[email protected] wrote: > Images sent off list. And received with thanks :)) -- Charani (UK)

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:20:47 +0100 Charani <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Charani, > John, Elizabeth, Eliza, George, Harry, Richard, William and Jane. In '51 they have; John, Elizabeth, Eliza & George. In '71 there are; George, Harry, Richard, William and Jane. Richard snr is listed as widower. FreeBMD has; Mar 1865 (>99%) COLE Jane Lymington 2b 44_ and Mar 1866 (>99%) COLE Jane 42 Lymington 2b 390 as possible deaths. Given that Jane (dau) is listed as 5 yrs old, and the AaD matches, I think that the latter is probably the right one. I couldn't find a likely match for birth registration of the daughter. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" People stare like they've seen a ghost Titanic (My Over) Reaction - 999

I have Richard COLE (b c1824, Pennington) in the 1841 census and also his future wife, Jane BRAN (b c1824, Pennington). They married in 1843. I also have them in the 1861. They were in Milford (Lymington RD) and Richard was a Sawyer. Could someone with access to the 1851 and 1871 censuses see if they can find them and tell me what children they had please? The children I know about are: John, Elizabeth, Eliza, George, Harry, Richard, William and Jane. TIA -- Charani (UK)

In a message dated 01/04/2007 12:22:16 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Could someone with access to the 1851 and 1871 censuses see if they Images sent off list. Jennifer

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:49:18 +0100 "Chris & Caroline" <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Chris, > I normally try and thank people with a personal email and a general > thank you on the list. Yes, I'd say one to the list is enough. Too many and things become cluttered, and the real content becomes hard to find. > The other thing is when people post a query it is sometimes a good > thing to post the reply again to both the list and the persons I don't see the point, TBH. It means they get two copies of it, usually. > To many times have I seen "reply sent off list" or image sent off Which can be frustrating, if you want to know the answer too, obviously. Images should be sent off-list, of course. > are affectionately known, these "lurkers" can often benefit from info > passed on in this way, especially if they are new to genealogy etc. With the perfectly natural human trait of worrying about appearing silly asking "such a simple question". We were all beginners once, and didn't know the answers ourselves. Although places like Wikipedia, search engines like Google and ML FAQs are often good places to start. > I have learnt a considerable amount of where to find the info I need > etc by just reading through the postings albeit the family name may > not interest me. As have I. I learnt from quite a young age that just listening was a good way of soaking up knowledge. You can also pick up a lot of nonsense too. It's sorting the two out that sets one on the right track. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Only the wounded remain, the generals have all left the game Generals - The Damned

Chris wrote: > The other thing is when people post a query it is sometimes a good thing > to > post the reply again to both the list and the persons private email. This > way others who may well be interested in that subject or family can get > the > information as well. > To many times have I seen "reply sent off list" or image sent off list > when > referring to a lookup. > Fair enough but there are quite a few people who are a bit wary or new to > computers who do not post to the lists, the lurkers as they are > affectionately known, these "lurkers" can often benefit from info passed > on > in this way, especially if they are new to genealogy etc. > I have learnt a considerable amount of where to find the info I need etc > by > just reading through the postings albeit the family name may not interest > me. Great points! Occasionally I have found useful information in a lits's archives, long, long after it's been posted for someone else's benefit. Jeanette.

Regarding the issue of information on living people being available on Genes Reunited. There have been significant updates to the site this week, and there is now the option (sadly not the default) to update your profile so that information on living (defined by GR as anyone with a birth date in the last 120 years and no death date recorded) is hidden. By removing personal information about yourself as well (but maintaining the record) you can help to protect information in the future. Of course it does not help with data that has already been "picked" from your tree but at least will help to protect your own privacy a little (not perfect I know but a step in the right direction). Jon Baker

Jeanette Hartnack wrote: > > Occasionally I have found useful information in a lits's archives, long, > long after it's been posted for someone else's benefit. And that's another good point :)) The archives are a good resource, especially as some queries are raised on a regular basis. A browse through the archives will produce the answer and possibly additional information as well. -- Charani (UK)

