Genealogy Chat

Yes she said she used it because of the London marriages and baptisms which are on there but not on GR

I agree with her because thats where all of my ancestors come from and I would rather search my own info rather than have someone else do it for me.

GB said something about not using GR records in preference to A because of certain docs only being available there.

Bit bold as brass I must say and a bit of a deterrent to some who are just starting out or can't afford to pay for several sites.

I would rather keep within the rules :-D :-D :-D

Gone and I never got to read it :-(

Well that did not surprise me that GB's post was rr'd :-D

Wonder who did that then?????

Not that there was anything wrong with it of course

Following on from RamblingRose - I sometimes post links to other sites (not necessarily genealogical sites but with related information) which I think might hold information useful to the OP - most of those links indicate the name of wherever I have located the potential information/information source. Without it how can a member follow up a suggestion?

As I see it no one site/source has the monopoly on all records for family history / genealogical research, so obviously access to as many sources ( and the assistance of helpers on here) is a benefit - to searchers and GR - if an embargo were placed on mentioning other sites then surely that would include ALL sites/sources - which could be 'interpreted' as "business, competitor or other"?

That having been said - I will now be careful what I post - and where, as I would not want to infringe Ts&Cs or offend anyone!

J-A

Quoting Estelle

"It is fine to mention other sites with regards to look-ups, especially if you have found something on there that could help someone.
What we don't accept is the following:
1). People asking questions about Ancestry (or other sites) - how much it costs, and that type of question.
2). Derogatory comments about our site in comparison to other family history sites. "

Yes it would be possible to post results found without mentioning that they were found on Ancestry, or elsewhere...but hardly a help to those who might benefit from knowing where those records ARE held, that they can then access for themselves.

Until and unless GR hold ALL available records, they WILL have to compete...and they will do that, surely, by making sure their own service is excellent, not by avoiding mention of any competitor. :-D

That's not quite true Astra. A year or so ago someone reported many posts that mentioned Ancestry on a particular weekend. That caused considerable upset.

Estelle then said that it was OK to mention Ancestry as long as it wasn't done to compare it wirh Genes.

It is more likely that the thread was reported because it asked for a look up on this board, which is what they ask you not to do (in the stickied thread "PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING").

NanaSue,

Today's main issue was the fact the GlitterBaby was accused of being part of
the board police

Also one of the posts by Jax on the same thread was reported for no reason
at all.

I made mention of the post by Paul for the Ancestry lookup which was there this morning and I have noticed tonight that it has been reported.

NanaSue
There have been many hundred requests on these boards asking for Ancestry look-ups and none of them have ever been reported or deleted so I don't think that is the issue.

Complaints about the board police have come up again

Don't you think the problem is the public promotion of Ancestry by name or request of search from Ancestry that is the issue. It is another commercial company and a competitor. GR does have it's own set of records which are OK if one uses them but there are other sites with different set of records.

I can't see the problem if helpers find stuff on any other site without naming the source of the info. :-| :-| :-|