I am as mystified as you are Murray as to why so few reply I do know there was a problem with the Ancestry internal email system and people were never getting the messages, hence no replies I have done some tests at different times but they got through (I messaged known people and emailed to alert them to reply and also in reverse) But whether there is still a problem is hard to say Certainly its very strange that so few respond and its not just us as its been mentioned in several places previously A lot of the people are it seems accessing Ancestry on a regular basis or perhaps that triggering system is not working as it should and more people are not actually using Ancestry at all and the accounts we are contacting are dormant? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 20/03/2016 22:12, mhhr wrote: > Hi Nivard and others. > > Having just upgraded my "Family Tree Makker 1995" I have also taken the > plunge and joined "Ancestry" > > My initial thoughts were wow, look at all the new rellies I have found. > > Alas, at least 85% of them don't share my excitement as my inquiries to > them go unaswered. I am careful to note if the people I write to have > logged on recently. Some I have written to without response seem to log > on at least weekly. > > I have concluded that there are many, many subscribers who in days of > old would have collected teaspoons or similar. Today they collect names > which a clever computer programs sorts for them. Lets face teaspoons do > take up a fair bit of room. I have been astonished to see that some > subscribers have more names on "their" tree than some countries have > people. > > That ain't genealogy! > > But as Nivard says, don't blame Ancestry. > > Murray > NZ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi all, I have put my PLOWRIGHT/HOOTON tree on Ancestry as it appears no one is interested in taking it up when my time comes. I wonder how many trees on Ancestry are there but the one that has compile the tree is not around anymore? At the moment it is "a private tree" however, it appears if you do the DNA thing your tree has to be "public" or it won't produce the connections one wishes to find. Is that the case? Linda BC Canada I am as mystified as you are Murray as to why so few reply I do know there was a problem with the Ancestry internal email system and people were never getting the messages, hence no replies I have done some tests at different times but they got through (I messaged known people and emailed to alert them to reply and also in reverse) But whether there is still a problem is hard to say Certainly its very strange that so few respond and its not just us as its been mentioned in several places previously A lot of the people are it seems accessing Ancestry on a regular basis or perhaps that triggering system is not working as it should and more people are not actually using Ancestry at all and the accounts we are contacting are dormant? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

Thanks to all who have replied to my comments, it was not my intention to criticize Nivard, indeed I fully agree with the comment that he helps many other people on the way, which is a huge credit to him, I must learn , even at my age, to hold my own council a bit more, so as not to upset others . As a last thought though, maybe $24.95 is not very much to some, to others it is just to much. Edie is that Fenton, person name or village name please, because nearly all of my wife's family come from the village of Fenton Lincolnshire, by the name of ANDREW. Thanks again for your forbearance folk. Bazza On 20 March 2016 at 00:33, PAMELA BAILLIE via <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com> wrote: > EdieAncestry do a monthly subscription and pay per view The library > edition didn't have all the resources available to subscribers last time I > used it. Watch out for special offers and 'free' access times such as bank > holidays (Easter is coming up)Always check any information that is not a > primary source i.e. images of records. Any index or transcription is only > as good as the person who has done it. I have tonight been looking at my > Fenton tree on Ancestry as they had just sent me some 'hints'. And yes > there are errors including wrong marriage on another's tree which has been > copied by others, purchase of certificate or check of pr's at notts > archives would have the correct one. > > > From: eamca via <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com>. > To: kglass18@mac.com; eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com; bazwilly53@gmail.com > Sent: Saturday, 19 March 2016, 23:55 > Subject: Re: [LIN] Replying to individual on list > > Hi Barry, > account with familysearch and receive images, some still go to > findmypast, but I think it is only about $24.95 for a months subscription > to that as well and that isnt much is it? That along with familysearch and > of course our rootsweb list is good. Not sure what subs ancestry have, but > I wouldnt think there is a months subscription. British Newspaper have > one, but then you can sometimes get those free at the Libraries same with > Ancestry if you have a public library card, you