I have to concur with what Nivard says. Not only do you have marriages of people to spouses born a 100 years or more earlier than them (have a look at Mary Theresa Wherritt daughter of Millard and Mary for instance) , but you have sources attached which do not relate to the fact set out, or even record different information. Particularly noticeable in my area of interest, are English place names which have become associated with places in the US and France. And don't get me started on people who believe the USA is a pre Mayflower and in some instances pre-Columbian creation. There is a danger PMTs are descending to the quality level of the IGI Tony -----Original Message----- From: BJ Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:05 PM To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 2012 People/Family Index Earlier trees on Ancestry.com did allow people to download GEDCOMs of the trees. If this were done, the information could be incorporated into anyone's tree. Many "harvesters" did exactly that and never cleaned up the data or even attempted to merge duplicates. I've seen at least one tree which has multiple entries of duplicate families and you wouldn't believe the number of interrelationships one individual could have. I think Ancestry.com is changing this. I know that in recent searches, I have found no way of downloading a public tree from Ancestry.com. Current trees can only be downloaded by the owner. The owner has much more control over the current Ancestry.com trees or AMT's. They can specify whether the tree is to be seen by all subscriber (Public) or only searched (Private). There is also an option to preclude the Private tree from even being searched. Additionally, the user can "invite" select individuals to view or add certain items to the tree by specifying the level of invitee. The choices are Guest - you can view the individuals in the tree and leave comments. The owner has the option to let a "guest" view living individuals or not. The default is NOT. Contributor - can view the individuals, leave comments and Add Stories and photos. Again the owner decides whether the contributor can see living individuals or not. Default is NOT. Editor - can view the individuals, leave comments, Add Stories and photos and Add/Edit people in the tree. By definition the Editor can see living people. All of the options are discussed under the sharing feature on the web site. Just click on the little green circle icon. BJ On 10/13/2011 4:36 AM, Nivard Ovington wrote: > The ones I know of are on Ancestry and nowhere else, some are very recent > and multiply by the week > it seems ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html Online Support for Family Tree Maker Version 16 and earlier http://pastftm.custhelp.com/ Version 2008 - 2011 http://ftm.custhelp.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Even that isn't enough. You need to check the documentation that the tree cites. I have found trees including death of the individual in say 1850 and a residence fact showing them living in a city in 1860. Check the 1860 Census attached, and you find that the name is the same, but family members are different, birth date and location are different. John & Kathleen -----Original Message----- From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of BJ Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:08 PM To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 2012 People/Family Index Any tree without solid documentation is always suspect for its accuracy. It is the user's responsibility to verify the data. With AMTs just as it is with other data bases, garbage in is garbage out. BJ

Again, I agree the quality is lacking in most trees. That is the reason I don't merge from the Trees. Occasionally, I will add a name and perhaps a birth or death date just to see whether that leads to hints to other more official sources. If they don't pan out I normally remove them after a while especially if I feel they conflict with my documented facts. I agree that you can add erroneous data rather quickly but I feel it has improved over the old method of downloading a GEDCOM file and importing that. The term AMT seems to be the accepted acronym for Ancestry.com Member Trees as compared to OWT for One World Trees and some of the others. Any tree without solid documentation is always suspect for its accuracy. It is the user's responsibility to verify the data. With AMTs just as it is with other data bases, garbage in is garbage out. BJ On 10/13/2011 12:07 PM, Nivard Ovington wrote: > Hi BJ > > These are fairly recent trees and have exactly the same family branches to the exact detail > > Having had a play this afternoon it appears this is being done by adding one person which gives the > facility of adding all their children, wife and where parents details differ, those too > > I did a trial and its very easy to add many branches relatively quickly > > It also suggested others to add that had similar details although some were in fact quite different > , it would be very easy to add the wrong ones > > I am aware of the various levels of access to Ancestry trees as I have all levels for different > trees > > Not sure what an AMT is though? Ancestry Member Tree ? > > Whats the difference? > > I had to smile yesterday, looking at one tree it has one mans and his wife, among their children is > the same wife as a second person > > Its rather too easy IMHO to add people but how they sort that one out I don't know > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > >> Earlier trees on Ancestry.com did allow people to download GEDCOMs of >> the trees. If this were done, the information could be incorporated >> into anyone's tree. Many "harvesters" did exactly that and never >> cleaned up the data or even attempted to merge duplicates. I've seen at >> least one tree which has multiple entries of duplicate families and you >> wouldn't believe the number of interrelationships one individual could >> have. >> >> I think Ancestry.com is changing this. I know that in recent searches, >> I have found no way of downloading a public tree from Ancestry.com. >> Current trees can only be downloaded by the owner. The owner has much >> more control over the current Ancestry.com trees or AMT's. They can > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > Online Support for Family Tree Maker > Version 16 and earlier > http://pastftm.custhelp.com/ > > Version 2008 - 2011 > http://ftm.custhelp.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2090/4549 - Release Date: 10/13/11 > >

