"That doesn't hold water. I've been given access to some private trees, found errors, and given documentation, but the errors remain, some years later. I was even told by one that *I* was wrong, even though they had no documentation and I had enough to prove the error."
What I said has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone accepted your corrections, or not. For one thing that's one person's experience. For another thing, it's completely valid for someone to hold their information private while working on a tree for various reasons - including the privacy of their client if they are a professional genealogist or researcher (or even a friend helping them out.) Another reason would be not wanting to mislead others.
Just because you found one person who would not accept your correction - in your case you say it was your grandpa - well not everyone knew their grandparents but okay, but in some cases the person correcting doesn't know the person either - or whether the person you contacted who 'ignored you' wasn't active on Ancestry any more - and it doesn't really matter *in regard to the quote of mine you replied to* - That does not mean that no one else cares about accuracy, or that no one else deserves their privacy.
Your example and the quote of mine you replied to simply are two different things, even though both are tangentially related to family research.
"Not sharing, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of having your tree online."
That's fine because a lot of this discussion IS just people's opinions (including mine - I never said "I am an expert" despite what one person tried to claim I said.)
There is no other way to use Ancestry other than having your tree online. Not everyone who uses Ancestry, uses other people's information. Some simply use Ancestry's databases and make their own tree.
Also as I said before, I've gotten a family tree hint and have seen private trees' list of names for a family *even though their tree is private* so it isn't as if any tree remains *completely* hidden - it can still benefit (or in some cases, lead astray) other trees.
When you follow someone else's family tree, though, you really are risking your information being inaccurate, since so many trees are undocumented, unresearched and unverified - they simply have clicked and copied some other tree without checking any of it. Some people do that because they are new (I did), not realizing trees here are often undocumented.
"There are any number of programs that you can install on your computer to do a family tree locally, many better than the online version on Ancestry."
People have every right to avail themselves of Ancestry's databases if they are a member. I pay for the world membership and will avail myself of their databases. Again not everything relates to other people's posted trees.
Also, people can help on the message boards by answering questions if they wish to, about a surname or place etc. Allowing a tree to be publicly viewed is not the only way people here help each other.
Also I have yet to find a program I like for the Mac. Not everyone has a PC.
And yes I did buy Ancestry's tree maker, but, I frankly didn't like it as much as I did using Ancestry to make my tree. That also doesn't let me share it with family or friends. At Ancestry one thing I like is I can send an invitation to view my tree, if I wish to. And people have enjoyed seeing the trees and pages that way.
" I had one woman that I contacted freak out because her user ID showed up in search results. She gave me completely wrong information and added that she was deleting her tree from ancestry."
It sounds like she was new here and did not understand others could see her work. If someone has posted personal or sensitive family information, thinking they are doing something akin to typing an email no one can see unless they want them to - and then they realize it's more like posting to google (In fact the message boards here are searchable by google, so are trees - I've surfed in here before on google searches) they might feel frightened.
Some people use their actual names for user names, so if she had a fright, it could do with privacy issues, or even, potential other issues (for instance, some security questions have to do with family information.) Any number of reasons.
But one person's action does not mean what I said is untrue. Or that what I said is not a valid reason to take a tree private. or that what I said does not relate to this accusation some make about "if you do not give me everything, you are selfish, neener neener." (Who is the one stamping their foot in that instance?)
"I should mention the info was about a distant relative of hers, but it was MY grandfather."
Yes, that happens sometimes. Maybe she didn't believe who you were. I have absolutely no idea.
"I DO think its about credit."
Okay, let's say that sometimes, it is. Is that such a bad thing - to want one's work to be acknowledged, or credited, or even (gasp) recognized? When you work for a boss, do you tell them "oh no need to pay me, and no need to put my name on that report that's being published and could help my career and credibility one day - I'm all about sharing what I do." I doubt that.
The same can apply to efforts like this one. Some people put in years or even decades of research. Not all families have things available online or have been studied in the past by authors. Some lines have died out and demand lots of local footwork etc.
Or someone's tree might have been done by a family member who has since passed on - and they want that person's work to either remain intact for some reason (maybe they are planning a book or article) or they did not get permission to 'share' it. (Same can be true if the person is alive - they might have shared their tree with that person, who posted it, on the stipulation they cannot just post it for the internet to grab at will.)
" Me, I don't care."
Which is again an opinion, a prerogative chosen, and all well and good. But that's *you.* I never said people *should* or *have to* take their information private - only that Ancestry allows that privilege and there is nothing wrong with choosing it.
"A distant relative of mine took a photo I had upload of my great grandmother and 4 of her daughters and cut it into individual images."
OK that is referring to a posted image, not to years of research or paid research that's been uploaded, or documents, or copyrighted written work. But yes photographs can be copyrighted also and should be considered the property of the person who has them, to my knowledge and in my opinion. (Obviously we could all debate copyright laws forever, so I am speaking broadly.)