can view hat there, at > least you can in Australia. > > > Keep the queries up, there are a lot of budding super slueths out there > still. > Edie > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-LINCSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Barry, I think we communicated via genesreunited recently. Most of what you say about answering where possible on list is true, but I think a lot of folk are list shy and do tend to answer off line, but it may well be no one has the answer to the query, or on holiday etc. Nivard is not one of those who answers offline, he has always been there to help and I wonder where some of our other old correspondants are like Roy Stockdill, I havent seen him about for a couple of years on any of the lists I am on, he was very helpful as well and others. Like yourself I too am a pensioner and it is hard to purchase a full subscription but you can take them out for a month, use them constantly and exhaust all you need in that time. Rootschat is very helpful and free and you can take out an account with familysearch and receive images, some still go to findmypast, but I think it is only about $24.95 for a months subscription to that as well and that isnt much is it? That along with familysearch and of course our rootsweb list is good. Not sure what subs ancestry have, but I wouldnt think there is a months subscription. British Newspaper have one, but then you can sometimes get those free at the Libraries same with Ancestry if you have a public library card, you can view hat there, at least you can in Australia. Keep the queries up, there are a lot of budding super slueths out there still. Edie ------------------------------------------ From: Barry Wilson via <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com> To: kglass18@mac.com; eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com; Subject: Re: [LIN] Replying to individual on list Nivard Hi, the problem with you or others just replying to the sender / offline, you prevent others from receiving the the answer to a problem that others may have as well. Bazza On 17 March 2016 at 21:48, KAREN GLASS via <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Thanks so much. I see my mistake now. > > Karen > > > > > On 17Mar2016, at 1:15 PM, Nivard Ovington via <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > > I replied off list to Karen > > > > But in case its of any use to others (hence why its always best to post > > *to* the list) > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

EdieAncestry do a monthly subscription and pay per view The library edition didn't have all the resources available to subscribers last time I used it. Watch out for special offers and 'free'  access times such as bank holidays (Easter is coming up)Always check any information that is not a primary source i.e. images of records. Any index or transcription is only as good as the person who has done it. I have tonight been looking at my Fenton tree on Ancestry as they had just sent me some 'hints'.  And yes there are errors including wrong marriage on another's tree which has been copied by others, purchase of certificate or check of pr's at notts archives would have the correct one. From: eamca via <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com>. To: kglass18@mac.com; eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com; bazwilly53@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, 19 March 2016, 23:55 Subject: Re: [LIN] Replying to individual on list Hi Barry,  account with familysearch and receive images, some still go to findmypast, but I think it is only about $24.95 for a months subscription to that as well and that isnt much is it?  That along with familysearch and of course our rootsweb list is good.  Not sure what subs ancestry have, but I wouldnt think there is a months subscription.  British Newspaper have one, but then you can sometimes get those free at the Libraries same with Ancestry if you have a public library card, you can view hat there, at least you can in Australia. Keep the queries up, there are a lot of budding super slueths out there still. Edie

I have been getting really frustrated with Linc to the past and Lincoln Council site. Mainly as I have forgotten how to find the reference to parish records from LCC, then to put the reference into Lincs to the past and go straight to the parish I need. It is Gainsborough Holy Trinity Par/1/5. It doesn't matter how I put it in I get nothing. If I just put in the parish without Par/1/5 I get burials and maybe baptism but I'm looking for the marriages. The marriage is on Free Reg and Lincolnshire Marriage index but I would like to see it myself. I believe the surname should be Staniland but it comes up as Stanley. I used to be able to find a A to Z I think it was of the Parish name go to the year you need and put the reference in at Lincs to the past and Bobs your uncle But I've lost the plot. Could someone tell me how to do it again. Thanks heaps. Going crazy. Chris

