Suggestions

Hm, I didn't notice whether there was one in the two posts I'm thinking of; slow to catch up to newfangled things, me.

If there is no name dont you just click on the purple send message thingy?

jax

Heh, I have a post on this very board asking about no-name posters!

Is it the poster's first post? I'm wondering whether there is one of those famous glitches that causes that, because that's where I first noticed it happening.

I think the one I actually reported was because it was on Living Relatives -- simply because with no username, there was no way at all for anyone to reply!

No, because they weren't deleted, so they didn't email me to tell me why they didn't delete my posts. ;)

I haven't had any posts deleted since "the change" (I know! amazing!), so I don't know what post-deletion emails to the person whose post is deleted do say. I'd doubt they name the alerter!

They did, however, take the opportunity, in replying to my email about another privacy-violation issue (claiming that the links to 5 posts on Living Relatives that I gave them were dead, which they are most definitely not -- just unbelievable ...), to chide me about something entirely unrelated.

The thread the chiding related to, interestingly, contained a post from a very low-post-count user whom I had not previously encountered, stating that she had been "led to believe" certain things about me. Huh, quelle coincidence. No vendettas around here, folks ...

So you did not get an email from GR telling you who reported your post and why then?

jax

Well, just noting that the first three posts in the thread, which had all been reported, have now been restored.

And nobody has acknowledged responsibility for the reports.

How odd.


No vendettas around here, folks; nope, nothing to see, move along.

Night Joy :-)

Ice Ice Baby, most sites suggest not showing your own or someone else's full date of birth so that it can't be used for identity fraud.

Janey, I do agree that the reference number or link is needed, I just looked back at an email I received from support having rr'd a post on LR myself last month, it just gives the full name of the poster...something I certainly did not need to be told in any case.

Claire, would you remove my surname, please? Thanks.

Goodnight, all.

But -- the point of *this* thread is still:



Please include the REFERENCE NUMBER when replying to a request for a review of a post, GenesReunited.


Not the full name of the poster whose post is removed, when that is the case.
(That is what I have received in such replies, to date.)

Not nothing at all, when the post is reinstated.



The REFERENCE NUMBER of the review request

or

a LINK to the post in question.



PLEASE.

Exactly, Rambling Rose! ;)

Have I mentioned how for some time my tree here at GR contained my father's second wife, "stupid mistake", mother of his four children ...

Eventually, I deleted my tree from the ground up and started over. :D


But exactly.

>> No one has to say that the person they are looking for is the father who abandoned their mother, or the mother who abandoned them at birth, or the neighbour man who had an affair with their mother while their father was off at war.

If anybody *does* drop by and recognize the person they're looking for, it is in fact highly unlikely that they're even going to know the person ever had a child! so it's hardly a value added, for the search, to throw all the laundry into the post anyway.

And if a post here at GR is the way they learn that, not only is that hugely unfair on them, it might just make it less likely they'd reply to the post anyway.

What should not be put in a public board such as this, for all the world to see, is an exact date of birth, such as can be seen in the title of one such thread in the find living relatives board right now that was reported for review over two hours ago.

Ice Ice baby well to me it is largely down to common sense , if I were, for example, looking for my dad, I might say 'looking for " eddie Murrell *** , born 1920s, Kent, builder. last known to be living in Lancs'.... which gives enough info for someone to help by PM or for him, or family to recognise him...I don't need to put that I'm looking for my 'father' or any really personal details on the board.

NOT ' looking for my dad *** *** born 3/13/24 who deserted my mother and ran off with a trollop, with whom he had the following children *** born 14/12/1957 etc he was last known to be living with his grandchild Louisa born 14/12/89 at 83, solomon kings close, milton on the water.'

None of that is accurate by the way lol.

Ice~Ice~Baby

Re looking for living relations


I think people have to realise that the Find Living Relations board is not a secure board, it is just the same as the rest of GR


anything you post on there is likely to appear on the intenet within a very short period of time.

Every bit of advice on GR has always been do NOT post information on living people that could lead to their identification

It is not fair on them ........ and it is also against laws such as the Data Protection Act


especially as you do not have the permission of someone that you are looking for!

If you could ask for their permission, then you wouldn't be looking for them would you?


Replies to requests on Find Living Relatives are by pm only ...... so it is possible to put a very guarded request on there, and then supply details to requests by pm



I doubt very much that anyone will find a living relation just by said relation passing by and seeing the post



Most help is being given by the usual helpers on GR, only they are now unable to see what others have found, and there is no baility ofr 2 or more popel to work together to ferret out things.




sylvia

I cannot believe that those posts were requested for review


although TF's comment about putting your head above the parapet may have some validity ...... with some people!



sylvia

I had one reported for just saying " Another thread on chat" and giving the link

What category does that fall into I wonder ?

ja...x

Hi Ice Ice Baby, most of the request reviews are on threads that are giving a lot of very personal information about living individuals being looked for...and those definitely come under the 'data protection' category

I can only conclude that Janey's post fell into the "other" category...but what that covers is anybody's guess!

Why on earth would someone report those?...and what sort of reason could they give for doing so?

Does make you wonder sometimes

jax

Gobsmacked.
If there is any justice in this world, the sensible posts by Janey will be reinstated.

I read your first posts Janey, I can't believe they have been rr'd! well no I CAN believe it, but only because I know that dissent from some quarters is jumped on with concrete boots, you've been putting your head above the parapet 'too much' lately haven't you ;-)

It's a complicated (and fascinating, to some!) area. The Human Rights Act may be violated if the government doesn't require that private entities not violate the rights in the Human Rights Act -- or that's how it works in Canada; things may not have been elaborated to that extent in the UK yet. ;)

So the govt enacts the Data Protection Act, for example, that private entities have to comply with.


http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/copying-bmd-certificates.pdf
(emphasis in original)

Guidance - Copying of Birth, Death, Marriage and Civil Partnership Certificates

Reproduction
2. You are authorised to reproduce the layout of the form in any format including on the web, in films and in print. This authorisation is subject to the following conditions: ...

>> That you comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. This guidance *does not* authorise you to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals;



But the point of this thread of mine is still:

When I am informed that a post I have requetsed review of has been allowed to stay on the boards,
I want the REFERENCE NUMBER of my review request cited in the reply I get.

;)