I was just discussing this with a "cousin" who I just found online. She says I now have a reputation as being "the authority" on the surname line she is related thru. Yikes ! I've been doing Genealogy for a long time, then along came computers and then Genealogy programs. Around 1996, it wasn't easy to post your tree online - it mostly required you to know something about html, or using a complicated program, and figuring out how to upload to a website, which most people didn't. So you had to learn a way to do it, which I did. I was amazed at how many people found me and wrote to me. They sent me Gedcoms & I sent them Gedcoms, by email or floppy disks. Then old manuscripts were scanned and exchanged, etc. They asked me to put their info online with mine, so I did. So now, although I am not the one who did most of the research, except on my direct line, I am rumored to be the "authority" because I was the "early bird" who put it online and "got us all together". Since I shared what I had, it is not surprising now to see multiple copies of the research I shared all over the web. FTMaker made it easy to merge files, some people submitted it to the disks FTMaker used to make, others shared it with others, Ancestry made it easy to put trees online, etc For an example of this Search Ancestry for Zacheus Baker You will find over 50 trees with Zachariah Zacheus Baker & Alcey Yalsie Rhoads, a lot having the exact info I have sent out. Or search for Sitnah Clifton - that info appears to have spread like wildfire, and now has some crazy stuff added to it in some of the files. One person I wrote to ask why she had Robert Tucker as the father of George Tucker Sr, and she answered that the date seemed right so she put him in. Cripes ! Courtney sitnah@cox.net -------------------------------------------------- From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> > Hi Courtney > > That can't be true given the amount of identical trees that are on > Ancestry > > There are many trees on there with blocks of exact same data some of which > have identical errors in > that suggest they are copied wholesale > > I am quite sure they are not typed in but copied in blocks > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > >> Only the owner can download the whole tree. >> >> But any user can click to "save this person to my tree" >> >> Courtney >

Hi Jim The ones I know of are on Ancestry and nowhere else, some are very recent and multiply by the week it seems Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > many trees were submitted to many different web sites > RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project at www.rootsweb.com was one common place > where you could allow your total tree to be public > and it was common to harvest vast amounts of genealogical data > an example is one of my trees > > Entries: 1354 Updated: Tue Jan 22 13:37:47 2002 Contact: Jim Rader > Index | Descendancy | Register | Pedigree | Ahnentafel | Download GEDCOM | > Add Post-em > > that website is now part of the free side of ancestry and is at > http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:1877221&id=I3 > > Jim Rader (916) 366-6833

Tom, There should be no downside. FTM 2012 will function the same whether you have other version installed or not. As for your files, if you backed up your files prior to converting them, then you can always open up those back-ups in the previous version. If you are not using the other version(s) then they are just taking up space on your hard drive. Linda in Costa Rica Monroe County, New York Genealogy http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~monroenys Monroe County, New York History http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~monroenys -----Original Message----- From: Tom Herson Sent: Thursday, 13 October, 2011 4:46 AM To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] version 2012 did not install over 2010 :Linda. et al Could there be a downside to removing earlier versions of FTM once FTM 2012 is installed? Tom Herson Ithaca, NY ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda H Gutierrez" <lilacarlhg@amnet.co.cr> To: <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] version 2012 did not install over 2010 > Rick, > > Yes, you can uninstall FTM 2010 from the Control Panel. FTM 2012 will NOT > install "over" FTM 2010 or any other version. > > > Linda > in Costa Rica > Monroe County, New York Genealogy > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~monroenys > Monroe County, New York History > http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~monroenys > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Mayernik > Sent: Thursday, 13 October, 2011 12:18 AM > To: Family Tree Maker > Subject: [FTM-TECH] version 2012 did not install over 2010 > > Can I simply delete version 2010? The "family" files copied to the newer > version. > > Thank you, > > Rick

