Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

private trees

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Kohlehydrat View Post
    this is satire, no?
    I've seen plenty of "serious" trees out there on Ancestry. That's why I've made sure that none of my little shaky leaf hints there come from user submitted trees. Many of the real hints I receive either go ignored or rejected. I actually learned this lesson the hard way once when I got one of those two week trials. I kept wondering why I had so many duplicates and medieval people being born at a Dodge dealership in Alabama.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Kohlehydrat View Post
      why why why, oh why do people put up family trees and then set everything on it to private?!! i can't tell you how many matches i've got where this is the case. i am so utterly sick of it!
      /end of rant

      sorry, just had to vent.
      In all honesty, you probably shouldn't rely on user submitted trees on here much more than you should on Ancestry. I found a Y-111 match here with someone who shares my surname. None of the names were familiar and they lived in a different part of the country. I figured I would start a branch with them on my Ancestry tree and see how far I could get using actual scanned documents and images. I figured they at least knew enough about their parents and grandparents so I included them. I couldn't get any further back than that so I stopped. They actually contacted me through Ancestry and I told them what I had done. Never heard back from them. I didn't tell them why I had stopped so there is no reason they would have been insulted by anything I said.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ewd76 View Post
        I've seen plenty of "serious" trees out there on Ancestry. That's why I've made sure that none of my little shaky leaf hints there come from user submitted trees. Many of the real hints I receive either go ignored or rejected. I actually learned this lesson the hard way once when I got one of those two week trials. I kept wondering why I had so many duplicates and medieval people being born at a Dodge dealership in Alabama.
        *lol*
        sometimes though a shaky hint can make you think and start digging in directions you hadn't considered before. i had two instances where some real shady looking stuff actually lead to a real life paper trail.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ewd76 View Post
          In all honesty, you probably shouldn't rely on user submitted trees on here much more than you should on Ancestry.
          true. but then a blank page and profile just isn't any fun and nothing to go on either. i have been researching my family sind the early 80s when it meant physically going from church parish to church parish or sifting through the archives of the austrian-hungarian empire for years and sitting in libraries (also for years) searching old newspapers for hints. this now is fun and games in comparison. but come on dear matches, at least try to play the game.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by ewd76 View Post
            I've seen plenty of "serious" trees out there on Ancestry. ......
            You're doing better than I am. Every time I see a tree on Ancestry, it's total garbage. Everything references "World Family Tree" or someone else's tree and when you track down the references they all end up at a tree with no documentation. Like paying a game of "Rumors". I started a thread on Ancestry's forums a while back, titled, "Does anyone do real genealogy any more?" The moniker I hung on Ancestry.com is, "Where a whole lot of people go to do really bad genealogy."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by DRNewcomb View Post
              Then I tripped into a discussion on these forums about tracking down sperm donors to sue them for genetic ailments.
              When you really think about it, it would be pretty hard for anyone to sue a sperm donor for a genetic disease. The donor conceived individual would have to prove that the donor knew they were carriers of a bad gene and intentionally omitted this information from their health history at the time of donation. If the donor conceived person wanted to sue the institution that screened the donor and processed the specimen, they would have to prove that the institution did not follow the standard of care at the time. Several decades ago, it was not possible to screen for many illnesses. Even today, screening for many diseases is only done if there is a specific indication. The parents who used the reproductive technology probably signed consent forms that discussed the various risks. I am sure the clinics probably take all the precautions they can to prevent wrongful birth lawsuits.

              We all carry bad genes and are capable of passing them along to our offspring. Many of the genes are recessive so you will never know if you are a carrier unless you test or have an afflicted child who had the misfortune of inheriting copies of the same bad gene from both parents. Examples: Tay-Sachs disease gene carrier rates range from 1/27 in the American Jewish population to 1/250 in the general population. Carrier rate is also increased in French Canadians in the St Lawrence River area, Cajuns in Louisiana, and Irish Americans (1/50). Cystic Fibrosis prevalence: 1/2000-3000 births in EU and 1/3500 births in USA. So you have around 1/50 chance of being a carrier of the CF gene in the USA. Source: World Health Org website.

              There is a much greater risk of DNA test-inflicted family drama with these unexpected results: unknown half-siblings, adoptions, father is not your biological father, unexpected ethnic results. If your family would not be able to handle these situations, best to avoid testing altogether. There is a YouTube video sponsored by Ancestry that discusses unexpected results with DNA testing. It has been watched many times!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Epiphyte View Post
                [----] There is a much greater risk of DNA test-inflicted family drama with these unexpected results: unknown half-siblings, adoptions, father is not your biological father, unexpected ethnic results. If your family would not be able to handle these situations, best to avoid testing altogether. There is a YouTube video sponsored by Ancestry that discusses unexpected results with DNA testing. It has been watched many times!
                And then those conceived with a donor sperm are playing a Russian roulette each time they meet someone. Is she or he their half-sibling? In "ordinary cases of an unknown father", at least time and place were more or less known...


                Mr. W.


                P.S. I agree that the legal documents probably protect the donor companies, but the whole idea that the donor in 2018 knows something about his DNA (many illnesses manifest in later years, but can be managed from an early age) and will not tell his children...

                Somehow the old stories about trying with a neighbour start sounding like a better proposition...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Epiphyte View Post
                  When you really think about it, it would be pretty hard for anyone to sue a sperm donor for a genetic disease. .......
                  I really don't want to invite a repeat of a thread which we both may recall but lets just say it's not worth the risk of just having someone harass and threaten you, or your family, over the issue.
                  There is a much greater risk of DNA test-inflicted family drama with these unexpected results: .....
                  There's also that. I may not be ready to have a warm family reunion with some, previously unknown, half sibling. It may be something I'd prefer to break slowly to the family.

                  I know of one person who was conceived in an orgy and was looking for his father. That's one reunion I'd be reluctant to hang on any of my family; regardless of the current or future legal environment.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DRNewcomb View Post
                    You're doing better than I am. Every time I see a tree on Ancestry, it's total garbage. Everything references "World Family Tree" or someone else's tree and when you track down the references they all end up at a tree with no documentation. Like paying a game of "Rumors". I started a thread on Ancestry's forums a while back, titled, "Does anyone do real genealogy any more?" The moniker I hung on Ancestry.com is, "Where a whole lot of people go to do really bad genealogy."
                    IMO, it's more like "where a whole lot of people go to get free information" from copy & pasted trees, once they are publicly posted, usually with no effort involved in gathering that. The sad part is that most people don't know or care whether whatever they find there is accurate or not. It's often like the blind leading the blind. But Ancestry provides that feature as a venue and they are laughing all the way to the bank, due to its popularity.

                    "If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Carpathian View Post
                      But Ancestry provides that feature as a venue and they are laughing all the way to the bank, due to its popularity.
                      There are some hilarious Ancestry commercial parodies om Youtube.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ewd76 View Post
                        There are some hilarious Ancestry commercial parodies om Youtube.
                        I never saw those before. They are funny.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Kohlehydrat View Post
                          this is satire, no?

                          edited to add: i actually have archduke johann of the imperial house of hapsburg-lorraine on my tree. not a direct relative as he is the husband of the aunt of the husband of my 2nd cousin 3 times removed. *lol*
                          I think most people of Western European descent are descended from Charlemagne. However I'm not sure one can put Norse deities in their tree with any level of certainty...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
                            In some cases I have the feeling that notables, such as politicians, admirals, generals, movie stars, etc., don't want to reveal themselves or their trees.
                            Most of the time I don't think it has anything to do with that. I see so many private trees and I don't think they can all be from well known people (and with my ancestry it would be something of a shock if even a single match was).

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X