XPost: alt.genealogy, england.genealogy.misc, free.uk.genealogy   
   From: keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net   
      
   On 8/31/2018 9:49 AM, Jenny M Benson wrote:   
   > On 31-Aug-18 12:09 PM, knuttle wrote:   
   >> Unfortunately this error still appears in some online trees, and their   
   >> owner seem un interested in correcting their mistake.   
   >   
   > I often wonder why so many people publish their trees but seem totally   
   > uninterested in accuracy or in making contact with possible relatives.   
   >   
   > I often contact people along the lines of "I see you have Joe Bloggs on   
   > your tree, who is my nth cousin n x removed.  Can you tell me what your   
   > Source is for ... as the information I have found suggests ...  I am   
   > happy to share with you", but only very rarely do I get any response.   
   >   
   I always assumed it was like the latest fad in jeans, everyone else has   
   one so you have to have one. Since you put some names in an online tree   
   you do not have to worry about it any longer, and once the fad   
   disappears, the jeans go to the basement and are forgotten.   
      
   I think another reason for "abandoned" trees is caused by Ancestry. They   
   have promoted the "Put your name in, get your tree" for so many years   
   that there are people who believe that.   
      
   Also because of Ancestry's advertising the idea that Ancestry has every   
   thing there is to know, people do not realize there are other source of   
   valid information for your genealogy research.  ( FamilySearch is a   
   large one that is in competition with Ancestry which I will bet this   
   drives the Ancestry bean counter crazy.)   
      
   With the above mind set when you try to share information with someone,   
   they "Know" that since they did not find it on Ancestry it does not   
   exist, so there is no need to contact you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)