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

New Military Records

New military records

Was your ancestor a war hero?

View thousands of brand new military records, including Chelsea Pensioner records, Military Nurses, Prisoners of war and much more.

View military records today


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

'Discussion' messages on Home Page

Page 5 + 1 of 7

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date


GlitterBaby Report 27 Apr 2012 00:20

Something needs to be done.

A lookup thread from 2009 has just been added to !!!!!


GlitterBaby Report 27 Apr 2012 00:09

I know exactly where the information came from

It is of no use to me whatsoever as not one person has the same Hacker as me in their tree


Porkie_Pie Report 26 Apr 2012 23:42

GlitterBaby, on quick search their are 171 matches for Hacker on the Boards so it probably comes from that?

and 300 matches for Hacker in search trees



GlitterBaby Report 26 Apr 2012 23:06

Well I checked mine out

Hacker and Holborn

I have only one person with the surname of Hacker in my tree on this site but more info on my FTM at home. Not one member has this person listed.

So why did GR pick on Hacker and not another surname of more interest to me.

Will the names change on a regular basis ?


Reggie Report 26 Apr 2012 22:34

The advent of this latest nonsense shows just how out of touch GR are.

They don't have the slightest clue about how their boards are used.

The fact that one member has had some benefit from the 'discussion' flag does not show the 'tool' to be of any value - all it shows is that the member hadn't availed him/herself of the most obvious search tool - namely 'search trees', which has been available for many moons


jax Report 26 Apr 2012 20:17

I thought that when I had 1000 discussions about Walthamstow it must be a census thing shall go and look :-D



SylviaInCanada Report 26 Apr 2012 20:14

I cannot believe that there could be more than 1000 "discussions" containing information about Oldham.


sample of titles ..................

Amelia Oldham 1830 Manchester Debra 4 Mar 2008 20:42 by

Graveland cannot be a girls name can it? shirlock 5 Sep 2010 20:35 by shirlock 119 25

Evett Family Anne 18 May 2011 14:28 by Helen 22 1

Looking for James Shaw dob 1839 Eileen 9 Aug 2011 15:45 by Eileen 38 21

Most "discussion" about Oldham???????

It's in the ADDRESS on a census!!!! :-P :-P :-P


SylviaInCanada Report 26 Apr 2012 20:08


Please don't be so defensive

This thread is not all about you .................... in fact, it didn't start off being about you at all. You seem to think it did, but it has a much wider interest to us, the helpers, than you think.

Most of the people who are posting on this thread are ones who help others, and we are ALL getting frustrated at the useless raising of old threads by newbies who don't look at the date before posting.

I've never before seen OP profiles "Member since:- 2001. Number of posts:- 0". Yet I have several like that in the last week!

We all spend time posting messages "this is an old posting. This person is probably no longer active on the site. May I suggest that you send a pm ..........."

It isn't helpful to the newbie who's got all excited ........ and it isn't helpful for the helpers who are wasting time ....................... it's only because we want people to have a good experience that we bother with those messages.

It certainly is true that most people would get more helpful contacts by Search Trees ................ you are just very lucky that this new system seems to be working for you.

But, please don;'t tell us to "drop this topic" when it really is not concerned with you, your experiences, or what you might or might not have done..



Cynthia Report 26 Apr 2012 19:47

Not only confusing and frustrating Jonesey, but very annoying and misleading to newbies.

They are telling me that there are 1,000+ discussions on one of my family names.

The name is a cardinal point and so, every thread which has that word in it as a place name has been logged. sigh.

What a nonsense.......... :-|


Jonesey Report 26 Apr 2012 17:01

For goodness sake Genes get rid of the "Discussions" from the home page now.

All they are doing is confusing and frustrating mainly new members by having them believe that these threads are recent when in fact most are several years old. Most are not discussions as you have titled them, all are posts and some have not drawn a single response in the last 5 years.

Examples from the first 20 of the advertised 1,000+ discussions containing information about the Jones family name.:


Cynthia Report 26 Apr 2012 14:04

Exactly Scozzie, you sent PMs to your new contacts......that's the best thing to do.