In fact I just sent the same question to someone who had shared a photo with me - I had made close ups from it, from a group photo, for my own personal use - but wanted their express permission before I uploaded it onto Ancestry. I don't see the harm in asking first. The world was still spinning the next morning, after I sent them an email asking their express permission, and I hadn't fainted from anticipation waiting for that permission, either.
People tend to want things immediately, though, and so they find sending a message for permission just too much work or bother.
"I could have done it myself, but didn't think of it. He saved me the trouble."
Which is fine but some people *would* be bothered if someone uploaded their photo or written work under their own user name. For one thing those cannot be edited by the actual source/owner of those things. For another thing, provenance is lost. Yet another thing, no one knows who to go to for questions on the item, and the person who reuploaded - who could be a stranger to the actual owner/source of those items - might not know a thing about it, and could answer wrong if they *were* asked about them by someone else.
Why not simply do things in a way that removes any chance of harm or doubt? Why do people want to defend sloppy or amateurish work or practices?
Just grabbing and going leads to a lot of the mistakes one finds here and other genealogy sites.
"What I am interested in is advancing knowledge"
Guess what - so are the people who have private trees. I can't understand why people don't see that.
So what if someone has to take time to actually message a person here and ask for something? So what if the tree owner wants to work a line before posting it publicly? What's been harmed, exactly, by waiting a bit?
And as I said they can help in various other ways. Also this is just one site - if they are a pro or are very active in genealogy they could be on various other sites, helping away.
While my trees were all private I was helping all sorts of people other places online, believe it or not. And offline, too.
I have shared too many documents to count, written things for various uses, and various people; shared research that cost me more than I could afford; told someone the answer to a brick wall or a family mystery, that no one else had yet solved; etc. etc. Guess what, I didn't always ask for any 'credit' either (heaven forbid.) (And if I did, it's usually for provenance sake and it's a user name, not my real name. So I'm unsure how that could possibly be for some sort of 'glory.' Not that reputation is a bad thing to gain; and some researchers do become pros later and might want or need to be the clear source or author or so on, for their resume's or future published work's sake.)
At the same time, I have been entrusted with some things on the condition that I *not* share them and I have kept my promise on it. In one case someone is planning a book and I have had the materials for a long time and not betrayed their trust. In another case they simply don't like the internet and in other cases they wish to remain the go to source for those items, so they can also answer questions about them, and be of *more help* than if the item were just put onto the internet. Another example is, an elderly family member entrusted me with his late sister's personal poems. That was a sacred trust and I have kept my promise not to share them. For one thing that is *his* prerogative - for another, it isn't mine. ;)
But someone who is quick to point a finger might see a (gasp) private tree and brand me selfish, attention seeking, credit hog, etc. Is that fair? No, it isn't. To me, it's also presumptive and unnecessarily immature.
"and by sharing unconditionally, I am doing just that"
A lot of people who 'share unconditionally' have trees that are absolutely filled with errors. The mistakes spread just like a virus someone has 'shared unconditionally' by shaking hands while not knowing or caring they are ill with the flu.
I am not saying that all public trees have errors, by the way. Please don't continue to flip what I said and act as if the opposite is the true mirror of the actual thing.
"I know some people don't feel that way because of their "mine m9ine mine" attitude."
Unfair derogatory attitude toward people who use Ancestry *completely as designed and within its rules* and when there are many valid reasons for keeping their tree private.
In this day and age of identity fraud, that alone is a valid reason and one I support.
There is also 'data scraping' and information, accurate or inaccurate, being taken and posted onto various other websites, unedited, or in part. Source of course, not given; having a tree be searchable by google enables all of that. It's against Ancestry's rules to data scrape, but, it happens to almost all websites. Only way to avoid that? To my knowledge, private tree.
And again, it is okay despite the way some others try to guilt trip into getting what they want, to keep oneself to oneself, even in this age of "what is yours is mine" and "if it is online it is fair game." Those are widespread philosophies now, even though, what wound up online may not have been permitted or put there by who it should have been, to begin with.
I wonder if some of the people making such accusations (like "Mine mine mine!") have shared as many things with others as I actually have? Simply having a public tree does not equal helping others with research (in and of itself) especially when it has in itself just been copied and clicked from many other trees, some of which have the mother as the grandmother and so on and on.
And yes, it's OK to want to remain the source and be credited for work or property. In the real world and here at Ancestry.com.
There really are some people who don't even have a computer but are local historians, or old school family researchers, or so on. Or older folks who took trips to county court houses and got their information 'the hard way' and don't want it mixed with the instant internet - for their own peace of mind, as well. Those are all perfectly valid, and the internet has not existed long enough to replace older ways of thinking, in my opinion. If someone wants their life's work to remain 'pure' until they have gotten to get it all down in book form with their name attached - that's perfectly valid, it's called research and authorship and has existed since before the printing press.
(And I am sorry if some consider this 'too long' a post - all I can then say is "no one is forcing anyone to read anything here.")