I normally try and thank people with a personal email and a general thank you on the list. The other thing is when people post a query it is sometimes a good thing to post the reply again to both the list and the persons private email. This way others who may well be interested in that subject or family can get the information as well. To many times have I seen "reply sent off list" or image sent off list when referring to a lookup. Fair enough but there are quite a few people who are a bit wary or new to computers who do not post to the lists, the lurkers as they are affectionately known, these "lurkers" can often benefit from info passed on in this way, especially if they are new to genealogy etc. I have learnt a considerable amount of where to find the info I need etc by just reading through the postings albeit the family name may not interest me. By the way this same subjecte Genes Reunited is being thrown around on the Isle of Wight list so must be a good topical issue at present. Chris SOUTHERN LIFE(UK) http://Southernlife.org.uk History of the IOW and Hampshires Villages,Towns and Churches ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Rogers" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Genes Reunited . . . a question ... and thanks On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:55:16 +1000 "Jeanette Hartnack" <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Jeanette, > I have never thought that ever when generally browsing through > messages on a list like this probably because I feel that what goes > on privately between two people on a list isn't my business. I sometimes wonder about it. More so in the past few days where I've given people help, and not a word of thanks, either privately or publicly. > My preference is to thank people privately for any help I may receive > because I've never thought it fair to burden others with messages > that aren't relevant to them (imagine one morning downloading over If they didn't want those irrelevant messages, perhaps they should not subscribe to mailing lists. :-) > ten "thank you" messages and nothing else!). Private is more > personal too. I also think it's worth considering the possibility >From my background on the 'net (some 20 years) it was considered impolite (actually, down-right rude) to reply privately to a message sent to an ML. Unless, of course, the message specifically invited private replies. > Interesting . . . I guess there's a case for both methods! Quite so. It would appear that my views on the matter are becoming outmoded WRT to public/private thanks. I suggest we take this off-list if you wish to discuss this more, since it now has nothing to do with Hants genealogy. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" ............................................. Want to contact the local community? Please visit Hampshire Parish Jottings http://hants.parishjottings.org.uk ............................................. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000729-1, 03/30/2007 Tested on: 3/30/2007 11:42:42 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:55:16 +1000 "Jeanette Hartnack" <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Jeanette, > I have never thought that ever when generally browsing through > messages on a list like this probably because I feel that what goes > on privately between two people on a list isn't my business. I sometimes wonder about it. More so in the past few days where I've given people help, and not a word of thanks, either privately or publicly. > My preference is to thank people privately for any help I may receive > because I've never thought it fair to burden others with messages > that aren't relevant to them (imagine one morning downloading over If they didn't want those irrelevant messages, perhaps they should not subscribe to mailing lists. :-) > ten "thank you" messages and nothing else!). Private is more > personal too. I also think it's worth considering the possibility >From my background on the 'net (some 20 years) it was considered impolite (actually, down-right rude) to reply privately to a message sent to an ML. Unless, of course, the message specifically invited private replies. > Interesting . . . I guess there's a case for both methods! Quite so. It would appear that my views on the matter are becoming outmoded WRT to public/private thanks. I suggest we take this off-list if you wish to discuss this more, since it now has nothing to do with Hants genealogy. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent"

On 29/03/07, Brad Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:10:41 +0100 > However: GR require that you appear in the tree as the "anchor". > Indeed ... but you don't have to supply any details about yourself. My name only is listed. My parents are both listed as "Unknown" so that none of their details are shown ... and then I continue the tree beyond that. As for prompt replying to contacts, the other issue I have had is that sometimes I don't seem to receive the notification from GR that there is a message for me. When I have received a notification, I've then discovered also an earlier message that may have been there some weeks. Karen

