GenesReunited

I've had a tree on GenesReunited since 2009; but I've had only one or two messages there the last few years. Frankly, I've not seen a 'Hot Match' or other update from them since 2016. I've not been visiting the site very often the last couple of year, even though I've had a subscription.

Is GenesReunited is simply well past its prime?

 

Co-incidentally I started my family research using Genes (probably around 2007) but when I discovered Ancestry and saw a far superior site where I could actually see other family trees I was hooked, cancelled my Genes account and have never looked back.

 

Likewise I started my tree on Genes Reunited around 2002 - they changed the tree format one day and made the typeface that small I couldn't read it! and hence my tree transferred to Ancestry about 2008, (having been an Ancestry member/user since 2003). I note that Genes is now owned by findmypast.

 

Hello, I expect it depends on who you are looking for and whether your cousins are looking at the same time! I had a number of useful contacts on GR years ago, probably more than I have had on LC. Some of my LC contacts were not new, some don't reply despite being chased up by Peter and a few don't know anymore than I do and don't seem that interested. I plan to have another go at GR next year however it could well be past its prime. I imagine there comes a point where you have found all your cousins, bearing in mind that not everyone is researching their tree anyway. Now I shall go and check my Lost Cousins account just in case!

 

And I thought that it was only my father's family!

 

You are correct but I think that most people would only consider that group to include 1st-4th cousins, or there abouts. Before I started researching, I knew my 1st cousins and some of my 2nd cousins and did not consider myself related to anyone more distant than that. Now I have communicated with relatives as distant as 8th cousin but not yet met with them. Some people are not interested in reaching out that far.

 

Yes I fit nicely in the category of not being greatly (emphasis greatly) interested in cousins beyond 4th and mostly (again emphasis mostly) ignore the never-ending list of 5-8th cousins as precious few ever lead anywhere. The two emphasises relate to 'cousins' outside those parameters with good or reasonable good Public Trees which may tempt me to explore further. I give 'cold-shoulder' to the 'no-trees' and 'half-a-dozen-Tree brigade, and it takes a seemingly impressive Private Tree to tempt me to make contact.

Circumstances alter cases at all times, so nothing I say is written in stone so if something attracts attention on first interrogation, that will override any natural reluctance and I will explore further. There are of course the ubiquitous 'brick walls' but I have yet to find any being resolved via the DNA route although I can see why this could happen, at least as a trigger to a change of direction with conventional research.

Yes and I fit into this category also but not in a 'bloody-minded' kind of way, just that I place emphasis on 4th and better relationships, and consider that more than enough work - and still with gaps - on which to concentrate my attention. In other words I concentrate on the planets before exploring the solar system.

 

Peter, your posting provides much sound advice, if one is determined to break down distant brick walls, but not everybody shares your desire to the same extent as you. As you have mentioned previously, we (having mainly UK based ancestors) are probably 10th or 11th cousins of almost the entire current UK population with similar UK based ancestors. For many, that does not make distant relatives sufficiently special, resulting in some loss of interest.

I share some of that attitude although I do appreciate the help that distant relatives can provide. One particular example is of another LC member with whom I was matched many years ago. At first there seemed to be little of interest linking us, until I recognised one surname being similar to a butcher that I had been a customer of on the south coast of England. Further correspondence unravelled a common ancestor whose family lived next to a country pub that my wife and I had often visited with friends at weekends. Eventually, we were able to determine that I was the 7th cousin of that other LC member.

 

That is pure pedantry Peter and whilst I know it is your hallmark, to me the term 'better' (using my synonym finder) has umpteen meanings from: (adjective) superior, greater, healthier, stronger and more along the same lines to verb: surpass, exceed, excel, eclipse et al - OR -as intended and meant - 3 is better (closer) than 4, and 3 better (closer) than 2 and so on. So no bias purely my interpretation over yours.

Of the remainder of your posting I would just say it is not my scene, but do not disagree with what you say and others may well agree or disagree.

 

Don't write them off too quickly Bob. I have had several DNA matches that later added trees or extended some branches after they had appreciated how that could help.

 

I seem to recall one, perhaps two, who I have been tempted to message and who have elaborated on what was originally a mere token Tree, but in the main unless I sense something 'hidden' in what is showing , then I leave them be. Perhaps wrong of me, but time may no longer be money to me, but it is precious and I have too many other irons in the fire (and I speak genealogically) to warrant speculating on what might be.

 

Yes, that adequately sums up (one of) our differences. It is not my AIM to go back as far as I can but if it happens and there are no gaps in the same lines still incomplete, then I am quite satisfied. I consider 4th Grandparent levels top drawer and I strive to achieve this level of research, beyond is almost in the luck of the draw, but of course they can and do happen.

And that sums up another difference, to me familial cousin relationships are everything (and whilst that of course applies to 1st cousins I exclude them as -all bar one at any rate - are well known to me) but I most enjoy making contact with 'n' x removed cousins , children of cousins known to me or my parents , usually confined to Ancestry Messaging, Skype or email.

I have not long learned of the death of a 2nd cousin living in Italy (who remembered my father as a boy) passed on to me by her daughter (2nd cousin once removed) who wishes to maintain contact via Whats App. My living 93 year old 1st cousin once removed, has cousins of her own, some of these make contact, even if only to keep me informed of their cousin who does not have the internet. I have made many remote cousin contacts over time, some extant, some redundant, and some I am sure yet to come.

 

I built and submitted my direct-ancestors-only tree on Ancestry while I was waiting for my results to be published. It appears that some submitters only think of making a tree available after the results become available (and without any prodding from me). It would help enormously if ALL testers had a publicly linked tree even if that contained only a few recent individuals, because other matching trees may contain many more entries.

 

I accept that matching Trees may well contain more entries, but I dislike the 'token' Trees - I call them the 'Ma-Pa & myself' Trees which are simply not fit for purpose. Take the two Trees I submitted on behalf of my adoptive cousin and his wife after they said they were interested in taking a DNA test. They too were PUBLIC Direct-Ancestor Trees, plus -after consultation - included some inter-marriage connections that were important to them. I was most pleased with the response after test results were received, as were they and his wife communicates with at least two important contacts in her Tree which I passed on to her and my adoptive cousin's Tree resolved a family uncertainty for him.

My own Tree, and those of my wife and daughter are full Public Trees, although my daughter's was truncated with a bias to reflective her mother (my first wife's) line. All have been successful in one way or another and have since kept me fully occupied. Always of course, avoiding 'Ma-and-Pa' and 'No Tree' and limited interest in Private Trees. In short I think DNA Trees follow the old computer concept of 'garbage in = garbage out'.