Hi Barry You keep saying this but exactly what data that was free, has "been swallowed up by the big company's" We have *never* had so much available for *free* online and the quantity of free data including transcriptions and images of records grows almost daily Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 19/03/2016 14:09, Barry Wilson via wrote: > Sorry Mary, this is Bazza ( Barry Wilson ) what a hornets nest I seem to > have been part of, and how great it is to see some familiar names on line, > all communication is Good, so keep it up Please, all that has been > mentioned is true for those who wrote it, and should be looked at > properly, not criticized at, most of us are just trying to find out about > our own families, not make a business out of inquires. I am an O.A.P. with > only a basic pension to live on which does not leave very much to pay for > information, and that is why myself in particular am always looking for > the free sites, for information, which as I have said have mostly all been > swallowed up by the big company's / sites, even if some out there do not > believe it, it is never the less true. > Going back to Mary Skipworth if I may, what she suggested is what is > wanted and it used to be the norm in the past, > ( remember Renee ) until she was more or less hounded off site for having > the nerve to give information for free instead selling what she knew. > I have only just picked up my family search again after an illness, but > I do not hold out much hope of getting far, if the information is only > available from money sources / sites. > Warm regards to you all Bazza in Lincoln > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi Barry Apart from the very odd off topic reply or due to privacy or the living I *never* reply off-list I am and always have been an advocate for on list replies, its what keeps the lists alive and allows others to give their input or correct inaccurate or ambiguous posts and as you say may help others with a similar problem Some list members may reply off list as they don't check the "To" address A few email clients only enter the senders address when using reply Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 19/03/2016 14:15, Barry Wilson via wrote: > Nivard Hi, the problem with you or others just replying to the sender / > offline, you prevent others from receiving the the answer to a problem that > others may have as well. Bazza --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Nivard Hi, the problem with you or others just replying to the sender / offline, you prevent others from receiving the the answer to a problem that others may have as well. Bazza On 17 March 2016 at 21:48, KAREN GLASS via <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Thanks so much. I see my mistake now. > > Karen > > > > > On 17Mar2016, at 1:15 PM, Nivard Ovington via <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > > I replied off list to Karen > > > > But in case its of any use to others (hence why its always best to post > > *to* the list) > > > > Email clients vary but generally using reply all enters all addresses in > > the original (usually list and sender) > > > > Delete the addresses you don't want it to go to, double check it leaves > > just the address for the person > > > > And send > > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > On 17/03/2016 18:09, KAREN GLASS via wrote: > >> I must apologize for sending my email to “MomNat” and thinking it was > off-list. We used to be able to send to the individual so we weren’t > clogging up the list with non-Lincs messages. > >> > >> Is there any way to send to the individual sender instead of the whole > list? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Karen Glass, Illinois > > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-LINCSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-LINCSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Sorry Mary, this is Bazza ( Barry Wilson ) what a hornets nest I seem to have been part of, and how great it is to see some familiar names on line, all communication is Good, so keep it up Please, all that has been mentioned is true for those who wrote it, and should be looked at properly, not criticized at, most of us are just trying to find out about our own families, not make a business out of inquires. I am an O.A.P. with only a basic pension to live on which does not leave very much to pay for information, and that is why myself in particular am always looking for the free sites, for information, which as I have said have mostly all been swallowed up by the big company's / sites, even if some out there do not believe it, it is never the less true. Going back to Mary Skipworth if I may, what she suggested is what is wanted and it used to be the norm in the past, ( remember Renee ) until she was more or less hounded off site for having the nerve to give information for free instead selling what she knew. I have only just picked up my family search again after an illness, but I do not hold out much hope of getting far, if the information is only available from money sources / sites. Warm regards to you all Bazza in Lincoln On 19 March 2016 at 08:04, Mary Skipworth via <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Perhaps the recent hiccough with Rootsweb lists has done us all a favour, > causing us to look at why the lists are