GenesReunited

I agree with you in general, Bob, but actually I sometimes take on these as a bit of a challenge, providing their surname is sufficiently unusual to warrant the investigation, or I have other hints (such as shared matches) to point me in the right direction. I have traced several 3rd and 4th cousins this way.

For example, a recent match popped up in my list (fairly high up at 63 cM) who had just himself and his father in his tree. Had he included his mother I'd have recognised the name immediately as one of my ancestral surnames, but all I had to go on were a couple of shared matches. Having failed to find his birth in this country, I was able to work out exactly how he is related to me courtesy of some excellent South African records at FamilySearch. I traced him back to his great-grandfather who had emigrated to South Africa in the late 19th C and who was my great-grandmother's older brother. Having discovered the marriage of said DNA match, I then found his wife's tree, which was full of detail including her husband's ancestors, thus confirming my research.

 

That is the sort of a response I enjoy reading Helen and indeed provides an example of what can be achieved. I mentioned in an earlier posting that I too sometimes react to 'vibes' picked up in another's Tree, or more likely a shared match. I've not had your type of success, but perhaps one such is hiding around the corner. As I also said earlier, nothing is written in stone, and it is good to hear what can be achieved by delving into corners, so to speak. Thanks again.

 

Oh, I love delving into corners! And I've found the records at FamilySearch so important in such delving. I traced another 3rd cousin - a 'No Tree' on Ancestry - via US records there (including the very useful 1940 census!), and although this cousin didn't seem too interested in tracing his family when I contacted him, he did at least confirm the name of his father which fitted nicely with what I'd found.

 

Only you can latch on to a sentence or phrase in one of my postings and stand it on its head and interpret completely different to how intended. It happens often and I may well have to consider Grievance procedures?

I DID NOT suggest that all Trees are "full of garbage". NOR did I imply "all trees connected to DNA results are defective" (by any standard). I used the computer term Garbage in/Garbage out in EXACTLY the same way as when applying to bad computer input resulting in bad output, and it is the same with Tree content. In more simplistic and tongue-in-cheek terms, Trees on Ancestry can be "Good, Bad or Ugly".

A Tree is as good as it is irrespective whether done by a rank amateur or a seasoned researcher. I have and always will encourage effort, and praise Ancestry for encouraging 'new generations' to research their family history. But do stop defending the indefensible and especially stop referring to every other individual who owns an Ancestry Tree as my Cousin. (And spare me the fact that after the 10th or whatever generation, that may well be so).

 

I word things the way I see them and if I write 'the cat sat on the mat' I do not expect criticism because I did not specify the breed of the cat or whether the mat was hessian or woollen.

Yes I avoid such Trees and (as you pointed out yourself) I am entitled to research in the way I want and comment on why I do so.

Now to this I could write an essay, but will suffice to just highlight the many times you rush to defend what to me (and others) seems indefensible, or at least worthy of further debate not just stifled with a rebuttal.
#1 Poor often idiotic transcriptions. #2 (any) criticism of FMP. #3 search algorithms not fit for purpose. #4 website updates that confuse rather than improve and, apropos the previous comment, #5 suspect or inadequate Ancestry Trees. I could go on but you asked me to be precise and so highlight the salient points where criticisms should be aired and not just thrown out because they touch a raw nerve.

Now here you have touched on a personal distaste on the overplay of the word cousin (not perhaps a good thing to air in a Lost Cousins Forum), but given the times I have told someone they are not second cousins, but first cousins once removed and have them challenge same (my own daughter was one such) I have a deal of sympathy for their misunderstanding. Of course a DNA match is, by definition, with a 'cousin' of sorts and just as in a packet of Liquorice Allsorts, I bypass the ones I do not like . What I was really emphasising was that general Ancestry Tree Owners were NOT necessarily cousins nor necessarily anyone appearing in their Trees, so I was not necessarily criticising a cousin.

 

I realised we have veered off the Genes Reunited (GR) topic and was about to unfollow the discussion when I happened to revisit GR to find I had a message awaiting from March 2021. It is quite unlike me not to respond to messages, and can only think that as a non-subscriber to Genes that I was no longer entitled to email reminders. I was pacified a little when I realised that the message was a follow on from a topic I had answered way back, and just missed out on a supplementary question raised and which to this day remains unanswered but I intend to put that to rights.

Surprisingly the Tree showing under 'My Tree' is ultra basic of which I have no memory. The last time I viewed the Tree on GR it was a full Gedcom import and I intend that it should again be so. I am a Registered Member (rather than a Subscriber) so whether this will be allowed I am about to find out. But meanwhile I have apologised to the Messenger, explained the situation, and promised to respond forthwith - albeit nearly a year after the question was raised.

Edit: Silly me I had forgotten the format of a GR Tree and that it only showed Immediate family and one clicked on tabs to Ancestors, Descendants and of course Full. However it has accepted a new Gedcom and so is currently up to date but doubt it will generate anything new -but you never know.

 

I have subscribed to GR for years, and in the early days made a lot of contacts through the site - some of whom I have stayed in touch with, or reconnected via Ancestry or Lost Cousins. Although I haven't had any new matches for ages, about a year ago I received an email to say I had a new message. It turned out it wasn't from a relative, but from a woman whose hobby was collecting memorial ribbon bookmarks and then trying to find living relatives of the people commemorated. She contacted me to see if two such ribbons for people with my surname were relatives of mine. They were indeed and she sent me scans of these, which I really appreciated. At less than £9 a year I feel it is worth keeping up the subscription, though I haven't updated my tree there in ages.

 

Hello Helen, I thought GR was nearer £20 now, but your story about the bookmarks is lovely. I was once contacted via Ancestry by someone who had bought a great great aunt's birthday book as part of a job lot! I appreciated that she had sought me out as it added detail to my tree. Every little helps. Distant cousins are useful if you want to go back but I need closer relations to give me details of the ones I know about.

 

I renewed my subscription in November 2021 and it was £8.96 for a 12 month Standard membership. Looking back through my records, in 2008 it was £9.95 then went down to £7.96 for a few years before going to £8.96 in 2014 where it has been ever since.

 

As it happens I checked only yesterday with a thought I might consider a new subscription (I doubt I will but that's another matter) and the current Standard annual one is £20.04 so Kate is right. The Platinum subscription (includes the 1911 Census) is -wait for it - £80.04. The odd pennies come about because they relate it to a monthly amount (x 12) even though one payment will be taken at commencement of the subscription. Of course in both instances they offer a 6 month and a 1 month plan at increased monthly rates.

I have no recall or records to check what I paid previously, but in my minds eye GR was always around £10 and I just renewed; until the day I decided not to of course.

 

So does this mean I'm getting a discount as a continuing subscriber? I'm certainly only paying £8.96 a year, as I have for the past 7 years as I said. My recent auto renewal initially failed as I'd changed my credit card and I had to supply the new details to renew manually, but it was still the same price. Obviously Standard membership doesn't provide access to any records, though I get email alerts and can contact other members, ask to view their trees and use the message boards (which has been useful to view my previous messages). I certainly wouldn't consider paying £80 a year, as I get all the records (and more) via my Ancestry sub for less than that (including the perennial 50% discount of course).

 

I suppose that must be the answer Helen and the only way to test that is for someone else who is also a continuing subscriber to confirm their renewal is the same (hopefully) as yours. Probably explains why I always thought GR subscription was around a tenner by renewing each time.

 

So the opposite of the policy adopted by Ancestry - and, for that matter, insurers and energy companies. Good to see loyalty rewarded for a change (I know FMP do too).