Hi Courtney That can't be true given the amount of identical trees that are on Ancestry There are many trees on there with blocks of exact same data some of which have identical errors in that suggest they are copied wholesale I am quite sure they are not typed in but copied in blocks Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Only the owner can download the whole tree. > > But any user can click to "save this person to my tree" > > Courtney

I think you'll find that most of the trees have their origins in GEDCOMS downloaded from RootsWEB over the years and then posted on Ancestry and/or exchanged between users. -----Original Message----- From: Nivard Ovington <ovington1@sky.com> To: ftm-tech <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, Oct 13, 2011 6:20 am Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 2012 People/Family Index Hi Courtney That can't be true given the amount of identical trees that are on Ancestry There are many trees on there with blocks of exact same data some of which have identical errors in that suggest they are copied wholesale I am quite sure they are not typed in but copied in blocks Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Only the owner can download the whole tree. > > But any user can click to "save this person to my tree" > > Courtney ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html Online Support for Family Tree Maker Version 16 and earlier http://pastftm.custhelp.com/ Version 2008 - 2011 http://ftm.custhelp.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I'm sorry but it seems no one has answered your question and I'm replying a little late. You should not have any problem moving your source-citation data from FTM 16 into any of the later versions of FTM. Your comments will be preserved just as you have them in FTM 16. Just so you know what is going on here is how the source-citations are handled. FTM 16 and earlier always linked a source-citation to a single fact. This was true even when the source-citation might be exactly the same for 1 or 2 or even 4 facts. For example let's say that you found a Census record for a family of 8 people. You enter the census record as a source-citation for each individual to document their Name, Date of Birth and Residence/Census fact. You enter the information into the source-citation for the first person and then use FTM 16's feature to copy/paste the source-citation to all of the individuals and their three facts. You make no changes to the other source-citations. This would enter 24 identical source-citations into your data base. There are disadvantages such as wasted space in your data base because you have 24 copies all containing the exact same information. Another disadvantage is if you discover your misspelled something such as the city name or the Roll number, to correct that bit of information you must visit all 24 copies and make the same correction to each copy. Beginning with FTM 2008, this process was changed slightly. You can enter the source-citation information in a single source-citation and then link that single-source citation to all 24 facts described above. This reduces the amount of space required in your data base because you have the information only once and it makes it much easier to make the correction because you make the correction to the single source-citation and it is displayed properly for all 24 facts. Think of it as like the central heating system in most homes today. You have a single heater and thermostat. Any change to the thermostat applies the change to all rooms connected to the heater. The KEY to this is the source-citation information must be the same for all individuals and facts including the Source Title, the Citation Detail (Citation Page), the Citation Text, the Reference Note (Footnote). Obviously there may be times when you don't want the source-citation to be exactly the same for all of the individuals or facts. In your case you add and explanation in the Citation Text field. This can be accommodated by Copy and Paste as Duplicate. This tells FTM to make a second copy of the source-citation and link it to the new individual or fact. This is essentially what will happen to your FTM 16 source-citations. For those source-citations which have distinct Comment Text entries, a separate source-citation will be created for each thus preserving your current systems. Just to summarize what must be identical for source-citations to be entered once and linked to multiple individuals and facts. All of the following fields must be identical. 1. Source title 2. Citation detail 3. Citation Text 4. Reference Note - a reference note (like the FTM 16 Footnote) can have information manually entered into the field. 5. Source-citation Note 6. Source-citation Media items I hope this answers your concerns. BJ On 10/7/2011 10:36 AM, LouDean wrote: > Hello, > I am still using FTM version 16, although I have purchased all the newer > ones since then. (I just like 16 better and hate to give it up.) In > version 16 there is a section on the source page called citation text. I > often used that box to make a very brief note of exactly what the source > said. For example, in one source I might find someone's age and where they > were born; another might give the exact date but no place of birth. I got > the idea of recording this in the citation text from someone on this list > years ago, and according to the information in "HELP," this seems to be what > this box was for. At any rate, I found it to be extremely useful. > > I understand that versions after 2008 are going to list each of these as a > separate source or something like that. What I'd like to know is how much > of a problem this is going to be for me when I eventually have to go to a > newer version. I have put my file into all the new ones when they came in > and experimented with them, but I can't really tell how it is affecting my > data or the program. All the info seems to still be there, just as it is in > version 16. But there must be some negative impact that I'm not aware of. > Does it use a lot more storage space or something like that? If so, how big > a problem is that likely to be? And is there more to it than that? > > I'd appreciate any help/suggestions with this, as I will have to get a new > computer soon so maybe I should actually begin to use 2012 when it arrives. > > Thank you, > LouDean > > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > Online Support for Family Tree Maker > Version 16 and earlier > http://pastftm.custhelp.com/ > > Version 2008 - 2011 > http://ftm.custhelp.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email toFTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG -www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3943 - Release Date: 10/07/11 > >

