> >I'm going to weigh in here with what I hope is a workable alternative. I >can't think of much that gets me so over-the-top as looking through family >trees, gedcoms, etc. and finding the last 60 yrs or so to be nothing but >"living" or "private" annotations with little if any data... which is to, >frankly, be read as "usefulness." > >I would think that it would be best, if this is such a concern to folks, >to simply make a copy of your "real" Legacy file and then "sanitize" for >public distribution making no mention whatsoever of these "private" >individuals ... as if your work ended near on 100 years ago. There can be >no utility whatsoever to even suggest additional individuals exist if the >pertinent data cannot be checked, verified, or included. > >There are lots of these family trees out there which are not worth the >trouble to look at simply because they start (with real information) about >1840 and go back earlier. 1840 to present is apparently too private for >discussion? > >Maybe it's just one of my pet peeves... sorry >Scott Carlton >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Scott, I agree fully with you. When I receive a gedcom from any source, the first step in processing it for evaluation is to do a search for all persons with a given name of "Living". Those get deleted immediately. It's a shame that all of us have to be so concerned about crime and invasion of privacy. I bet there are a lot of friendly, helpful cousins included in the "Living" category.
Jim To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
