What should i do ???

[Mouseytata]

A few weeks ago I was browsing around ancestry and found a public tree that had a connection to myself, I tried to contact the owner but with no luck, I then found out that the infomation they had was credited to someone else who i will call Mr P.
As there was a e-mail address for Mr P i wrote to him and explained who i was and how i had got his address and asked him if we could be related and if so how.
I receved a reply a few days later with a small family tree explaining how we could be related and offering to send me a larger file to show more possable family members, I was amazed at this offer and said i would be delighted that he would share his work with me.
Over the next few days we exchanged e-mails and i said that there where people missing from his tree that directley connected to me, and that i had oreginal documents to prove this.
When i recived his file i could not beleave the size of it , there was over 170,000 indevidules listed and i started to be a bit concerned that Mr P could be what i would call a name collector.
After spending several day looking at his file i noticed a few things that i thought where a bit odd, all his lines ended about 1900 and there are a lot of names that are just there on there own, no ancesters, no decendents, no birth, death, or marrage, maybe he intends to come back to them later.
Now he has e-mailed me many times asking for copys of my documents and to be honest i am not sure what to do, if I thought he was doing this like me i would have no problem letting him have copys but i am now concerned that he will forward these onto other people.
I know this sounds selfish after what he has sent me but i have a niggle that something is not right and I would be greatfull for your opions.
Thank you
Bill.

[sue2white]

Go with your instinct!
I will only share my info now with people I am sure of. I am more than willing to share with people who have spent their time and money doing their research -sharing photos and certificates, but I will not now share with people who I suspect are just name collectors.
I learnt my lesson when I was contacted by someone on Genes who completely lifted my tree onto his. When you find that many people on a tree, alarm bells should ring!!

Sue:D

[SBSFamilyhistory]

Yes he sound like a name collector to me also. I would just ignore future emails from him.

I have a relative who has a very large tree, but his have all been sourced and I know he has spent a lot of money completing it, even so he does not have anywhere near the number on this Mr P's tree.

Sue

[Guy Etchells]

I am sorry but such posts simply amaze me!

You have been contacted by someone who has an interest in family history, he has shared information with you but still you are reluctant to share with him.

If you reverse the situation then he would have every right to think of you as a "name collector" who has received his information but will not reciprocate.

I can't see the difficulty.
You don't lose anything by sharing. If he is a "name collector" what ever that is, that is surely what pleases him.
Do people have to attain a set standard in research before being worthy of sharing with?

I am sorry but it really annoys me when family historians insult others by using the term name collector.

That was the insult that archivists used when referring to all family historians.
They inferred that we were too ignorant to be trusted with their archives because we collected names.

Some of us do more in depth research than academics but still we get tarred with the "name collector" brush.

I collect names and have done so for over 50 years, it is the start of all family history research, those who cannot see that are not family historians.
Having collected a name I then carry out further research on that name, sometimes I find a number of sources that confirm the information immediately sometimes it takes twenty or thirty years to locate another source for the information, it does not matter the research never ends.

In the end it makes no difference what you do but please don't insult fellow researchers by calling them a "name collector".
If you want to share, share, if you do not want to share then don't share.
Cheers
Guy

[Peter Goodey]

Since you started the hare running, I think you should feel bound to reciprocate with something that is at least of equal value to whatever you got from him.

[Geoffers]

After spending several day looking at his file i noticed a few things that i thought where a bit odd, all his lines ended about 1900

Perhaps he is just having the common decency not to include people who may still be living and has chosen a cut off of 1900? This would seem a reasonable thing to me.


and there are a lot of names that are just there on there own, no ancesters, no decendents, no birth, death, or marrage, maybe he intends to come back to them later.

He's not alone in this.

Would you lose anything by sharing your information?

[Canute]

I think that I have had my name and certain other details stolen by a similar approach.

I found a relative in the 1911 census with a most unusual first name. Shortly after I entered the name in my tree on Genes Reunited (GR), I was informed that a hot match had been found. I sent a message to the person saying that the possibility existed that we had a common ancestor and was soon rewarded with an answer. This said that the ancestor was more on his cousin's side and he would contact him and pass on my name and details. After a few exchanges with the same person (in which more info went from me, than came from him) I was asked to contact him by email as he had some photos to send. Although I asked to be given access to his tree he continuously seemed to forget that I had requested this.

Two photos came by an email originating in Spain. One was of a man, sat with a poodle on a promenade bench in what was obviously Spain or Portugal and the other was the same man and his wife (so he said). I was asked was there any family likeness, for the location of the village where I live in France and my telephone number so that he could speak to me. He was still evasive about what details his cousin could give about my ancestor but because he was so open with the photos I still did not have alarm bells ringing.

