From roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Sun Jul 23 11:45:25 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6NHjPjb024362; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:45:25 -0600 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l.rootsweb.com [66.43.16.22]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6NHjON3016512 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:45:24 -0600 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l [127.0.0.1]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k6NF76FI010445 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:07:06 -0400 Received: (from roots-in@localhost) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id k6NF764k010444 for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:07:06 -0400 Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [66.43.27.41]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k6NEjvFI009355 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:45:57 -0400 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k6NHO4wB015548 for roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:24:04 -0600 X-Envelope-From: akeegan@c3net.net Sun Jul 23 11:24:04 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6NHO4jb015538 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:24:04 -0600 Received: from srv02.glis.net (srv02.glis.net [216.234.108.76]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id k6NHNx4l000984 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:24:00 -0600 Received: (qmail 27011 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2006 17:23:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO conf1.darl.com) (216.234.108.60) by srv02.glis.net with SMTP; 23 Jul 2006 17:23:54 -0000 Received: from 216.234.108.108 ([216.234.108.108] helo=conf1.darl.com) by Mailstorm-V3; 23 Jul 2006 13:23:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 28358 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jul 2006 17:36:05 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.1.0 ppid: 28353, pid: 28354, t: 0.9305s scanners: clamav: 0.87.1/m:34/d:1162 spam: 3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on conf1.darl.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=no version=3.1.0 Received: from unknown (HELO YOUR780C524461) (66.103.246.88) by conf1.darl.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2006 17:36:04 -0000 Message-ID: <007e01c6ae7c$c5b55190$58f66742@YOUR780C524461> From: "akeegan" To: "Kith-n-Kin" , References: <01ed01c6ae73$69808420$6601a8c0@TOWER> Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Re: AWT, OWT, and Ancestry.com Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:23:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 1.31 (*) BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 Sender: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com To all : It would be nice when talking about a Sites like OWT FTM World Connect , gen? AWT and Etc . If folks would give their site address along with the name. Sure would save time for us new folks find it Thank You! Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kith-n-Kin" To: Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 12:16 PM Subject: RE: [ROOTS-L] Re: AWT, OWT, and Ancestry.com > Joan > > Thank you for that very good explanation of the orphan trees. And, I agree > with you! I didn't mean to > advocate a summary removal, but the trees I don't like, and am referring > to are those with no notes, no > sources -- or worse, five identical trees with the same source "gedcom # > blah blah" -- something they got > from the FTM CDs, or copied from another AWT/WC tree. > > Problem is, of course, "how do you know what is a true orphan, and what is > a legacy tree" -- perhaps it > would be a possibility, when people like you, me, and Margaret, and > others, find these repetitious trees > in the process of searching, that there be an "alert" sent to > Ancestry/RootsWeb, and consideration for > removal take place. Even in the electronic age, I suspect there is a > "paper trail" as to the origin of > these trees. If four people downloaded a legacy tree, in fact, and then > uploaded it again, under a > different identity, and then dropped out (so to speak) that is four trees > more than we need. > > Matter of fact, how about labeling the legacy trees as what they are! How > many times on this list has > someone become very upset because s/he had tried everything humanly > possible to find the "owner" of a tree > that has "unknown" as the source. Just replace "unknown" with "Legacy > Tree" and we are part way there! We > can honor those who have gone before, and at the same time, quit spinning > our wheels! > > Again, I've never worked for either of these (Ancestry or RootsWeb) but I > bet it could be done. > > Pat (in Tucson) > > > > |-----Original Message----- > |From: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com > |[mailto:roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of JYoung6180@aol.com > |Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 22:34 > |To: ROOTS-M@rootsweb.com > |Subject: [ROOTS-L] Re: AWT, OWT, and Ancestry.com > | > | > > |I would not want to see anyone arbitrarily decide to remove a > |file of a > |deceased or incapacitated submitter against the wishes of the > |individual or his > |heirs. > | > |Joan > | > | > > > > >