View Full Version : GR & living relatives
I've had a horrible experience, discovering I appear on someone's tree on GR under my birth name, as does a half sister, biological parents and so on. I haven't got a sub but do look in from time to time and have sent GR a message asking them to remove the people as the tree owner doesn't have permission. Does anyone know if GR do this and if they act quickly? - I'm assuming the site's policy is still the same.
It's particularly mortifying for me because I know how the info got there. Some years ago, I shared a tree with a researcher with whom I share a 5x great grandfather of a rare surname. She was very helpful and gave me access to her Tribal pages tree but I discovered she'd added all of us to that tree. All of the living people were hidden on my tree on GR but she'd used the GRO indices to work out who was who. When I complained she removed access and herself from GR but she's clearly kept the info and continues to share it
When that sort of thing happened to me, I seem to remember that there was a bit of discussion between me and GR before they finally removed the information. The person concerned was not myself but an adopted relative who I know did not give permission. I think if it is you that is to be removed, and you clearly say that to GR, then they should do it quickly.
Thanks Chris. I'm waiting for a reply. Why anyone would want to include such distant living relatives on their tree I can't imagine
I know, name collectors drive me spare!
In my case I shared some information with a contact who was doing an unofficial one name study and had given me a lot of information on the family before my branch headed off to New Zealand. I thought it only fair to share the NZ information, only to then find it all on someone elses tree on GR.
As I know I was the source, I was mortified to see it all there. From memory in the end I sent GR a list of all of the living people and they removed them all, not just the adopted one.
I am now very careful what information I share when it is not my direct line, nothing of living people and generally only a generation sideways from the confirmed link person.
Olde Crone
24-03-14, 17:22
I think GR will quickly remove you, Asa, as they will be scared you'll sue them, lol. However, do keep an eye open because it isn't unknown for the offender to put you back on their tree once the heat has died down.
Why? Who knows? Maybe to show the world what a clever researcher they are.
OC
If you are part of the tree I don't consider that name collecting. Or maybe I am a name collector. I love following down a branch or twig to as far as I can go.
The difference between me and the person on GR is that I would not have included you or anyone living online. I get rather upset seeing my grandparents online and they have been dead over 20years.
Thanks Chris and OC - I hope you're right. Chris, I really do feel mortified for the same reason, even though I had my living relatives hidden. Since that happened, I removed my tree from GR and only have private ones on Ancestry now.
Kit, the surname this researcher and I had in common was a rare one and I think all those of the name in the GRO are connected so I think I have a tree with them all on paper - more like a one name study I suppose. Generally, I'm not interested in sixth cousins and so on and like you, I wouldn't put living people on. I usually don't record C20th stuff on distant relations. The rather sad thing is, I initially thought my half-sister had 'turned up'.
That would have been disappointing about your half sister. Don't give up, she may appear at some stage.
Sometimes the more distant relations can be quite interesting with the things they do. But I feel that they are still family of some sort, and I like to have them remembered. I have also found it interesting how extended family can intermarry in a period of time. They might have been distant relations but clearly some family still keep up those relationships.
Also I have found that sometimes a very distant connection can help you sort out a family. I worked closely with a man who I was not related to at all. We came from different sides of a family but both wanted to work out our mutual relatives.
Everyone is different though and I have no problem with you not being interested in distant cousins.
Just checked and best mate is in SIX times. Four trees are patently generated by ex husband but I don't recognise the other two names.
Mercifully only one of her grandchildren appears online, but again I don't recognise all the tree owners.
There is no way GR should ever allow children's names to appear.
I agree, children should never be allowed.
anne fraser
26-03-14, 12:41
I once shared a tribal pages tree with a very distant relative only to find that all my family photos had been copied to a public ancestry tree. I don't mind photos of gravestones and the like which I think are public property but I think wedding photos should be private. By the time I had spotted it the photos had been copied to several other trees and it was too late to do anything.
I have distant ancestors who were Cliffords and the Clifford association avidly collects descendants. It is run by the present Lord Clifford. I am not sure how I feel about this. I suppose if one was entitled to be in Burke's peerage or something one would be honoured. It seems a bit petty not to be on the family tree, indeed I found I was on it before I started doing my own research but I don't want to add thousands of names myself.
Thank you, Asa, for motivating me to look at GR - where I found my name was in four people's trees! I have asked GR to remove me from those people's trees.
They say they've acted but names still appear so am waiting to hear how long they will still be there for :/
Asa, do you think the old data might be resident on your computer? If your browser is pulling in a cached copy, you might need to clear your browser cache and then access the page again.
