General Chat

That's a good point Gill..................there are two sides to every story and I hope I would never judge another person on the basis of one question.

What if he isn't though..................how hurt will he be feeling now?

xx

If you read this whole thread you will see that Matthew has said he wants to merge complete trees with his.

He does need to realise that if he does precisely that he will annoy a number of people on this site.

If someone is one of my contacts and they uploaded my entire tree, I would be surprised but it wouldn't cause any harm because I have no living people or sensitive information on my GR tree.

However I am frequently allowed to view trees on which people have put their entire family, small children and living relations with incredible detail. If such a tree is shared and the information passed on, then the original tree owner has no idea how much further this information may spread.

In months or weeks time the details of their children could appear on trees of people totally unconnected who just happen to be another contact of the entire tree copier.

I have absolutely no objection to anyone creating their tree in what ever way they like so long as it causes no harm to anyone else. But if someone can merge another person's tree with a click then I'd bet they would not follow that up by studying every individual entry in detail and make sure that no-one is living or has personal details recorded.

Just be careful folks

Sue

with the other persons permission

you can ged com two trees togther

gr will do this for you

I did read it through and Matthew was asking about adding one tree to his own................I just feel it unfair to jump on him and assume he is a name collector without knowing the full facts.

That's all....................no offence meant to anyone.

If it's going to cause aggro, then I will delete my posts and sign off.

xx

Maybe Matthew has a relative who has info and they are going to share their trees????

ged com them

There are name collecters on here of that I have know doubt, but I think the majority of people are honest and unless it is obvious then we have to give the benifit of doubt. Gill

Kitty no don't delete .

From Matthews reply to RS on page 1 he intends to be a "name collector"

Hi Claire,
Just read through again, I think you are right!!!

Well now we're all detectives here, my theory is...........He is adopted and has found his birth parents , and claiming the tree for himself ? any others ?

wow! ive really started something here haha! a name collector? LOL.. isnt that what trees are for - collecting names! Anyway - Ive checked this other tree quite well now and it has my mother's side going all the way back to 1696!!... where it branches off to other families won't be needed - but the core is needed!

There is a way of pasting and copying details from tree to tree... if anyone wants details how - mail me.

To Gill (from Staffs) - add those names - dont worry what this lot thinks !!

I think if you reread this thread from the beginning Matthew you will find that it was your comment which sounded alarm bells.

The adding of relevant/useful information from one tree to another is what we all do to one extent or another but just pasting and copying has disadvantages if done without caution.

Firstly from your point of view it might mean adding hundreds of ancestors at a go and you would have to trust that the researcher did it carefully and used good source material. If you are sure of that then it is OK.

Secondly from the donor's point of view (and perhaps not just this one but any others you may find in future) I really think you'd have to be careful because along with places and dates of birth you may end up copying sensitive details about living people.

Taking the core, as you put it, is fine if you are sure it is yours too. Others have shared with me. But on the first page you sounded very much as if you didn't care how much of your contact's tree you were about to copy.

We are simply warning you that if you do that to someone who isn't expecting it then you are not going to win any popularity contests!

I'm not sure how long you have been coming onto these boards and reading messages but if you had been a regular for any reasonable length of time then you'd have heard similar discussions on numerous occasions.

I am normally happy to defend people with thousands in their tree. I have often argued that people with huge trees are not necessarily "name collectors" as they tend to be called and I don't like that term.

If you don't care at all what any of us think then I might be prepared to make an exception in your case.

Sue

You've 'checked the other tree'....you mean the other person has done the work going back to 1696 and you thought ooh I'll have some of that. And I couldnt care less either what you think Matthew, I wont be here after the 8th.

Twerp