Lost Cousins Referrals

I have come across some strange anomalies - e.g. a match on the children in the household (as blood relatives) but not a match on the parents. And both the husband and wife being blood relatives (but not direct ancestors) but none of the children. You can't add them yourself to your cousin's records (I asked Peter this some weeks ago) so I think the only thing to do is start a dialogue and encourage your cousin to make the additions. I could perhaps add 'or corrections' as I think Peter is right that people are not necessarily entering direct ancestors as such. Perhaps that little dropdown table that gives you the Ahnentafel number scares them off? (I love it, myself)

 

NEW ONE!

I sent a referral to a cousin (date 6 Jan this year) and I have just had a notification that someone wants to make contact with me. When I checked it out, I find it is 'Cousin Pat' who has NOT followed up my referral but joined independently. She appears under 'new contacts' but showing we have no relatives in common Can I email her (I have her address) and tel her to unregister and follow up my referral? There are actually only 7 or so relatives that I had flagged up for her, so it is not a major issue, but it seems a bit ironic given our recent discussions......

 

It definitely seems that we need to be able to add 'referral' matches after a non-referral joining.
Peter, please can you revisit this, especially where the new joiner has not yet added any LC Ancestors?

Alternatively, we would just have to email a copy of the new report from FTA which is soon to be available.

 

It does look, Bryman, as if adding references to someone else's record is pretty complex. At present, I am just wondering if my cousin can un-enroll and come back in via a different route (that of accepting my referral) I know a lot of sites recognise you when you come back in (to the extent that a new user can scarcely log in to the same site, if using the same computer) but LC is surely much more user-friendly. As I say, it would only be saving her half a dozen references, but it is still something to know.

 

I was unsure whether to pose this question here or on Red Dragon's running statistics thread as it would affect the interpretation of Match figures greatly. Would there be any way of distinguishing the matches from successful referrals from those produced by 'new business'?

 

Interesting one. I think some weeks back someone reported a notification of a huge number of new matches, which proved to be a referral coming through. BUT this number (which was quite significant) did not seem to be reflected in Red Dragon's statistics. It looked then as if these sort of matches,although reported to the individual concerned, did not make it to the statistics. However, the point was never fully explained at the time, so I am not sure.

 

So..it might be that the new matches that show up on Red Dragon's reports are solely when Person A makes a new entry into LC, and person B already has it entered. If B has 'given' the ref to A via referral then it will not show up on the statistics. In which case, no way to compare the figures as Alanmack suggested. It might have been a nice side benefit, but probably not worth agonising over.

 

You know how many matches for you, (and I do for me) But I think the original question from Alanmack was relating to the whole of LC, which we would only get by people reporting individual successful referrals.
And I agree that the really significant figure relates to the 'surprise' matches*. This making of new contacts is rather what LC is in existence for, isn't it?

(*These MIGHT be to people we are already in contact with, unless we started off our relationship by telling each other all our census entries - and told them every time we added someone new. One of my contacts is someone who, like me, has a lot of the 1881 population of Sheringham entered. We have agreed that we are only distantly connected by marriage, but once in a while I add a new household and get several new matches with her. I suspect we are actually connected by marriage several times over)

 

and

It is to be hoped that this is the way it operates. Otherwise the results would be heavily skewed by the referrals. If it were an advertising matter the A.S.A. would be on your tail sharpish.

 

About the advertising, that was understood. My poor choice of words perhaps but I did use the phrase "if it were . . ." first.

I wonder if Red could outline how he compiles the figures for us? Might clear up some of the questions.

 

I think then, Tim, that we are in need of a 'tongue-in-cheek' smiley

Any volunteer artists?