John D -----Original Message----- From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of BJ Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:41 AM To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 2012 People/Family Index How many individuals do you have in the data base? If there are a large number, the program is attempting to build the index for the data base before displaying the index. I would let the program continue to run to see if if finally generates the index. The reason for this is that the index, since 2011, does a two-pass sort, one by alpha and then one by date of birth but I would have expected that that would be done in a matter of minutes John D

Thank you for the reminder about the merge. Again we agree about the lack of quality information in the trees. You are quite right about being able to merge individuals, spouses, parents and children for an individual but that does not lend itself to the wholesale importation of a GEDCOM for an entire file of 2,000 individuals are more. The current merge process offers the user the option f reviewing the information and selecting how it can be or even if it can be added to the data base. BJ On 10/13/2011 9:16 AM, Tony Knight wrote: > You can download faster than single individuals unless things have changed > recently. Merge one person and in the same action you get spouse and > children offered. After a few clicks you can move on to add the > spouse/children of the children. Not as smooth as gedcoms, but they are > generally bloated with sanitised individuals whom you see far more easily > when merging PMTs. >

I don't think anyone is disagreeing about the quality of information for many trees on Ancestry.com and other web sites. The topic being discussed is whether the information can be easily downloaded from current Ancestry.com Public trees. Quality of the information is not something that Ancestry.com can control or govern. The ease of downloading the information has changed and is being addressed because users have complained about their information being downloaded in a wholesale fashion. BJ On 10/13/2011 8:41 AM, Tony Knight wrote: > I have to concur with what Nivard says. > > Not only do you have marriages of people to spouses born a 100 years or more > earlier than them (have a look at Mary Theresa Wherritt daughter of Millard > and Mary for instance) , but you have sources attached which do not relate > to the fact set out, or even record different information. > > Particularly noticeable in my area of interest, are English place names > which have become associated with places in the US and France. And don't > get me started on people who believe the USA is a pre Mayflower and in some > instances pre-Columbian creation. There is a danger PMTs are descending to > the quality level of the IGI >

Earlier trees on Ancestry.com did allow people to download GEDCOMs of the trees. If this were done, the information could be incorporated into anyone's tree. Many "harvesters" did exactly that and never cleaned up the data or even attempted to merge duplicates. I've seen at least one tree which has multiple entries of duplicate families and you wouldn't believe the number of interrelationships one individual could have. I think Ancestry.com is changing this. I know that in recent searches, I have found no way of downloading a public tree from Ancestry.com. Current trees can only be downloaded by the owner. The owner has much more control over the current Ancestry.com trees or AMT's. They can specify whether the tree is to be seen by all subscriber (Public) or only searched (Private). There is also an option to preclude the Private tree from even being searched. Additionally, the user can "invite" select individuals to view or add certain items to the tree by specifying the level of invitee. The choices are Guest - you can view the individuals in the tree and leave comments. The owner has the option to let a "guest" view living individuals or not. The default is NOT. Contributor - can view the individuals, leave comments and Add Stories and photos. Again the owner decides whether the contributor can see living individuals or not. Default is NOT. Editor - can view the individuals, leave comments, Add Stories and photos and Add/Edit people in the tree. By definition the Editor can see living people. All of the options are discussed under the sharing feature on the web site. Just click on the little green circle icon. BJ On 10/13/2011 4:36 AM, Nivard Ovington wrote: > The ones I know of are on Ancestry and nowhere else, some are very recent and multiply by the week > it seems

