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

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

Hi Jan & all Nothing will replace doing your own research, once anyone starts to use someone else's research without checking it first they are asking for problems Use others research as a signpost certainly but only trust it if you double check it yourself There are largely two camps as regards family history research, those that want the most accurate family tree with all entries sourced and verified and then those that want to compile the largest tree they can and hoover up other peoples research and attach it to their own Compiling inaccurate and fictitious trees is not a new phenomenon, its been going on for as long as man has walked the earth The two worst offenders are genesreunited and Ancestry (although there are others), neither police their users input and neither should they, that is entirely down to the user, as I said its not a new phenomenon, but its just that the sites mentioned have made it easier add data to, I say offenders but in reality its the users who are the offenders not the facilitators At one time I was rather annoyed at the people who have all sorts including some of my relatives, often erroneously attached to their trees but realise I could spend my whole life trying to correct them only for the tree owner to ignore any evidence placed in front of them, so have largely given up on that and concentrate on my own research If it makes them happy let them get on with it One thing is very clear, bemoaning the fact on the lists will achieve absolutely nothing I am afraid :-( They can be quite amusing though as one had my g.g.g.grandmother passing away 20 years before she gave birth to my g.g.grandmother, quite an achievement I think you would agree :-) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 28/09/2012 22:40, Neil & Jan Hearn wrote: > 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