Forums Geneanet

Hi,
I just started to build up my family tree and found out that another Geneanet user has common family member which I would like to connect to instead of creating the same members again.

can anyone help with this ?

regards
c.denut

Unfortunately, you can't do it. You must add the same individuals to your family tree.

would it be possible to add the match info in one go instead of having to enter details manually?

Not actually.

This is a feature you should really add to make the whole process of building a family tree less a hassle. If people share the same ancestry, it would make sense to give them the possibility of connecting it to an already existing tree (upon acceptance from the original family tree owner, of course). It's almost 2019 for God's sake, not 1995.

Can't agree more. Found two distinct users here who each have built a huge tree for each one of my parents, but those trees are just not connected. Connecting them would complete the puzzle. I guess there are therefore many trees out there that just stay disconnected due to this lacking feature.

I agree. I came on this site as I found my husband's family listed twice in two separate HUGE trees. Tried linking them together as I assumed it was a basic function of this site but seems impossible..

may be your answer

https://en.geneanet.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=403906&p=1479982#p1479982

I know that this is a feature the Ancestry.com has. I certainly makes linking familiar members into ones tree simpler with out having to have 2 separate windows open in order to transfer that data.

To be honest this is why I shifted to familysearch. I still use Geneanet and update it through GEDCOM files now and again. Yet the familysearch system links all trees together. Yes, this can lead to mistakes, but copying by hand creates just as many if not even more.
This works shows how much we are one big family, so I fully agree it would be great if Geneanet would enable this somehow to honour the close ties we are discovering.

There are 2 recurring complaints in the Geneanet forums. People who want to automate copying entire branches from other trees to make genealogy "easier", and people who complain about errors being duplicated in more and more trees across the wed.

I personally support Geneanet's decision not to make tree copying easy. When I see the amount of errors in FamilySearch or MyHeritage trees (which entices you to import "instant discoveries" without giving you the option to verify the discoveries' sources), I have stopped searching those sites (I still useFamilySearch's catalogs and indexes though, not the trees).

Yes, you can move faster with those other tools. But if your goal is to make a tree as accurate as possible, slow and steady is the way to go.

Slow and steady.. to copy over 1,250 members in my relative's tree. Maybe you've got that kind of time, I do not.

The true answer was pointed out in a previous comment, linked here: https://en.geneanet.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=403906&f=40#p462324

"..we can't make all of the submitted data free to download!"

At least there is honesty buried in the comments section of this site.. they wouldn't have a business if a new user could create an account, copy entire trees, then export into a GEDCOM file.

rob0220 wrote: ↑22 August 2020, 22:33 Slow and steady.. to copy over 1,250 members in my relative's tree. Maybe you've got that kind of time, I do not.

Actually, my recommendation would be to verify all the information in the other tree before incorporating it in your tree. That will add a lot more time, but ensure your tree is as accurate as possible and get you to "know" your ancestors a bit better.

I agree - this is total BS having to add everything manually over and over. You should definitely be able to click on ancestors and add them to your tree. Instead of thinking of ways to waste people's time - why not think about ways to validate ancestors with a "degree of certainty" rating that takes several things into account like verified records, the number of people using the record, etc. Then people might have time to DIG even further!! Finding even one relative from 500 years ago or more could take months!

dgirard99 wrote: ↑18 October 2020, 06:06 ...the number of people using the record, etc.

I have seen enough trees to realize that repetition does not prove the information is correct. If you have 50 trees that contain the same set of parents for an individual and 1 tree that has a different set of parents, which one should you believe is correct? It could be that 49 people copied the same error from the first tree and only 1 found the correct parents. Or it could be that 50 are correct and 1 made a mistake.