Caroline, I too am a "selfish person" I guess. I had a similar experience where someone advised me his wife was related to me and asked for some info. Of course i should have asked how she is rtelated to me but i didn't. I then gave hime a lot of my data which ended up published against my wishes. Thankfully my tree was young but now it is older and some of the data has changed and it is a lot larger. I too help when I can and share after knowing connections etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Caroline Gurney" <caroline.gurney@gmail.com> To: <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 2012 People/Family Index Chasgustaf, I resent your insinuation that I am a selfish person who does not share with others. I have been researching for over 26 years, during which time I have freely shared my information and expertise through family history societies, correspondence, email, mailing lists, message boards, blogs and one to one help for people getting started in their genealogy research. Until my health became too poor, I gave lectures to a local family history group and refused all offers of payment. I have never said that I don't want anyone using my information. In the course of this thread I have several times mentioned my website: http://www.carosfamily.com, where I share information freely. I also have a blog where I do the same: http://cmgurney.blogspot.com. The links to those two sites have appeared under my signature on every post. I have already explained that I keep my Ancestry tree private to stop the "name collectors" who are also to be found on other large, popular sites such as Genes Reunited. I have personal experience of people copying data wholesale into completely unrelated trees on Ancestry and ignoring all requests to put things right. I have a cousin who was deeply distressed when her deceased father was linked into an unknown family and a family photograph attached to unrelated people. I have a 20th century teenager in my family who was married off to a woman who died 100 years ago. My tree is private to prevent people doing this with my data. To quote from Ancestry's guidance: "Even if you don't share your tree, other members can still learn if a specific deceased individual is in your tree, in addition to the birth year and birthplace of the person and your username (but no personal information about you). They can then contact you anonymously through the Connection Service on Ancestry.com sites to request more information." I regularly get contacted through the Connection Service and have provided significant help to a number of people, including giving several of them access to my private Ancestry tree. Caroline Gurney http://www.carosfamily.com http://cmgurney.blogspot.com On 13 October 2011 02:12, <Chasgustaf@aol.com> wrote: > Caroline, > > If you have the hint trees off and you don't take information from > them, why do you need to contact anybody? After all, if your information > is > yours and you don't want anyone using your information, why on earth would > you expect people to help you? > > In a message dated 10/12/2011 9:04:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > caroline.gurney@gmail.com writes: > > Good question, John. I don't often look at Ancestry trees. I have > always used FTM with the hints for trees turned off. I don't take > information from them. I do use them as a means to contact, and be > contacted by, people researching the same lines. > > Caroline ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html Online Support for Family Tree Maker Version 16 and earlier http://pastftm.custhelp.com/ Version 2008 - 2011 http://ftm.custhelp.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

:Linda. et al Could there be a downside to removing earlier versions of FTM once FTM 2012 is installed? Tom Herson Ithaca, NY ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda H Gutierrez" <lilacarlhg@amnet.co.cr> To: <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] version 2012 did not install over 2010 > Rick, > > Yes, you can uninstall FTM 2010 from the Control Panel. FTM 2012 will NOT > install "over" FTM 2010 or any other version. > > > Linda > in Costa Rica > Monroe County, New York Genealogy > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~monroenys > Monroe County, New York History > http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~monroenys > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Mayernik > Sent: Thursday, 13 October, 2011 12:18 AM > To: Family Tree Maker > Subject: [FTM-TECH] version 2012 did not install over 2010 > > Can I simply delete version 2010? The "family" files copied to the newer > version. > > Thank you, > > Rick > > > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > Online Support for Family Tree Maker > Version 16 and earlier > http://pastftm.custhelp.com/ > > Version 2008 - 2011 > http://ftm.custhelp.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

> Could there be a downside to removing earlier versions of FTM once FTM > 2012 is installed? As long as one retains the CDs on which the earlier version of FTM was delivered, probably not much downside IF you are using FTM 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011. I use FTM 16 and intend to run it alongside 2012, for the near term. In ALL of these differing versions (I believe) each FTM program would have its own data set. Thus, if one were not careful, one MIGHT try to open a 2010 dataset with 2012, thereby converting the dataset into 2012 format. For folks with modern computers, the price of hard drive storage has fallen dramatically - a 2 TB drive for less than $100 US. Given that, I would suggest retaining the old installed program until one feels assured that 2012 works for you. Why? If you did an online upgrade from the build number that is on the CD you received, you might have some difficulty restoring to that build. An idea might well be to use 7-Zip, or whatever compression program you prefer, and compress the installed program and yet retain it on the hard drive. It would require some minor effort to reuse the older version this way, but might recover a little of the space associated with it. I will run 16 as my primary program, making edits and additions to the .ftw 16 uses. About once a month or once a quarter, I will convert my 16 dataset into 2012 format and use it there. I confess that plan is NOT simple, but it is my intent. Comments or suggestions would be welcomed. John Okerson Memphis, TN