I did give the name of the village but not the phone number(although that would not be difficult for him to discover). I also sent a couple of photos of myself and my wife.

From that point on I never heard another word from him. I tried to contact him by email and internal messages on GR. I also did a 'search' of members trees to see if there was still a hot match for my ancestor but to no avail. After a lapse of a couple of weeks I sent a message to Genes Reunited support, stating my suspicions that I was the victim of identity theft and gave the details. I said that I realised they probably could not give me the information but would they see if he was still a member. I had a silly answer saying that if somebody had been stealing details of living relatives from my tree they could take certain actions but nothing to do with a possible identity theft. I sent back, saying that this was possibly much more serious than taking info from my tree but did not get any satisfactory reply.

He could have been involved in an accident or been taken ill or died but my suspicion is that they photos were of somebody else who has been dupped in the same way as me. My photos could be sent to some other person as being the originator of a similar scam.

It is easy for someone to set up a tree, fill it with names and when 'hot matches' appear approach the tree owners as happened to me.

I say be suspicious - especially of huge trees with seemingly many unconnected names.

[Lizzy9]

Now he has e-mailed me many times asking for copys of my documents and to be honest i am not sure what to do, if I thought he was doing this like me i would have no problem letting him have copys but i am now concerned that he will forward these onto other people.
Bill.

Sorry, I don't understand your concern. Are the documents you speak of of living people? If not, what does it matter how many people they are forwarded to? This hobby is, in part, about helping others that's why we belong to forums such as B-G.

I am happy to share my certificates and other documents with fellow researchers, why wouldn't I be?

[Peter_uk_can]

I must thank Guy for replying to this using almost the same words but exactly the same sentiments that I would have included in my reply.

May I add.. you may not be happy with this "stranger" of whom you know almost nothing, but you did approach him and you did agree to do certain things.

and anyway...... sharing is not the same as "stealing" ..

[raineshoe]

Oh dear. For me I share anything and don't care what I spent on it. I can't see the problem why people can't share, but each to his own. If we didn't share occasionally some of us might be stuck forever, and I wouldn't have found a particular marriage if someone hadn't shared the info with me.

If the guy just collecting names, what does it matter, whatever floats his boat. His satisfaction will be different to yours in compiling a tree, although having said that if he is just collecting names why is he so interested to have the doucmentation to back it up?

I just think if people want to have a tree that they look at through rose tinted specs then so be it. Its themselves that they are deluding.

Like someone else says, I think you started the ball rolling and should recipricate with at least some info as if the boot was on the other foot you'd be pretty peed off if he didn't send you the stuff promised.

[susan-y]

I've read and reread these posts..........
I understand about getting upset about someone "collecting names" but perhaps they are doing it to find as many people connected to them as possible. Personally I draw the line at people posting alot of names that are in no way related to them... for example, a distant relative of mine has my husband's ancestors included on their tree that is public and I have asked them to not show that part of the tree. They are not related to them at all and other family members who do genealogy are upset about it.
But then.........
There are people who won't share anything and that does not seem right either! Just recently I contacted a "Hot Match" ( I have found several family connections with Hot Matches) and I received what I consider a brush off and I wonder why this person is posting their tree. The person I was inquiring about was from a family I have had very little luck with, yet the person I contacted said it was her Maternal Grandmother and she knew nothing about her so could not help in any way. Okay!! But they never asked me IF I could help them... and I could!! They were just not interested.
I guess what I am saying is we find all types of people doing genealogy just like we do in any other field in our lives.:)

Good luck which ever route you choose...Mouseytata.

Sue

[v.wells]

Sorry, I don't understand your concern. Are the documents you speak of of living people? If not, what does it matter how many people they are forwarded to? This hobby is, in part, about helping others that's why we belong to forums such as B-G.

I am happy to share my certificates and other documents with fellow researchers, why wouldn't I be?


I must thank Guy for replying to this using almost the same words but exactly the same sentiments that I would have included in my reply.

May I add.. you may not be happy with this "stranger" of whom you know almost nothing, but you did approach him and you did agree to do certain things.

and anyway...... sharing is not the same as "stealing" ..