generally quieter than they used to > be. > The impatient have switched their interest to the On-Line Tree sites which > are numerous, so please don't focus all your wrath on Ancestry. Leave > those folk to fill their days copying each other's trees and ignore them. > It only makes you angry and seldom does anything to advance your own > genealogy. That's my philosophy anyway. > But having said that, I want to thank Ancestry and Family Search and all > the others for the scanned images they are increasingly making available of > the original records. This is the next revolution in genealogy which is > just starting, and I understand that Family Search have a plan to replace > all their films with scanned online images in a remarkably short > time-frame. > So what role is left for the Rootsweb lists. I would like to see the > content broadened to include useful tips or research techniques alongside > the postings about problems. The tips might not apply exclusively to > Lincolnshire, but if they are potentially useful to Lincs searchers I hope > they wouldn't offend our List Admin. > Here's one from me which may be a little ironic since Ancestry has been > getting a blast lately. > Have you noticed that if do not click but just hover your pointer over an > item in a search results list on, say, a census search, that Ancestry will > show you quite a lot of information about age occupation address and who > else was present in the household and their ages, even though you don't > have an Ancestry subscription. > Good searching to you all, Mary in NZ > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-LINCSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

PS you didn't tell us who it was you were seeking or when so we couldn't check for you Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 19/03/2016 08:26, Chrissie via wrote: > I have been getting really frustrated with Linc to the past and > Lincoln Council site. Mainly as I have forgotten how to find the > reference to parish records from LCC, then to put the reference into > Lincs to the past and go straight to the parish I need. It is > Gainsborough Holy Trinity Par/1/5. It doesn't matter how I put it in > I get nothing. If I just put in the parish without Par/1/5 I get > burials and maybe baptism but I'm looking for the marriages. The > marriage is on Free Reg and Lincolnshire Marriage index but I would > like to see it myself. I believe the surname should be Staniland but > it comes up as Stanley. I used to be able to find a A to Z I think it > was of the Parish name go to the year you need and put the reference > in at Lincs to the past and Bobs your uncle But I've lost the plot. > Could someone tell me how to do it again. Thanks heaps. Going crazy. Chris --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Does this help at all http://www.lincstothepast.com/help/parish-registers/how-to-search-for-parish-registers/ Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 19/03/2016 08:26, Chrissie via wrote: > I have been getting really frustrated with Linc to the past and > Lincoln Council site. Mainly as I have forgotten how to find the > reference to parish records from LCC, then to put the reference into > Lincs to the past and go straight to the parish I need. It is > Gainsborough Holy Trinity Par/1/5. It doesn't matter how I put it in > I get nothing. If I just put in the parish without Par/1/5 I get > burials and maybe baptism but I'm looking for the marriages. The > marriage is on Free Reg and Lincolnshire Marriage index but I would > like to see it myself. I believe the surname should be Staniland but > it comes up as Stanley. I used to be able to find a A to Z I think it > was of the Parish name go to the year you need and put the reference > in at Lincs to the past and Bobs your uncle But I've lost the plot. > Could someone tell me how to do it again. Thanks heaps. Going crazy. Chris --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Kathryne, My approach is to do a screen snapshot and then import the snapshot into an OCR programme. The exact steps would depend upon the software you have available. If it is only a paragraph then it is quicker to retype it. Alan Swindale > -----Original Message----- > From: eng-lincsgen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-lincsgen- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of MomNat via > Sent: 17 March 2016 17:36 > To: eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com > Subject: [LIN] surnames and technical help needed > > Does anyone know if there is a way of printing pages from books on > googlebooks? I have been unable to find a way. I have found great > reference there, including a biography. I even thought of purchasing > the book, but the volume I want is unavailable. It is not a Lincs > ancestor, but I trust in the knowledge of this list. I know I could > type it into a laptop, but really? Any advice is welcome. > Kathryne Natale