Thanks Janet but I've accessed search after deleting cookies and also from my iphone - names still there :(
Sorry that didn't help, Asa. My only other doubt then would be whether you've been granted any special access to that tree. I was horrified to find myself and living cousins on another cousin's tree until I realized that I was only seeing the living ones because I had been made a contributor. If I logged out and looked again, the living ones weren't visible. (That, of course, begs the question of how many others unknown to me have been made contributors to the same tree and can see all my data just as well as I can. :()
I've given up trying to keep my name off GR. Between me, OH and my children we have about 50 GR entries and appear in various other online trees. I'm also bothered by all the people who have the wrong birth father for OH despite many requests to correct or delete us altogether.
It's really horrible, Merry. I've contacted Tribal Pages in the hope of getting the info off the tree on there . We'll see.
Janet, I don't have a tree on GR :) I only came across the names looking to see if my half sister had registered since I last looked. I know exactly where the info has come from because of what info is there.
I am on GR because I gave the info to someone I assumed a close relation. (They weren't)
GR did delete the info, but when the individual uploads the tree again , back comes all the info. It now seems easier to dripfeed a little counter information, just to muddy the waters.
I appear to be on 4 trees on GR, (had difficulty logging in as I haven't use the site for years) 3 of them have an incorrect birthplace which I know came from a tree put on by a young relative without my permission, the fourth is correct but as I'm no longer a member I can't contact the tree owner.
I've just emailed GR asking to be removed from this person's tree.
This thread prompted me to go and look at GR again and check what I put there.
I am in 9 other trees, I know who 7 of them are, and I think I am just a spouse on some.
I thought I would then see if anyone is now researching some of the more unusual names in my tree - and turned up very few extra members who I did not already know.
Just had an email letting me know I have been removed from the tree of the complete stranger in which I feature and they have reminded him of the T&Cs.
That's good, Jill. I keep getting told they can't find them in the tree but I'm still in the index so we'll see what happens
It's quite a few years since I've paid my GR sub, so I've not looked at other peoples trees for a long time, but didn't they introduce a system whereby if you had living people in your tree you could privatise their entries so that if you gave another member access to your tree they wouldn't see those names, however, if you did a search for the name through the Search All Member Trees the name would still appear in the index?
They couldn't be dumb enough to be looking for privatised tree entries, could they??
Olde Crone
02-04-14, 19:21
Merry's right, living people can be hidden, but they remain in the index! I must say, I thought they had closed that loophole years ago. Apparently not.
OC
Can you prove they haven't closed the loophole, OC? I can't because I can't look at trees and then compare them with the index, as I don't pay a sub.
If I am looking for a connection, I search for two to three known or suspected names with the same tree owner. Rarely bother to ask to see the tree, just go off and do a bit more research.
And on Ancestry, two individuals may be greyed out, but if parents' surnames are given it is hardly rocket science to find the marriage.
Can you prove they haven't closed the loophole, OC? I can't because I can't look at trees and then compare them with the index, as I don't pay a sub.
We would have to do some serious playing to work that out as you'd have to know that an individual was privatised. Last time I looked, my rogue contact had living person details visible on his tree.
No, it was easy!
OH is watching some rubbish called The Tomorrow People on TV, so as he's not answering my Qs at the moment (or listening to what I'm asking :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:), I hacked into his GR account (:D) and looked at the trees he has access to. I found one belonging to one of his distant cousins. OH wasn't on it at all, but on his line his mother is there, but her box says "Hidden H Hidden" for the name (as she would have been alive when the tree was uploaded). I then went to 'Search All Member Trees' and did a search for OH's mother and one of the results was the tree of this cousin with Yes recorded for OH already being in contact, and the same membership number, so it's definitely the same tree.
That would be typical wouldn't it! It would explain why they keep telling me they can't find them in the tree. Thank you for this suggestion, I'll contact them *again*
Hopefully the loophole will get closed now.
Olde Crone
04-04-14, 08:53
Not very likely Kit - been that way for many years.
OC
Asa, how awful!
When I was more naive I was only too thrilled to exchange information with people researching the same people as me. Then I found out that one person had just wholesale lifted a lot of my descendants from our common ancestor but incorrectly assumed they'd all been born in the same place as the common ancestor.
I found this out when she'd passed this on to another person who put it on her webpage. When I emailed the webpage person I got my email sent back as undeliverable, so the error is in the public domain. But after being worked up about it, I thought any decent researcher will check the facts. I'm much more cautious now when contacted by people who think we're connected.
But your situation is much more personal and I do hope it can be resolved satisfactorily.
Thanks Nell - I shall send them a stern email tomorrow as it's not been resolved. We were mostly a bit naive to start with weren't we. I'm a bit too much the other way now alas.
Has it been resolved now, Asa?
I, too, was naive initially with sharing research information.
It took about three weeks for my name to be removed from others' trees.
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.