I have to agree with Peter, Lizzie , Susan and even Guy on this one. |hug|

[Dargie]

I have recently contacted two owners of public trees concerning their connection to my great grandmother.
One person replied immediately and enthusiastically . We have since shared many photos, documents and information. I have also found him living right here in Australia. We are 4th cousins and now firm friends.
The other person I contacted took a long while to answer but replied this week saying yes, he would like to see all I have on my great grandmother. Not much detail so I asked him how he was connected to her. He replied saying that my great grandmother's brother was married to a distant ancestor of his wife!! Although this is a very remote connection I am more than happy to pass on anything I have and I am pleased that he is so interested.:cool: There is no way I would now change my mind and withhold information. as I firstly approached him. If he does not offer to exchange info, so be it.
I am quite sure we all have names in our family tree who stand alone. Probably research has not yet turned up birth, death, marriage or parental information. Until the 1911 census was released it was very difficult to document anything after 1901. Maybe he did not have the benefit of this wonderful forum to point him in the right direction.
Help as many people as you can and it will return to you.:)
Marj.

[Pam Downes]

Difficult. I can see both sides of the coin, however I think I would agree with mouseytata about showing at least some caution.
Question - mousey, when the initial file was sent to you did it contain details of anyone born/married/died since 1900? Even if was just 'Fred born 1910 married Mary Brown, 2 children'. That would at least prove that he's researched people later than c1900, and that he possibly only sends details of people who are definitely not living to people like yourself who are 'unknown' (for want of a better word) to him.
I know that as I get my family tree written-up, and then try to make contact with distant cousins via mutual names in our trees I'm going to have to make a decision about how much information I send to other people about my living relatives.
I have one instance where I've met a previously unknown cousin, and she's told me the details of children, and her brother and his children. I feel OK giving her my details - but do I have the right to give her all the details about other living people without asking their permission first? I have decided that the answer to that is 'no'. I'm therefore going to limit those details to the birth of my aunts and uncles, names of their spouses, and then do 'living' boxes for their children, grandchildren, etc.
In another instance I've recently advised someone that he'd got my great-granny married to the wrong man. I gave him the correct name, and brief details of their children, and said that Rebecca remarried, and gave her death date.(I also corrected some other errors in his tree, but that's another story. :D )
Meanwhile I've had contact with the grandson of my 'lost' great aunt (as in 'lost contact'). We've happily exchanged BMD certificates of our grandparents and great grandparents, but have kept the details of our parents, their siblings, and our siblings and children to dates and places.

So I think my reply to mousey would be to freely share details found before 1911 of people born before 1911, i.e. if Fred and Mary Smith who were married in 1901 gave birth to Fred junior in 1904 then give those details. (Which is basically the sort of information you've been sent.)
What I wouldn't do is give the marriage details of Fred junior, nor his children, grandchildren etc. You could send a copy of Fred and Mary's marriage certificate. If Fred junior's marriage certificate is the 'proof' then just say that one of the family went ballistic when you mentioned about sharing the certficate information with a stranger, and that as you don't want to cause a family rift, then you're sorry but you can't send that document. Though unless it's a close family member who would like to see original signatures, you shouldn't really need to send documents anyway. A transcript of a BMD certificate should be enough proof. (Though I wouldn't send any transcripts for certificates later than 1911.)

Sorry, to be so long-winded and rambling, but I've tried to give my points of view in different scenarios.
Pam

[raineshoe]

but do I have the right to give her all the details about other living people without asking their permission first?
Pam

I agree with that though, like I said I'm happy to share anything and everything, but I don't share details of anyone living. I do draw the line at that.

The other line I draw is for example I know something about a member of the family which her children don't know and I wouldn't reveal that information either as I think it would cause a lot of heartache. I think in this particular instance it is down to the family concerned to sort it out if they want to.

There was also one other instance that I never revealed to a living relative and that was she always believed her father was found on a doorstep. I did the research and found out the truth, but as this lady was in her 90s decided I'd carry on letting her believe what she had been told as the truth would probably have been rather upsetting for her.

In some ways with genealogy you can be playing with peoples lives and there are times to keep information to yourself and times to reveal it to everyone.

[SBSFamilyhistory]

I am sorry but such posts simply amaze me!

You have been contacted by someone who has an interest in family history, he has shared information with you but still you are reluctant to share with him.

If you reverse the situation then he would have every right to think of you as a "name collector" who has received his information but will not reciprocate.

I can't see the difficulty.
You don't lose anything by sharing. If he is a "name collector" what ever that is, that is surely what pleases him.
Do people have to attain a set standard in research before being worthy of sharing with?

I am sorry but it really annoys me when family historians insult others by using the term name collector.

That was the insult that archivists used when referring to all family historians.
They inferred that we were too ignorant to be trusted with their archives because we collected names.

Some of us do more in depth research than academics but still we get tarred with the "name collector" brush.