Perhaps the recent hiccough with Rootsweb  lists has done us all a favour, causing us to look at why the lists are generally quieter than they used to be. The impatient have switched their interest to the On-Line Tree sites which are numerous, so please don't focus all your wrath on Ancestry.  Leave those folk to fill their days copying each other's trees and ignore them.  It only makes you angry and seldom does anything to advance your own genealogy.  That's my philosophy anyway. But having said that, I want to thank Ancestry and Family Search and all the others for the scanned images they are increasingly making available of the original records.  This is the next revolution in genealogy which is just starting, and I understand that Family Search have a plan to replace all their films with scanned online images in a remarkably short time-frame.   So what role is left for the Rootsweb lists.  I would like to see the content broadened to include useful tips or research techniques alongside the postings about problems.   The tips might not apply exclusively to Lincolnshire, but if they are potentially useful to Lincs searchers I hope they wouldn't offend our List Admin.   Here's one from me which may be a little ironic since Ancestry has been getting a blast lately. Have you noticed that if do not click but just hover your pointer over an item in a search results list on, say, a census search, that Ancestry will show you quite a lot of information about age occupation address and who else was present in the household and their ages, even though you don't have an Ancestry subscription.   Good searching to you all,  Mary in NZ

Hi Graham, I don't think you can go past hiring in the original film at your local Latter Day Saints Family History Library. Sometimes you have to travel a little way to get to your closest one and you have to wait until it arrives there, but the film stays put for three months, so you have plenty of time to go back and forth if you run out of time in a session. Over nearly 34 years I have done this many times for my main lines. Have ordered in Bishops Transcripts and parish Records etc as there are many other film types available for particular Parishes. Family search may not have the IGI or anything online for your Parish, but by going into the Library Catalogue part of Family Search you can see if your Parish has been filmed and what type of records, ie Census, School records etc etc, jot down the Reference number to the film and go to the order films page, I think it is around $7.50 where I live and you pay online and then your Latter Day Saints library will get in touch when t! he film has arrived. You dont have to be a member of the church. It is time consuming but well worth the effort. Edie ------------------------------------------ From: Graham Taylor via <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com> To: eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com; Subject: [LIN] Quiet on Lincs 3. Those of us that have been tracing ancestry over a period of time, have literally done to death post 1837. Its pre 1837 that is still an interest but records pre this date are not always in existence. Regards Graham ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-LINCSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sorry Rex but how can you blame Ancestry for users poor research? Do you expect Ancestry to police the trees online? Or are you expecting Ancestry to take your word over another users? The fault lies *solely* with the respective tree owner and no one else Many tree submitters on Ancestry and elsewhere have either given up research or are no longer alive in many cases, so trees remain as submitted, there is no one to alter them Use *any* online tree for what its worth, a clue or two at best The *only* tree you can have 100% influence over is your own, so why expend so much wasted energy on what others trees contain? As to DNA personally I find it a complete waste of time, I have no interest in it whatsoever Ancestry is made up of two distinct sides, the records side and the submitted trees, I rarely look at the latter for obvious reasons If Ancestry or any other trees are so much garbage, why bother with them at all ? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 18/03/2016 21:17, Rex Johnson via wrote: > >> >> You can't blame the facilitator --------------------- > > Hi Nivard, Graham and others, > I am not usually an Ancestry 'basher' - I have had huge benefits from my subscriptions over the last 45 or so years. I do however, have one huge grumble with a particular 'facility' and for me, Ancestry's reputation is ruined by its inclusion on the site. > A generation ago I looked for mentions of a particular grandparent in Public Member Trees, and found 20 references to my ancestor. Every tree had the parents of this forebear wrong - I have irrefutable proof of this. > I emailed all twenty tree owners telling them of the errors. Two made changes, and one of these actually emailed back to say thank you. The rest remain wrong, and probably will do so for ever. > Public Member Trees are rubbish, we all know it, and I have read criticism of them hundreds of times over the years. > It led me to believe years ago that Ancestry was unscientific in leaving this junk online, not caring for accuracy, and made me suspicious of their motives. > Now Ancestry is active in DNA testing ------------ a very 'commercial' market at the moment, and Ancestry certainly recognises that, and has invaded it. > I have used several labs in Europe and the States in my own DNA research, but will not be using Ancestry. I have read of people who have had 'suggested' family links provided by Ancestry - based on marker results that you can't access - which have proved to have no substance at all. Lack of scientific exactness again. > Pity that such a superb resource is flawed. > Rex --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

> > You can't blame the facilitator --------------------- Hi Nivard, Graham and others, I am not usually an Ancestry 'basher' - I have had huge benefits from my subscriptions over the last 45 or so years. I do however, have one huge grumble with a particular 'facility' and for me, Ancestry's reputation is ruined by its inclusion on the site. A generation ago I looked for mentions of a particular grandparent in Public Member Trees, and found 20 references to my ancestor. Every tree had the parents of this forebear wrong - I have irrefutable proof of this. I emailed all twenty tree owners telling them of the errors. Two made changes, and one of these actually emailed back to say thank you. The rest remain wrong, and probably will do so for ever. Public Member Trees are rubbish, we all know it, and I have read criticism of them hundreds of times over the years. It led me to believe years ago that Ancestry was unscientific in leaving this junk online, not caring for accuracy, and made me suspicious of their motives. Now Ancestry is active in DNA testing ------------ a very 'commercial' market at the moment, and Ancestry certainly recognises that, and has invaded it. I have used several labs in Europe and the States in my own DNA research, but will not be using Ancestry. I have read of people who have had 'suggested' family links provided by Ancestry - based on marker results that you can't access - which have proved to have no substance at all. Lack of scientific exactness again. Pity that such a superb resource is flawed. Rex

Hi Graham I am not disagreeing with you regarding the desire of some for instant results, that is very obvious But whose fault is that? only the individual concerned, no one else You seem to be saying its Ancestrys fault for making the facility available You can't blame the facilitator for the users poor research techniques The quantity of records available to us online is growing all the time that is irrefutable, I do not count other peoples research in that, I do not count other peoples research as information, clues perhaps but thats all, I rarely even look at other peoples trees as far as my research goes (its generally a disquieting experience if I do) As to family history programs or any online supplier, you can hardly expect them to tell us the bare faced truth can we? Research will take you many years, you can never complete it, it will cost you a fortune, make you lose sleep and make you tear your hair out at times Doesn't sound to appealing put that way does it ;-) And a TV program showing someone waiting for a record to arrive in the post for a week is not going to make great viewing As when someone sells you a fancy car or machine, they never tell you the truth about the cost or length of service do they, they always sell it on its perceived merits There are more people taking up genealogy as more get access to the internet, now 3.5 billion users, about 40% of the worlds population, so plenty of room for expansion Family history online suppliers are growing all the time, year on year Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 18/03/2016 15:23, Graham Taylor wrote: > Cant say I agree with you Nivard > > Too many people these days want instantaneous results. The Pizza effect. You > bung it in the oven and its ready in 5 minutes. > > Genealogy is not like that. It takes time, effort, diligence, thought, and > money. It's like a Jigsaw puzzle and you need to put all the pieces in place > before you complete the picture. > > Programmes like "Who do you think you are ?" don't actually help. Too often > they show a celebrity typing into a pre paid search site and bingo the first > one they come across is the one they want. It ignores all the pre programme > research that will have gone into the one hour programme. > > Perhaps its just that those coming into genealogy have neither the time, the > energy, the patience or the inclination to take days, weeks and months > researching , because that is what it takes. > > Accept there is a combination of many factors but I can't agree with you > that research is expanding. Information is expanding but can we trust the > information that is being peddled? > > Regards > > Graham --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Cant say I agree with you Nivard Too many people these days want instantaneous results. The Pizza effect. You bung it in the oven and its ready in 5 minutes. Genealogy is not like that. It takes time, effort, diligence, thought, and money. It's like a Jigsaw puzzle and you need to put all the pieces in place before you complete the picture. Programmes like "Who do you think you are ?" don't actually help. Too often they show a celebrity typing into a pre paid search site and bingo the first one they come across is the one they want. It ignores all the pre programme research that will have gone into the one hour programme. Perhaps its just that those coming into genealogy have neither the time, the energy, the patience or the inclination to take days, weeks and months researching , because that is what it takes. Accept there is a combination of many factors but I can't agree with you that research is expanding. Information is expanding but can we trust the information that is being peddled? Regards Graham -----Original Message----- From: eng-lincsgen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-lincsgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via Sent: 18 March 2016 10:55 To: eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LIN] Quiet on Lincs I have to be honest Graham, whilst I understand where you are coming from, I disagree with all three points ;-) If you mean by "The ancestry phenomena", interest in family history or genealogy, nothing could be further from the truth, its still an expanding market (and some) Ancestry isn't a program as such, I presume you mean Ancestry online trees, Ancestry, like any other online tree space provider are just a facilitator, they do not and neither should they police the input of others, they like any other online tree are susceptible to error and it behoves each researcher to check each record/person out thoroughly themselves, copying or falsify family trees is not a new phenomena, its been going on as long as man has walked the earth. There have always been (and probably always will be) those who want a quick fix, so either copy others research or take the one "that looks near enough" , whilst there are more copying these days, it still doesn't change my original point that it behoves each researcher to check themselves (I never did get the joy in copying someone elses research anyway, the joy is in the hunting and finding surely) a simple case in point that pervades the online trees of many is the "family coat of arms" displayed by many, enough said on that I think As to your last point, show me someone who has completed their tree post 1837 (or pre or both) and I will show you a fibber, it simply can't be completed, there is always something new to look into and learn, I have been researching for donkeys years and consider whilst I have amassed a great deal I have only scratched the surface as yet As to pre civil registration records, there is a massive amount of information and records available online now, more than ever and growing almost daily, we have never been so blessed with access to records, albeit a small percentage when compared to the whole, but still enough to keep of out of mischief for a good deal of time to come Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 18/03/2016 10:30, Graham Taylor via wrote: > > > I think the problem is threefold :- > > > > 1. The ancestry phenomena has peaked, probably from its high spot of > around 2006 > > 2. Ancestry (the programme) in itself has become more unreliable. This > has come from the "public trees" placed on its site. The essence of > ancestry is Do It Yourself not copy others. I have a Family History > programme which is linked to My Heritage and have evidence of numerous > examples of where my tree has been copied in exact detail by others > and then shown as a perfect match! > > 3. Those of us that have been tracing ancestry over a period of time, > have literally done to death post 1837. Its pre 1837 that is still an > interest but records pre this date are not always in existence. > > Regards > > > > Graham --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-LINCSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi all Bottom line is that a researcher should try to obtain at least three pieces of evidence as confirmation to support whatever fact they are looking for. This is not always easily done and perhaps it is impossible. But that's what keeps a credible tree from becoming a wish list. Sometimes you can knock your head against a brick wall trying to find any info on an ancestor and the best thing you can find is someone on Ancestry who is from that same tree but has been handed down more knowledge than you have been left with. Sometimes little hand up can get you on a path that breaks down the brickwall. I am not saying that you then copy their tree and leave satisfied. No, then the onus is on you to prove that what you have found is true. You could get in touch with the tree owner. You could check the Ancestry records if you are a member. You could go to your nearest FHL and order in a film or you could ask for help on this wonderful List. I have done all of these over the years.. And may I say, these "Listers" have given me wonderful help over many years. I feel like they have become part of my larger family...and very good friends. May I also say that it is very easy to be lead down the wrong road of wishful thinking...I have been there too so I will not write off anyone who makes mistakes. But one has to be conscientious enough to take researching seriously and try to prove your way back. Linda B.C. Canada.