Comments on: More Details and Tips about Member Connect in Family Trees

By: James

James — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:58:33 +0000

Hannah, I’ll contact the person if you’d like. I’ll create a tree with this person’s name and see what I find.

Regards,
James

By: hanna white

hanna white — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:39:04 +0000

I am thinking of joining Ancestry with a view to contacting the person with Matthew O’Brien Rathendrick Meath 1859 in their private tree. My research proves I am a long lost relation still living in Ireland.I have a detailed family tree complete and I would dearly like to make contact but I am scared off by the many negative comments on this page.
Is there any way to contact private members privately?

By: Nancy M.

Nancy M. — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:06:45 +0000

Sorry, should have differentiated from the other Nancy posted. I am also author of (91).
Sources have become very muddled and difficult to ascertain within the ancestry trees. We want facts in our files and we need proof of those facts. That proof is called a Source. The Source should lead anyone to the documentation of that fact should they desire to research further or to ascertain the validity of that fact. When individuals “merge” or copy information from other member’s trees, the Source becomes muddied. Have you tried to go back and trace the sources on someone’s tree – perhaps someone who has copied from your tree? When doing so, I find a number of trees with some of the same information that I know originated with my tree is not sourced back to me but to every tree that has copied the same information – nothing that leads the searcher to the original information unless it is a photo or story. This does not qualify as a Source because it is does not lead back to the fact where it should. How does one determine which tree was copied first? I am at least thankful that at this point, when stories and photos are copied, the original submitter’s name goes along with the copied material (except in the case of Marjorie above where the individual not only copied her photos, but altered them and added them to his site without credit to her – outrageous and without integrity). I have to agree with Mike (9) only let individuals copy name by name and date by date – the same way I built my tree. And to Carol (10) my log on to ancestry and movement through ancestry is also very slow since the recent changes.

By: Marjorie

Marjorie — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:21:30 +0000

Jade 94 said,”If they saved it to their computer, then uploaded it separately, that tag may disappear”

This is exactly what does happen.

Ancestry needs to fix this so the original submitter and any information on the original page STAYS with the photo.

In the situation that happened to me they not only copied and uploaded but edited the photos inbetween, destroying the integrity of the original photos. One photo was a group photo intended to show 3 generations; for each individual all but one were cropped from the original picture.

Mike 94 stated what many of us, who are serious researchers, would applaud Ancestry for doing: “discouraging of using other trees as source material (this includes member trees, as well as OneWorldTree).

From the very being of my use of Ancestry I have been so annoyed that a Tree or a collection of trees is considered a source even though there may be nary a source in the Tree(s)said to be a source.

So Ancestry, please make a distinction between mere mention and source of information.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:32:47 +0000

Hi Roberta, #93:
Thanks for your thoughts and experience on this.

I realize that grumbling and complaining about a situation will not rectify it alone. That’s one reason why I want to perform the test case.
Also, it’s not just the fact that they are taking a person’s information from my tree (which I presume to be correct, since I have backed it up with numerous sources, and they may be adding it willy-nilly), but it’s more about the attachments to the person, i.e. personal documents, images, etc. I’m more worried about those “escaping” out into the wild without first communicating with the respective family tree custodians.

On a more general note, I think that through the comments on this and other entries here on the Ancestry Blog, we, the users, are coming to a common consensus that we need better privacy, as well as quality, for our trees.

This can mean the following:
- optional granular control over what is available to the public.
- fostering of research behavior, not clicking behavior.
- discouraging of using other trees as source material (this includes member trees, as well as OneWorldTree).
- encouraging communicative behavior to facilitate information sharing (as opposed to clicking behavior as it is now).

Jade #94: Regarding your comments about information being easily copied off of another tree without going through the proper “channels” by using the built in functionality (which retains the original owner information, etc.): I agree with you. Protecting information on a tree so that a majority of users can’t “run off with it” is a relatively trivial thing to do. However, the more technically savvy users will know how to circumvent these methods. There are ways to do this thought, and I have urged Ancestry.com in multiple emails to go use technology that would allow them to do this, as well as finally become cross-platform usable for all browsers alike.
I think they are starting to head that direction, but it may take time. Lets hope they start patching up all the security leaks. At least if I see them making an effort and responding to our concerns, I will remain subscribed, as Ancestry.com has furthered my research considerably.

By: Jade

Jade — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:58:52 +0000

Marjorie, no. 92, a photo or story copied from your tree (that you originally uploaded or created) is labeled as originally submitted by “username” to “username’s tree”.

I have seen this (most regrettably) dozens of times connected to photos taken (by the treeowner of a tree in which I am an invitee) from other trees.

The person who took it cannot edit or remove this label information, though they can change the story if it was submitted as text rather than uploaded as a PDF file.

This only goes for items copied or linked through the normal means. If they saved it to their computer, then uploaded it separately, that tag may disappear — I have never tried this, so don’t know what happens.

However, if they cut-and-pasted text, it will not be so identified – only if they copied the document through normal means provided. The same goes for cut/paste of comments.

