The explanation for not allowing copying of relatives from matched trees does not explain the negative policy. MyHeritage could enable the feature and make it's use contingent on mutual consent of the managers of both trees.
The current policy makes the long lists of "smartmatches" pretty much a nuisance for me.
Ancestry.com allows ou to copy relatives in a very easy way... I am very dissapointed myheritage.com doesnt... At least there should be a message or something telling you wich of our confirmed matches have extra information on direct ascendants... This system is not that smart at all.
I've thought about this more in the last two years since I wrote that, and I don't think that ancestry.com has such a great system after all. Because it's possible to add everyone on somebody else's tree, it's way too easy for a beginner to add junk and end up with a nonsense tree. Most of what is on ancestry.com is junk. They have good scanned documents, but they are just added along with everything else that isn't so good. Whatever else anybody thinks of myheritage, their trees look a lot better and make more sense. It wasn't until I transferred my tree to myheritage from ancestry, that I started seeing a lot of obvious errors. A lot of information has been transferred either directly or indirectly, and hasn't been corrected. I saw one "Product suggestion" on this forum where someone suggested that they correct the dating system because they had found ancestors born in "BC" times. NO ONE alive today can do that. Not me, not them, not even the Queen can do that.
Because it's possible to add everyone on somebody else's tree, it's way too easy for a beginner to add junk and end up with a nonsense tree.
Yes. People copy without checking or investigating, so they copy ridiculous errors. I've seen the same errors repeated again and again in trees that overlap with mine. It's one of the reasons I don't pay much attention to smart matches, frankly. I check out a match, think, "Well, that's wrong, that's innaccurate, I have better information than in that tree and I'm just getting out of here." I won't confirm or deny.
I also see photos from my site repeated all over the place. I don't mind sharing, but it's polite to ask rather than just take.
I was looking at this site, I like the set up, but 9 bucks a month? I would totally pay for 5 dollars but 10 dollars just seems to much. I know there is a lesser one for cheaper but its so restrictive with how much you can put on here. I still might just bite my tounge and buy it if it wasn't annual, make it monthly please, I and I bet tons of other people don't want to plop down a lot of money just to find out it doesn't work for them or their family.
A monthly fee could be 'do-able' for many people on fixed incomes that just can NOT manage an annual membership fee. The option of paying monthly would probably greatly increase the number of paying members.
You can move your mouse over the left hand of the screen and limit the generations shown on the screen, and this will enable you to move between the siblings easier. You can then return to show all generations.
My problem is how to get the site to stop assuming every partnership is a marriage. It has caused some problems with people because they are furious that the system says "husband" or "wife" of someone they were never married to. Any Ideas? Maybe being able to just say partner ... some people are very "touchy" when they see their husband's former partners (those with children) being listed as ex-wife .. and visa-versa
There is an option "partner", but there is a mistake in the programme, for example I have a relative, who had a partner first and then married someone else. If I put it that way, the tree says he has a wife, but at the same time a partner. That made the wife really furious! So I had to put the first partner as divorced, although divorced means he was supposedly married, so it looks like he was twice married. That made him and the ex-partner furious! So this thing needs correcting! Best wishes, Rita
Thank you, but if I put the ex-partner as separated, the tree assumes, that the partner was a wed wife or a husband. So it doesn't have an different options for "divorced" and "separated" which would be ideal for separating official married couples and non-married couples. Best regards, Rita