Chasgustaf, I resent your insinuation that I am a selfish person who does not share with others. I have been researching for over 26 years, during which time I have freely shared my information and expertise through family history societies, correspondence, email, mailing lists, message boards, blogs and one to one help for people getting started in their genealogy research. Until my health became too poor, I gave lectures to a local family history group and refused all offers of payment. I have never said that I don't want anyone using my information. In the course of this thread I have several times mentioned my website: http://www.carosfamily.com, where I share information freely. I also have a blog where I do the same: http://cmgurney.blogspot.com. The links to those two sites have appeared under my signature on every post. I have already explained that I keep my Ancestry tree private to stop the "name collectors" who are also to be found on other large, popular sites such as Genes Reunited. I have personal experience of people copying data wholesale into completely unrelated trees on Ancestry and ignoring all requests to put things right. I have a cousin who was deeply distressed when her deceased father was linked into an unknown family and a family photograph attached to unrelated people. I have a 20th century teenager in my family who was married off to a woman who died 100 years ago. My tree is private to prevent people doing this with my data. To quote from Ancestry's guidance: "Even if you don't share your tree, other members can still learn if a specific deceased individual is in your tree, in addition to the birth year and birthplace of the person and your username (but no personal information about you). They can then contact you anonymously through the Connection Service on Ancestry.com sites to request more information." I regularly get contacted through the Connection Service and have provided significant help to a number of people, including giving several of them access to my private Ancestry tree. Caroline Gurney http://www.carosfamily.com http://cmgurney.blogspot.com On 13 October 2011 02:12, <Chasgustaf@aol.com> wrote: > Caroline, > >     If you have the hint trees off and you don't take  information from > them, why do you need to contact anybody? After all, if your  information is > yours and you don't want anyone using your information, why  on earth would > you expect people to help you? > > In a message dated 10/12/2011 9:04:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > caroline.gurney@gmail.com writes: > > Good  question, John. I don't often look at Ancestry trees. I have > always used  FTM with the hints for trees turned off. I don't take > information from  them. I do use them as a means to contact, and be > contacted by, people  researching the same  lines. > > Caroline

many trees were submitted to many different web sites RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project at www.rootsweb.com was one common place where you could allow your total tree to be public and it was common to harvest vast amounts of genealogical data an example is one of my trees Entries: 1354 Updated: Tue Jan 22 13:37:47 2002 Contact: Jim Rader Index | Descendancy | Register | Pedigree | Ahnentafel | Download GEDCOM | Add Post-em that website is now part of the free side of ancestry and is at http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:1877221&id=I3 Jim Rader (916) 366-6833 jim@rader.org www.rader.org 5417 Whitehaven Way Antelope, CA 95843 -----Original Message----- From: Nivard Ovington Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:17 AM To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 2012 People/Family Index Hi Courtney That can't be true given the amount of identical trees that are on Ancestry There are many trees on there with blocks of exact same data some of which have identical errors in that suggest they are copied wholesale I am quite sure they are not typed in but copied in blocks Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Only the owner can download the whole tree. > > But any user can click to "save this person to my tree" > > Courtney ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html Online Support for Family Tree Maker Version 16 and earlier http://pastftm.custhelp.com/ Version 2008 - 2011 http://ftm.custhelp.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Only the owner can download the whole tree. But any user can click to "save this person to my tree" Courtney sitnah@cox.net -------------------------------------------------- From: "Judy in Ocala" <treewright@gmail.com> > Only the owner can download an Ancestry Member Tree. > > Judy in Ocala > > On Oct 12, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Caroline Gurney <caroline.gurney@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> David, >> >> My Ancestry tree is *always* kept private in self defence against the >> morons who hoover up everyone else's data and add it to their totally >> unrelated lines. >> >> I share my data freely on my own website but people have to be >> intelligent enough to use Google to find that and no downloading is >> allowed. >>

Good question, John. I don't often look at Ancestry trees. I have always used FTM with the hints for trees turned off. I don't take information from them. I do use them as a means to contact, and be contacted by, people researching the same lines. Caroline On 13 October 2011 00:05, John Boyd <johnhboyd@earthlink.net> wrote: > Caroline, > > I have ask.  Do you ever look at someone else's tree on Ancestry, and use > the information you find there?  I don't care if you copy it, link it, or > just manually input it to your file on your computer. > > John & Kathleen