Charani wrote: > Jeanette Hartnack wrote: > >> My preference is to thank people privately for any help I may receive >> because I've never thought it fair to burden others with messages that >> aren't relevant to them (imagine one morning downloading over ten "thank >> you" messages and nothing else!). Private is more personal too. I also >> think it's worth considering the possibility that the person to whom >> you're >> grateful might miss your acknowledgement if you only post it to the list. > > There's nothing wrong with thanking people privately, but I'm inclined > to agree with Brad that it can give the impression of ingratitude - so > what I have seen a number of people do, and which I think is a good > idea, is privately thank those who've helped but also put a single > message on the list saying something along the lines of "thank you to > all who've helped, a private mail has gone to each". > > -- > Charani (UK) > No, there isn't anything wrong with thanking people privately - that's good manners - but I really think thanking the person who helped you is what your priority should be, rather than making sure that every list member knows what a "nice person" you are. Nevertheless, if the list manager required that "thank yous" be treated in a certain way then, of course, I would oblige. I didn't really intend to make a big deal out of this, however, to assume a person must be ill-mannered because you didn't see a "thank you" message about something that's probably not even relevant to you just seems rather peculiar to me . . . just my opinion. Jeanette.

Hi Charani: My point was that it is important before posting a query, etc. to make sure that the email address used for responses will always be available or be available for quite some time. Otherwise the purpose of posting a query is defeated. If a responder wants to contact the inquirer, it cannot be done if the email address is invalid. Regards, Eve ----- This is the problem when people change ISPs. Frequently one needs to be logged into the ISP itself in order to download mail from their servers so it becomes impossible to check a previous address. It's easy enough to set up an address with Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo, or Mail2World (to name but four), all of which are free. Neither Hotmail nor Mail2World can be used with an email client now but Gmail definitely can. I don't know about Yahoo. -- Charani (UK) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[email protected] wrote: > About email addresses, one would hope that email addresses listed for > genealogy matters are checked at least once a week. This is a big problem if someone > reads an old query posted. Something to consider prior to listing an email > address for response purposes. This is the problem when people change ISPs. Frequently one needs to be logged into the ISP itself in order to download mail from their servers so it becomes impossible to check a previous address. It's easy enough to set up an address with Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo, or Mail2World (to name but four), all of which are free. Neither Hotmail nor Mail2World can be used with an email client now but Gmail definitely can. I don't know about Yahoo. -- Charani (UK)

Brad Rogers wrote: > Not at all: My preference has always been for public thanks for help > asked for, and received, publicly. > To thank people privately might mean > others start thinking you're not grateful when, in fact, you are. I have never thought that ever when generally browsing through messages on a list like this probably because I feel that what goes on privately between two people on a list isn't my business. My preference is to thank people privately for any help I may receive because I've never thought it fair to burden others with messages that aren't relevant to them (imagine one morning downloading over ten "thank you" messages and nothing else!). Private is more personal too. I also think it's worth considering the possibility that the person to whom you're grateful might miss your acknowledgement if you only post it to the list. > As a > result, they could become reluctant to offer assistance when they know > the answer to your query. All just because the person asking _appears_ > to be an ingrate. As we all know, appearances can be deceptive. Interesting . . . I guess there's a case for both methods! Regards, Jeanette.

Hi Michael, To get over this problem, I upload my tree every couple of months from the Family Tree Maker - keeps everything up to date! Regards, Gail > > I've given up with GenesReunited. I uploaded my tree and then found I > couldn't edit it at all so it's hopelessly out of date. > > In my experience a waste of time. > > Regards > > Michael.

Hi Moya, Sorry, I didn't mean to sound critical. That wasn't my intention. You are absolutely correct about infringing the Data Protection Act, and are right to warn people of the dangers. Many times these things happen because people dont read the policies, but are usually quite amenable to removing "live" data when it is pointed out to them. Kind regards Sandra M. Page wrote: >I think you are missing the point I was making about infringing the Data Protection Act. > >The listing of living people's details is against the Privacy Policy of most sites. In fact Genes Re-united specify: >"Members must have, and continue to have, the express permission of any living person to include their details in a family tree. If >a living person does not expressly consent to its details in a family tree, relevant details must be removed." > >It is important that anyone listing a family tree on an open site be aware of their responsibility to living members of their own or >anyone else's family. > >Moya Page, >researching BANTING/BANTEN/BANTUM - One Name Study GOONS # 4570 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sandra J Smith" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:49 PM >Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Genes Reunited . . . a rant! > > >Hi List, >I have watched this thread with interest. I too have had my personal >details posted on GR without my consent - several times!. But I don't >rant (or threaten to sue). A quiet, polite email to the person >concerned always elicits a sincere apology and the removal of the >information. > > > >............................................. >Want to contact the local community? >Please visit Hampshire Parish Jottings >http://hants.parishjottings.org.uk >............................................. > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > >

Hello List On a slightly different note from that of Sandra J. Smith, I have found that not all GR members are willing to remove information if requested. Some members seem to consider it their right to take all information and post it as their own work, with no credit to the member who actually DID the work. Likewise, personal details have been copied even though the member has been asked for those details not to be published. Having been "caught" like this by one person I now have far less inclination to pass on work, which has cost me a great deal of time and money, to anybody just for the asking. Two other thoughts:- to contact someone through GR, using their facilities, means that all your e-mails, and their replies, are locked-in to the GR system. If one or both researchers leave GR then that contact is lost. My way is, in the initial contact, to ask the recipient to reply directly to me, providing my e-mail address. That way one will, barring accident, always have the contact details. The other thought is that, with the TV promotion of genealogy, it is assumed by many that everyone's "tree" is immediately available on-line. There are numerous stories of an individual writing to a researcher to say "Please send me my Family Tree" and are very disappointed when it is suggested that they may need to do some work themselves. Colyn. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra J Smith" Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Genes Reunited . . . a rant! > Hi List, > I have watched this thread with interest. I too have had my personal > details posted on GR without my consent - several times!. But I don't > rant (or threaten to sue). A quiet, polite email to the person > concerned always elicits a sincere apology and the removal of the > information. > > As far as non-replies are concerned, I seem to have been lucky with my > many correspondents, most have responded within a few days. If someone > contacts me and I know I haven't time to respond in depth at that very > instant, I immediately respond saying I will get back to them in so many > days time. Seems to work ok. > > Regards > Sandra

I think you are missing the point I was making about infringing the Data Protection Act. The listing of living people's details is against the Privacy Policy of most sites. In fact Genes Re-united specify: "Members must have, and continue to have, the express permission of any living person to include their details in a family tree. If a living person does not expressly consent to its details in a family tree, relevant details must be removed." It is important that anyone listing a family tree on an open site be aware of their responsibility to living members of their own or anyone else's family. Moya Page, researching BANTING/BANTEN/BANTUM - One Name Study GOONS # 4570 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra J Smith" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Genes Reunited . . . a rant! Hi List, I have watched this thread with interest. I too have had my personal details posted on GR without my consent - several times!. But I don't rant (or threaten to sue). A quiet, polite email to the person concerned always elicits a sincere apology and the removal of the information.

Hi List, I have watched this thread with interest. I too have had my personal details posted on GR without my consent - several times!. But I don't rant (or threaten to sue). A quiet, polite email to the person concerned always elicits a sincere apology and the removal of the information. As far as non-replies are concerned, I seem to have been lucky with my many correspondents, most have responded within a few days. If someone contacts me and I know I haven't time to respond in depth at that very instant, I immediately respond saying I will get back to them in so many days time. Seems to work ok. Regards Sandra M. Page wrote: >Can I add a word of caution here. Someone was talking about the living relatives they have on their tree. >Genes re-united stipulate that permission must be gained from living relatives before posting them on the site. Often this does not >happen and the first an individual knows is when they find their personal information listed. > >A friend of mine has just found she was listed on someone's family tree - listed by her sister-in-law's nephew, so no real >connection to her at all. > >She has been advised to sue as this is happening all too frequently on many family history research sites and genealogy lists. > >Moya Page, >researching BANTING/BANTEN/BANTUM - One Name Study GOONS # 4570 > > >............................................. >Want to contact the local community? >Please visit Hampshire Parish Jottings >http://hants.parishjottings.org.uk >............................................. > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > >