Hi all The simple answer to the problem is not to let Ancestry have your information. Why let a commercial site have all the info you have spent years and countless ££££ compiling for them to make free and easy of it on the net. where some idiot is going to pinch it and then make connections which don't exist. Once it's out there you have lost control. I am happy to share my info with bona fide connections, but on the express condition that they do not, under any circumstances give it to Ancestry. Perish the thought!!!! That's why they didn't reply. They couldn't care less. John ________________________________ From: Rita <tomsam18@yahoo.com> To: "eng-surrey@rootsweb.com" <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 9:32 Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites Hello I sent a email about that to Ancestry but they didn't answer. regards Rita ________________________________ From: Neil & Jan Hearn <neil.hearn3@bigpond.com> To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 7:40 AM Subject: [SRY] Family History Sites   I have found that looking at all the available sites along with newspapers available online gives the best and most accurate results when searching for ancestors. By far the most disappointing site I have found is the Ancestry Family Trees site where members are actually prompted to attach matches on their site.Someone will have spent countless hours and much money on compiling their tree only to have others attach, to their own tree, whole sections  that they haven't researched. It's very common to find that several or many researchers have copied the same information which often does not relate to their own family at all. It's so disheartening that this is happening on a site available from the one company which has done so much to promote genealogy. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Capewell" <alc_goytre@hotmail.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth Hi Lawrence, I agree that Genes RU were annoying for a long time with 'hot matches' etc - but these seem to have stopped now so maybe it depends on how long you are with them? I also agree that Lost Cousins is a great simple idea - I should probably go back to it again and see if I can add anyone else to improve my chances. I'll keep doing the lottery as well though!! all the best, Anne > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:24:59 +0000 > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > Yes, Anne, completely agree - diversification is key in trying to find one's ancestors, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that Lost Cousins is the only or the best site. But what I do like about it are its simplicity - it takes only a few minutes to add census data - and its being almost foolproof. I get fed up with the countless emails I get from Genes Reunited suggesting matches that are nothing like the details I have posted with them. I am sorry you have had no matches through LC - yet! The odds on you doing so are far far greater than a win on the Lottery! > > Lawrence > > > > From: alc_goytre@hotmail.com > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:02:31 +0100 > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > Hi Lawrence, > > > > I'm glad that you have found Lost Cousins useful but I think that it is good practice to post queries on as many sites as you can. I have entered a large number of ancestors and their cousins on Lost Cousins and have absolutely no matches whatsoever. However I am also subscribed to Genes Reunited, Romany &Travellers FHS and Sussex FHG and have linked up with several 'cousins' as well as receiving relevat information from people that I am not remotely related to. I'm also on this site and the Staffordshire one, Ancestry Aid and a couple of other ones I cannot even remember but I get the odd email from! > > > > Just get your info out there and someone will come up with an answer! > > > > > > > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:01:30 +0000 > > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > > > > Norma - one really great, and free, way to find other people researching the same people as you is to use the Lost Cousins website. This operates through people entering 1841/1881/1911 census data, and then matching people who have entered the same data. It is thus a pretty foolproof way of matching 'cousins'. Clearly the more data you enter the better your chance of getting a match - and it also pays to enter data not just for your direct ancestors but for their siblings and descendants too. I have found many cousins over the years in this way, from all over the world, and they have all enabled me to further my research, and better still provide photos, memories etc. > > > > > > You ought to be able to find 1841 census data for James and Elizabeth - it would also pay to look in the 1881 (and indeed 1871) census for other relatives of theirs (and enter their data on to LC). That might give you clues about James and Elizabeth. > > > > > > You do not have to pay a subscription - though it costs only £10 a year to do so. The benefit of paying a sub is that you not only get told that other people have entered the same data as you but are also enabled to contact them securely through the LC site. > > > > > > I am getting the LC site to send you an invitation - you don't have to take it up, but from my experience you should certainly benefit if you do. > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > > >> > > > > > Is there anyone researching BOOKER. > > > > > > > > I have the marriage of James BOOKER to Elizabeth ANDREW on 14th September 1864 St Mary Magdalene Burmondsey, Surrey. > > > > James aged 30 bachelor father Edward Booker > > > > Elizabeth aged 33 a widow, father John Drew Colebrook. > > > > > > > > I just cannot find them after this. I have tried the 1871 census with no success. > > > > There are some possible deaths, but I just cannot narrow it down. > > > > I am particularly following Elizabeth and have all the census', her first marriage details etc but nothing after her wedding to James. > > > > > > > > Any help much appreciated, > > > > Norma Johnson in N.Z. > > > > > > *************************************** > > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message       *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at:  Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at:  Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at:  Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi all Like many others I am not happy about the hijacking of research that I have taken years to do. I shared information about ten years ago with someone who then posted it to Ancestry. Later I found an error that I had made. I sent an email to the person I had originally provided the info to but she did not want to amend the incorrect detail until I had supplied the corrections. Needless to say I have not provided the corrected details but the incorrect information is being copied time and time again and now appears on at least ten other trees to my knowledge. In addition to this error some of the information was discussed on a chat forum by this same person who disputed a divorce because she could not find the details herself and would appear not to be happy about divorce in the family (I had been to the National Archives and looked at the papers for this divorce so was 100% sure of the facts). Never again will I share info unless I can be 100% sure of where it is going. Penny -----Original Message----- From: John Phillips <denscanis@yahoo.co.uk> To: Rita <tomsam18@yahoo.com>; eng-surrey <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:27 Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites Hi all The simple answer to the problem is not to let Ancestry have your information. Why let a commercial site have all the info you have spent years and countless ££££ compiling for them to make free and easy of it on the net. where some idiot is going to pinch it and then make connections which don't exist. Once it's out there you have lost control. I am happy to share my info with bona fide connections, but on the express condition that they do not, under any circumstances give it to Ancestry. Perish the thought!!!! That's why they didn't reply. They couldn't care less. John ________________________________ From: Rita <tomsam18@yahoo.com> To: "eng-surrey@rootsweb.com" <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 9:32 Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites Hello I sent a email about that to Ancestry but they didn't answer. regards Rita ________________________________ From: Neil & Jan Hearn <neil.hearn3@bigpond.com> To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 7:40 AM Subject: [SRY] Family History Sites I have found that looking at all the available sites along with newspapers available online gives the best and most accurate results when searching for ancestors. By far the most disappointing site I have found is the Ancestry Family Trees site where members are actually prompted to attach matches on their site.Someone will have spent countless hours and much money on compiling their tree only to have others attach, to their own tree, whole sections that they haven't researched. It's very common to find that several or many researchers have copied the same information which often does not relate to their own family at all. It's so disheartening that this is happening on a site available from the one company which has done so much to promote genealogy. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Capewell" <alc_goytre@hotmail.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth Hi Lawrence, I agree that Genes RU were annoying for a long time with 'hot matches' etc - but these seem to have stopped now so maybe it depends on how long you are with them? I also agree that Lost Cousins is a great simple idea - I should probably go back to it again and see if I can add anyone else to improve my chances. I'll keep doing the lottery as well though!! all the best, Anne > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:24:59 +0000 > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > Yes, Anne, completely agree - diversification is key in trying to find one's ancestors, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that Lost Cousins is the only or the best site. But what I do like about it are its simplicity - it takes only a few minutes to add census data - and its being almost foolproof. I get fed up with the countless emails I get from Genes Reunited suggesting matches that are nothing like the details I have posted with them. I am sorry you have had no matches through LC - yet! The odds on you doing so are far far greater than a win on the Lottery! > > Lawrence > > > > From: alc_goytre@hotmail.com > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:02:31 +0100 > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > Hi Lawrence, > > > > I'm glad that you have found Lost Cousins useful but I think that it is good practice to post queries on as many sites as you can. I have entered a large number of ancestors and their cousins on Lost Cousins and have absolutely no matches whatsoever. However I am also subscribed to Genes Reunited, Romany &Travellers FHS and Sussex FHG and have linked up with several 'cousins' as well as receiving relevat information from people that I am not remotely related to. I'm also on this site and the Staffordshire one, Ancestry Aid and a couple of other ones I cannot even remember but I get the odd email from! > > > > Just get your info out there and someone will come up with an answer! > > > > > > > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:01:30 +0000 > > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > > > > Norma - one really great, and free, way to find other people researching the same people as you is to use the Lost Cousins website. This operates through people entering 1841/1881/1911 census data, and then matching people who have entered the same data. It is thus a pretty foolproof way of matching 'cousins'. Clearly the more data you enter the better your chance of getting a match - and it also pays to enter data not just for your direct ancestors but for their siblings and descendants too. I have found many cousins over the years in this way, from all over the world, and they have all enabled me to further my research, and better still provide photos, memories etc. > > > > > > You ought to be able to find 1841 census data for James and Elizabeth - it would also pay to look in the 1881 (and indeed 1871) census for other relatives of theirs (and enter their data on to LC). That might give you clues about James and Elizabeth. > > > > > > You do not have to pay a subscription - though it costs only £10 a year to do so. The benefit of paying a sub is that you not only get told that other people have entered the same data as you but are also enabled to contact them securely through the LC site. > > > > > > I am getting the LC site to send you an invitation - you don't have to take it up, but from my experience you should certainly benefit if you do. > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > > >> > > > > > Is there anyone researching BOOKER. > > > > > > > > I have the marriage of James BOOKER to Elizabeth ANDREW on 14th September 1864 St Mary Magdalene Burmondsey, Surrey. > > > > James aged 30 bachelor father Edward Booker > > > > Elizabeth aged 33 a widow, father John Drew Colebrook. > > > > > > > > I just cannot find them after this. I have tried the 1871 census with no success. > > > > There are some possible deaths, but I just cannot narrow it down. > > > > I am particularly following Elizabeth and have all the census', her first marriage details etc but nothing after her wedding to James. > > > > > > > > Any help much appreciated, > > > > Norma Johnson in N.Z. > > > > > > *************************************** > > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The danger of sharing ones information has been with us for longer than we have accessed Ancestry data. I sent my tree details to a one-namer before the web became the norm. All my information turned up on someone else's tree some years later. I then discovered that, without permission from me, the original one-namer had passed a complete gedcom to another researcher who had then published everything. The original one-namer's attitude was that it was important to share with everybody, and he saw no reason to contact the individuals who had provided him with their information. Part of the reason being, I guess, that he'd had a lot of data donations over the years and probably couldn't remember or work out who had given what. My grain of comfort is that one particular part of my tree details given to him is wrong - because I was using software with which I was unfamiliar and didn't enter it correctly. So I know who's pinched what! Doesn't help, and I cannot stop it. I also see details on other trees which have come from my tree on Ancestry - once or twice it has produced a bona fide relation, but mostly it hasn't. All I do is laugh - they have their trees wrong - I know mine is right. Hahahahah! JK

Hi John The reason people put there data out there (on Ancestry or anywhere else) is to find connections If you hide everything from all others you are not likely to find as many connections as those that do However, no matter what you tell people to do you have no control once you pass data on, no amount of telling them or asking them not to will work, they will either ignore you or simply forget and do it anyway I have expressly requested that some data I supplied to another connected researcher not be put on the net, a couple of years later there it is But at the end of the day you and I don't own much of the data anyway All civil & religious events are public record Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 29/09/2012 10:17, John Phillips wrote: > Hi all > > The simple answer to the problem is not to let Ancestry have your > information. Why let a commercial site have all the info you have > spent years and countless ££££ compiling for them to make free and > easy of it on the net. where some idiot is going to pinch it and then > make connections which don't exist. Once it's out there you have lost > control. I am happy to share my info with bona fide connections, but > on the express condition that they do not, under any circumstances > give it to Ancestry. Perish the thought!!!! That's why they didn't > reply. They couldn't care less. > > > John