By: Roberta Whitacre

Roberta Whitacre — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:39:57 +0000

Mike, #81
I know that some people will think that is a horrible idea to make something up just to test the member connect abuses but I thought the same thing but backed out and it would have been easy because I would have just added the common name that this person is collecting and I am telling you all this name and another common surname are probably in the majority of people’s trees that are online because they are two of the most common names and I mean surnames; in fact, growing up I knew four different families with the common name of Smith and each one had a son named Ronnie; that is the problem with member connect so I call this person a collector and now today I was trying to just research actual books and things and I clicked on Photos and Maps just for the heck of it and the first photo that popped up was my father; I just started laughing, but the lady that took from my site and my son and granddaughter’s site took photos and info of a family that had nothing to do with her. She is just clicking, I am telling you and when she said she is collecting everyone with this name in the same area that her parents might have lived in she means the entire continental U.S. She now has my father’s line from France that had nothing to do with her and photos so I am going to upload my photos to a web album that you need a password to enter and see them and only to people that connect somehow. Mike, just put the names Davis, Smith, Johnson, and make them from Ky. among other places and there should be a bite; maybe a lot, but especially from this one person and if you do then others may understand. Oh and I have seen where my photo that I originally submitted went to a website and this lady also took from there and it has the man’s name as the original submitter on the one she took from him and I think it is because
originally he uploaded to one tree but then took it from that tree and uploaded to his wife’s tree with a different name of owner. So, actually it seems like they can get away with getting the original submitter off of it somehow. I do have one more thing to say; how can a person own a tree if they are just click, click, clicking?
Everyone can think this is blown out of proportion so this is my feeling as long as I live I will try to do my best to help people that connect and when I am dead and gone if my family just wants to let loose and post every photo, every document online than that won’t bother me because I will not be around to see it happen
Good Luck Mike

By: Marjorie

Marjorie — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:05:07 +0000

To David re 12
“In Member Connect if a member saves a piece of information from another member we encourage them to contact the other member (though that doesn’t mean it will always happen).”

If you encourage contact why do you allow a member to block communications from another member?

If a “contact ….” does not appear on the profile page, does that mean that member has blocked me from sending messages?

A member has copied my photos, bypassing what you intend which will cite me as the original source. I asked Ancestry to add me as the original submitter. Customer support told to ask the member to do that thru the message center. I did and got no response. Now he has blocked me from sending him messages.

This does NOT encourage communication / collaboration.

AND, it it giving precedence to one member over another. The member who is violating the intent of ancestry is able to control the situation and keep on stealing my data/photos without even being reminded by me to give me credit for my work.

Is this FAIR to both paying members???

By: Nancy

Nancy — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:31:04 +0000

There are lots of reasons why I like the newer public tree format for hosting some of my family lines. My initial goals were (1) correct misinformation that I have found through my research (2) connect with members in hopes that I might further my research on family brick walls. What has surprised me the most about my first goal was how hard it is to convince people of previous errors, even with evidence. As Jade (49) said, “once bad genealogy is out there, it never goes away”. I have found that individuals will copy my notes with transcribed records, and conclusions and still keep the errors uncorrected in their trees. I can count on one hand the number of individuals who have contacted me and yet numerous individuals have copied my data with apparent ease. I don’t mind sharing good data, but I do miss having a give and take with shared information. What I would like to have is a choice of what to make public and what to make private on my own public tree. Say for instance I have transcribed a LWT for my family member. I would publicly give the source for this LWT and privately have the transcription (letting the reader know that there is a transcription available). The same actions would be for photos or other information you would want to block to the masses. This way I would have more control over some of the information in my tree and might be an incentive for more serious researchers to “connect” with you, weeding out some of the name gatherers (tens of thousands and counting). I go back and forth as to whether to keep my tree public or go private. I want to stay public in order to share good information, but feel the current set up is not conducive enough to promote communication between individuals. Just not enough give and take. Finally, a message for David (41), I did and still have an infraction of ancestry’s rules concerning names of living people on ancestry trees. My mother who is still living, is named on an individual’s tree. The owner of this tree has not been a member since 2006. I notified ancestry about this and was told that the owner of the tree could only make the changes. The tree owner (who had taken my information from a private site and posted it without my permission) promised to make the changes and never did. For me, it is a double whammy because the information also appears on rootsweb. Ancestry failed to live up to its standards in this regard. Yes, her birth information was made “private”, yet her name remains.

By: Marjorie

Marjorie — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:51:02 +0000

Having just read all the Aug blogs about Member Connect,
and having had my tree information and photos copied by members
who did not contact me
and have not answered my messages,

I would like to make 2 points:

[1] As Mike 34 suggested on Aug 3, I encourage Ancestry to add a third privacy option:visible, but requiring permission before copying.

And, like Nancy 76 on Aug 12 I think that having the option of private stories and photos on public tree would be good for Ancestry to add.

I believe this would prevent many people from making their trees private, me being one of them.

I believe that this would also encourage the collaboration that Ancestry says they encourage.

[2]Collaboration takes two, i.e., collaboration is not without communication.

A problem Ancestry needs to address is how to foster this collaboration/communication.
Requiring communication before copying would do this.
Having a 2nd step connected to the message center would also help.
As Jade stated, “There is no new means of contacting a tree owner…”. Ancestry needs to provide an additional way, or assistance, to contact another member when no response has been received so that the message center does not become a dead end.