The problem those of us who help are having, is that newbies are just leaving messages on ancient threads thinking they will get a reply.

We advise them to do what you have now done and, that is, send a PM.

Hope this is sorted now :-D


Porkie_Pie Report 26 Apr 2012 12:28

Scozzie, The point is that it is sold on the homepage as a 'Discussion' when it is clearly not,

although you find it useful you will still have the facility to get the exact same threads returned when you do a quick search using the tab under Tools,

The homepage 'Discussion' is limited to just a single surname a single place name,

I take it your tree has more than one surname and one place name?

If so then the quick search would be of far better benefit to you,

GR should either get rid of the 'Discussion' as it stands or replace it with a 'Discussion' where the topic is actually about the name it is discussing

alternatively they could have it as a eg; Results for names search smith, and Results for place name search London.



LadyScozz Report 26 Apr 2012 11:04

as I've said, I only posted on ONE thread. I'll type it again - I also sent him a PM, he has opened it but not responded.

The OTHER contacts I sent messages to.

One of them I have put in touch with one of my distant cousins who has a HUGE database of that branch of the family. I know they are BOTH happy to have been "introduced" by me.

You (not you in particular, a general "you") may not use the Item posted on Home Page, but a few people added posts to mine.

I DO use the search facility...... but....... John Smith born in New Zealand means nothing to me........ John Smith born in New Zealand with parents (as listed on the posts) MIGHT!! That's how I found the new connections - there was more information about their family.

Everyone I sent a message to is a new contact, never been in touch before this.

Of course I checked - you must think I am an idiot!

I found more today - and will continue to look at Old Postings.

Can we please drop this subject.


Cynthia Report 26 Apr 2012 08:19

Hello again Scozzie....

The point is, we DON'T use it. Many of us use the Search Tree facility to see if we have connections on this site and we contact them that way.

If I came across an old thread connected to my family, I certainly wouldn't post a message underneath it.

I would check to see if that person was already in my contacts and, if not, I would click on their name and send a message that way. I would also be aware that they may not be members any longer.

Of the five 'new' relatives you have found, did any of them spot the message you left on the thread BEFORE you sent them a pm?

Several of the regulars on here don't actually have a GR tree - they simply use the boards because they enjoy the genealogical challenge - and very good they are too :-D


LadyScozz Report 26 Apr 2012 05:09

As I posted elsewhere.......

If you think this subject is useless........... don't use it :-D

I made contact with a few of the OPs, only one has not responded (but he has read my contact message).

The reason I/we joined GR was to make contact with othere relatives.

The old threads have put me in contact with five "new" relatives. I'm happy, so are they.

II certainly will NOT be posting on any more old threads.


LadyScozz Report 26 Apr 2012 05:02

I DO realise the posters may or may not be members now.

I've been told that in many posts.

I have had replies from all BUT ONE person (which was the one to cause the cerfuffle - but he OPENED my message).

What harm is there in what I did? I really don't understand why so many people are posting about this. Posts asking for the subject to be removed, and that they are useless.

Some of us are finding relatives........ that's the point.

If you think the subject (I agree it shouldn't be called a "discussion") is useless........ don't use it!! :-D


jax Report 26 Apr 2012 04:00

You were not told off and you were not annoying people

You was just advised like everyone else, that the poster may not return to the thread so sending a pm would be advisable


LadyScozz Report 26 Apr 2012 02:37

I found some of them helpful.

We all search for matching names, but I have no idea where lots of my family went - all over the world.

But these old threads have a bit more information.

I've already been "told off" for posting on an old thread.

I have now made contact with four distant cousins from far-flung places. I wouldn't have found them using the "normal" search.

I won't post on the threads any more, it seems to annoy the h*ll out of people.


SylviaInCanada Report 26 Apr 2012 01:20


I do the same ...... I have Bookmarks set at Boards Summary.

Never look at Home page, if I can possibly avoid it (ie, when having to sign in :-P )



wisechild Report 25 Apr 2012 14:23

Sorry Reggie.
HadnĀ“t seen your post.