General Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

Electoral Rolls

Looking for living relatives?

Search our UK Electoral Rolls (2002-2013) and find your living relatives today.

Search Electoral Rolls

New electoral roll records


  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Please have a read

Page 0 + 1 of 4

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date


supercrutch Report 16 Dec 2012 17:22

I know this is a duplicate posting but people may not go onto suggestion.

I have just thought of this.

Leave the RR button but if someone wants to RR a post they will have to state their reason posted on the thread using a simple adjustment in the coding.

So: you press RR and a reply box comes up which will be posted on the thread. You can then say "I found that to contravene the T & Cs because ????" or "the post compromised my security" or "that statement is untrue".

Maybe that would stop vindictive RRs because their name would appear in the reply box.

Please put me right if you think the idea is unworkable for whatever reason.


AnninGlos Report 16 Dec 2012 17:25

Sounds like a good idea Sue but I can't see GR going for it because they seem to always want to protect the person who RRs.


Muffyxx Report 16 Dec 2012 17:28

I still think we'd be none the wiser as they'd just use another free account with a made up name.

They HAVE to stop non payers being able to RR..nothing will change til that happens.

appears GR thinks we're ok to moderate on their behalf when it suits...but not in the case of being able to suss a breach of privacy or info....daft !!!


supercrutch Report 16 Dec 2012 17:31

We are in a catch 22 here and who is suffering? Certainly not the vindictive RRers.

There must be a solution, you are all intelligent people sling in your suggestions.

Rambling Rose

Rambling Rose Report 16 Dec 2012 17:32

I agree that non payers should not be able to 'report' via the boards, a message to 'abuse' is more than adequate if someone who is no longer a paying member sees their name mentioned unpleasantly or as a breach of privacy.


Guinevere Report 16 Dec 2012 17:32

I agree with Muffy, while non-payers can RR there's no point in any changes.

I don't think a name should appear anyway, people should be able to report genuine cases of abuse anonymously, without fear of becoming the target of the person posting abuse in the first place.

GR could easily deal with those who report frivolously but choose not to.


~`*`Jude`*`~ Report 16 Dec 2012 17:33

Good idea Sue, but l agree with Muffy and AnnG


~Lynda~ Report 16 Dec 2012 17:34

I think a much better idea is to pay me a large fee, say £50,000 p.a to moderate the boards.

I would then tell people in no uncertain terms either to do one, or say I agree with them and remove that post. I would be able to ban any member on the spot.

There would be no fannying about I'd tell them straight.

Can't be fairer than that can I?

Please pm GR to tell them what a good idea this would be, and I will make sure your safe ;-)


supercrutch Report 16 Dec 2012 17:35

Exactly, they don't. I had one hell of a fight before after being told I would be banned because I had so many RRs against me. Then GR assured me they knew what was going on and I would not be banned even if the RRer continued their campaign.


aivlyS Report 16 Dec 2012 17:40

Well I still think the only answer is to remove a members right to RR , we need to go back to how it used to be .. contact GR and they decide if it goes or stays .


Guinevere Report 16 Dec 2012 17:46

In the old days GR could take hours to respond and in the meantime the most awful stuff was on the boards for anyone to read - that's why the RR button was introduced.

It wouldn't be a problem if GR responded promptly and threads falsely RR'd reinstated but they don't. I'd rather this way, though, than see the return of awful abuse that lingers for hours.


supercrutch Report 16 Dec 2012 17:47

Thanks for replies, please keep adding.

I have a damn headache now...lolol back later :-)

Rambling Rose

Rambling Rose Report 16 Dec 2012 17:49

That was why it was changed in the first place ( and I think the majority of members welcomed the change) because 'abuse' took too long to remove posts...some filth ( and no other word will do) stayed up for days.

If GR can't guarantee almost immediate removal of posts reported for genuine reasons then what's the alternative? a 'free for all', and none of us would really want that I think?

Rambling Rose

Rambling Rose Report 16 Dec 2012 17:49

oops lol what Gwynne said :-D


~Lynda~ Report 16 Dec 2012 17:52

So my idea doesn't appeal then ?



Kay???? Report 16 Dec 2012 17:54

The way the RRs are going GR will do away with the chat board,,

but it does make you feel that little beady eyes are watching though slits in a black fur face mask. ;-)


maggiewinchester Report 16 Dec 2012 18:08

If non-paying members can't post, why should they have the right to RR a thread?

For the particularly vindictive, it must be wonderful to have the power to get a paying member banned.

 Sue In Yorkshire.

Sue In Yorkshire. Report 16 Dec 2012 18:49

I still think the RR should go as we are NOT Moderators and we don't get paid for it like the staff at GR do.

And if GR staff can keep a checklist of the names of the people who do the RRing then it should be 3x every 3 months that a person is allowed to RR a thread OR post.If more than 3x then they should get a WARNING.
3 warnings and they get a ban for 3 months.

Any more than 3 x RR every 3 months then no warning out straight away.


RolloTheRed Report 16 Dec 2012 18:51

The chat boards are subject to Section 5 of the Public Order Act which makes it a criminal offense to post anything abusive, threatening or even just plain insulting. woof woof. An amendment to decriminalise "insulting" was passed last week by the Lords. Although the DPP approves Dave C is not keen as he believes it should be a criminal offense to insult policemen.

In order to remove themselves from possible prosecution under Section 5 then web sites with chat boards have two options. (a) full time monitoring - expensive or (b) user monitoring with treatment of referred posts fairly quickly. Most boards leave "referred" posts up until they can be reviewed but some, inc. GRU, remove them pending review which is legally much safer.

Quite a few people have got into hot water after posts alleged to breach section 5 on Facebook, Twitter and other leading web sites. GRU is way down the list and thus a safer hole to hide in for trolls and such.

Of course none of this applies in the USA where free speech is part of the constitution. That is a very long way from the UK situation.


UzziWithTears Report 16 Dec 2012 18:56

Could be amusing

Non members didn´t used to be able to RR so why are they now ? if they object to a post then either join or contact GR.