I collect names and have done so for over 50 years, it is the start of all family history research, those who cannot see that are not family historians.
Having collected a name I then carry out further research on that name, sometimes I find a number of sources that confirm the information immediately sometimes it takes twenty or thirty years to locate another source for the information, it does not matter the research never ends.

In the end it makes no difference what you do but please don't insult fellow researchers by calling them a "name collector".
If you want to share, share, if you do not want to share then don't share.
Cheers
Guy

A friend of mine had this happen to her, he even had her parents as dead, when they are very much alive and kicking.

He had part of her tree without any links outside, also there were other errors in the tree and he wasn't willing to listen when she told him of his mistakes, saying he knew best, even that her parents were deffinatley dead, although he was not willing to give the source of this information, and that she must be lying.

I appreciate that not everyone with large tree are not name collectors, some are one name researchers but 170,000 seams a VERY large number of people to have on a tree.

Sue

[Pam Downes]

I appreciate that not everyone with large tree are not name collectors, some are one name researchers but 170,000 seams a VERY large number of people to have on a tree.
Sue
I've remembered that I know of someone with a large collection of names, and I've just checked. They say that their database
'contains at present approximately 171,000 individuals, 42,000 marriages and over 10,800 different surnames. I firmly believe in sharing research and over the years many people have contacted me if they link to my family and so their family members feature too. ' (My emphasis.)
It includes 'living' people, and says that the database can contain errors (which I know it does.). So you could say that this person is a 'collector' but I think it's been more by accident than design. Perhaps that's the same with Mr P, though as mouseytata says that there are a lot of names with no details beside them, I think I'd still be a bit suspicious. The names I've looked at on the database I've found have at least parents or a spouse detailed with them.
Pam

[JAP1]

I guess we could debate this until the cows come home (and we seem to have been doing just that on many threads :) ).

We are all different. I like to include in my database all the information I find - including distant 'blood' connexions, and distant connexions which arise only through marriage.
And I'm definitely a "sharer". I'm more than happy that the time, effort and money I've spent might be of use to someone else.

As Guy said:

... If you want to share, share, if you do not want to share then don't share. ...

susan-y, you said:

... Personally I draw the line at people posting alot of names that are in no way related to them ...
So does this mean you disapprove of the GOONS (Guild of One Name Studies) researchers?
I'm not a member myself but I have carried out a couple of one-name studies and so I have in my database probably every LOCHTIE and every MCLAUSE (and the over 90 variations I've seen for the latter name) that I have found to date ...
Including many who 'stand alone' because I've not found any connexions for them.
Are they related in any way?
I suspect that every LOCHTIE is - though I'll never prove it. Lines probably diverged in the late 1600s.
I'm far from sure about my other one-name interest ...

Regards,

JAP

[junedye64]

If I contact someone on say GR to find out if their ancestor is in fact my ancestor, I usually name the parents or spouse so they have something to go on.

I have in the past had several replies telling me they have opened their tree for me without discussing the ancestor.

They nearly always have thousands on their tree so don't really know who I'm talking about.
I don't bother with them.

June

[sue2white]

If I contact someone on say GR to find out if their ancestor is in fact my ancestor, I usually name the parents or spouse so they have something to go on.

I have in the past had several replies telling me they have opened their tree for me without discussing the ancestor.

They nearly always have thousands on their tree so don't really know who I'm talking about.
I don't bother with them.

June


Snap! I do exactly the same and do not share information until I am absolutely certain I have a match.
I cannot understand people who contact me and have already opened their tree for me to see. I know they obviously feel they have nothing to hide or lose, but I am afraid I am not one of those people. I check first.

Sue

[v.wells]

Mouseytata - You didn't say what kind of format this tree was. Was it a GEDCOM file that you can view with a family history program? If so, it is possible that when he added new GEDCOM's to his tree, he didn't check for duplicates and stand-alones and that's why it's haywire. Is he aware that he has "loners" that don't connect to anyone?

[v.wells]

Snap! I do exactly the same and do not share information until I am absolutely certain I have a match.
I cannot understand people who contact me and have already opened their tree for me to see. I know they obviously feel they have nothing to hide or lose, but I am afraid I am not one of those people. I check first.

Sue

I don't even look at trees that are opened to me as I like to find out for myself who they are and what connection they have. I had a fellow this weekend asking me to open my tree since he'd opened his, but he wouldn't tell me his connection. I just told him the information I had which wasn't much, and that I preferred to exchange information - turns out that he was a 4th cousin to someone on the grandparents' side and obviously no connection to my line whatsoever.