile. She had in fact died in Hulton Lane hospital, Bolton, Lancs...I know...we were there.
My tree is now private, which is a shame as it is good to share, but history was rewriting itself all wrong and it is so frustrating.

[v.wells]

My tree is also quite large as I am researching my husband's family and his cousin's family as well as my own. |book|I do have a pet moan however: |soapbox|which mainly concerns people on A****** who,at a time when my tree was public, "acquired" my family on all sides and attached it to their own on sometimes quite dubious research.Others then presume these links to be accurate and copy them to their own trees.This in turn leads to A******* giving me the shaking leaf hints which have often been corrupted even further.|banghead| Its a bit like Chinese whispers.:) Amongst many errors,a while ago I got a link to my own mother in law which stated that she had died in Hospital, Chile. She had in fact died in Hulton Lane hospital, Bolton, Lancs...I know...we were there.
My tree is now private, which is a shame as it is good to share, but history was rewriting itself all wrong and it is so frustrating.

I had the same thing happen. When I first started with A* some 7 yrs ago I formed a basic tree with what I knew at the time, which wasn't much. I then took out a full sub after the trial period thinking that I could use that tree as mine and made it private, but guest trees become public. So I started over with a fresh tree. I have since been able to access that tree and delete it, in the meantime someone had copied all that minimal information and declared it was theirs which it wasn't and not one person was linked to his family and I proved it -they have since removed all that information but it stil annoys me that people continue to abuse our trust and faith that people will do their own research. That type of behaviour is rude and disrespectful and I am glad I don't know them!

I do look at public trees and write down names and then research and source my own information to make sure it is correct.

[AdeleE]

I shared my private tree which included a tentative connection to the parents of my Ontario GGG grandfather with another researcher I met through Anc*. I've been working on this theory for a year, but can't yet connect all the dots. It's going to take a few more trips to the Archives, which I'm looking forward to.
Well, this researcher posted on a message board those names as facts she had discovered, and of course, other researchers jumped and asked "How do you know?"
The silence is deafening. Why? Because she hadn't bothered to ask me about my source document. Not someone I want to have as a research partner.

Adele

[alfred girling]

my tree is public and a lot of people have used it like i use there's you need to cross check to make sure and keep info stored until it comes up ok there is alway's the chance of finding distant decendants this way so the bigger the tree the better