Generating Fake Family Trees Automatically

A new scam is on the Internet: a piece of software that will create bogus family trees to be uploaded to your web site. Why would anyone want to do that? The complete answer is a bit convoluted, but the short answer is to boost your web site higher in the search engine ratings so that gullible people will see the ads on your site. In fact, the program's advertising boasts that you can "create unique, non-duplicate content that millions of people search for, AND that neither humans nor search engines can tell is 'real' or not."

FakeFamily.com is very open about its purpose. After purchasing this software for $75, you are advised to create a bogus genealogy site and put affiliate ads on it to defray the expenses. Then you upload fantasy family trees created by the FakeFamily.com software. As the web site says:

Fake Family will generate content that is 100% unique.  The content created is seen by people as being REAL.  There is no dispute about that.  And, SO WILL THE SEARCH ENGINES.

The same web page also says:

Yeah, this is an unusual take on content.  But you need to THINK unusual to beat the engines.  Let this soak in and you'll find that we're speaking the truth.

On another page, the web site states:

Fake Family creates gedcom files that fit the standard gedcom format. This is the file format that allows interfacing with any standard "gedcom to html" program. The thing about a family tree created with Fake Family is that the data all fits. For example, names are "era specific" - meaning, you will get more "Orville" and "Bertha" names in the 1880s than the 1980s. Infant mortality, marriage rates, migration data is also encoded (and more).

You import the GEDCOM file created by the FakeFamily software into almost any genealogy program and tell that program to create HTML files. You then upload those HTML files to your web site that contains advertisements. Google, Yahoo, and the other search engines will eventually discover the site and decide that it is unique content. The site's bogus content will be added to the search engines.

If someone in the future searches for "John Brown" and you have a person on your fake genealogy web site named John Brown, the search engine will point the gullible searcher to your site, where he or she will see your ads. You then hope that they will click on an ad and buy something, and then you get paid. Not a bad scam: using fake data to entice people to buy something!

The owner of FakeFamily.com obviously feels no remorse and even brags:

Which is more important: Verifying that the "mesothelioma" information on your scraped page is "valid" or that some person is really your great great grandpa?  Come on.  I've NEVER seen anyone (certainly not "black hat") have an issue with the validity of any other content.

When I first read the information on this web site, I thought it was someone's idea of a practical joke. After re-reading several times, I have changed my mind. There seems to be no humor and no punch line. Apparently this fast buck artist really wants to flood the Internet with bogus genealogy material, all for the purpose of making easy money.

I tried to see who registered the domain name of FakeFamily.com but found it registered to Domains by Proxy, Inc., a company that specializes in registering domain names by proxy in order to hide the names and addresses of the true owner(s).

I normally take new programs and web sites for a "test drive" and use them myself before writing about them. However, I am not going to do that this time. I'll save my $75.00, the price to obtain the software that generates bogus family trees. If you decide to waste your money on this scheme, please let me know how you make out.

To get a feel for the purpose of this FakeFamily.com site, read this page first: http://fakefamily.com/reply.htm

Then read these pages:

http://www.fakefamily.com/members/fake.php

http://www.fakefamily.com/members/familytree/index.htm

http://www.fakefamily.com/members/

So, let me ask a couple of questions:

1. Are you willing to be known as someone who places bogus information on the Internet?

2. Are you willing to be known as someone who is gullible enough to pay $75 for this software?

Serious genealogists have always preached, "Verify your sources!" If this software gets loose on the Internet, the need to verify every piece of information will be more important than ever.

As always, let the buyer - and the genealogist - beware!

UPDATE: A few hours after posting this article on the daily newsletter web site, I was contacted by one of the developers of FakeFamily.com. As you might imagine, he was not happy with my article. He disputes several of my assumptions and is adamant that this program is no scam. I suggested that he post his explanation for all to read. After an exchange of e-mails, he has done so on his own web site.

There is a new and rather detailed explanation of the purpose of fakefamily.com available now at http://www.FakeFamily.com. I would invite you to read that information now before making any assumptions about this program.

He also pointed out that there is a larger reply written to someone else at: http://www.fakefamily.com/reply2.htm. I would invite you to read that page as well.

Please read both of those pages and then make up your own mind as to the intent of this program.

Thank you.

 

Comments

[Louis Kessler]

I am awestruck.

The explanation on the website and screenshots of the product and the website itself indicate that whoever wrote this program is actually someone with excellent programming skills and a knowledge of internet marketing.

It's too bad that he used his talents to produce this garbage when he could instead have produced something innovative and useful.

I can't imagine anything more tasteless to genealogists than this product.

[Dick Eastman]

UPDATE: A few hours after posting this article on the daily newsletter web site, I was contacted by one of the developers of FakeFamily.com. As you might imagine, he was not happy with my article. He disputes several of my assumptions and is adamant that this program is no scam. I suggested that he post his explanation for all to read. After an exchange of e-mails, he has done so on his own web site.

There is a new and rather detailed explanation of the purpose of fakefamily.com available now at http://www.FakeFamily.com. I would invite you to read that information now before making any assumptions about this program.

He also pointed out that there is a larger reply written to someone else at: http://www.fakefamily.com/reply2.htm. I would invite you to read that page as well.

Please read both of those pages and then make up your own mind as to the intent of this program.

Thank you.

[Chris Dunham]

The Louisiana Secretary of State website shows that Red Belt One, LLC, of Shreveport, LA, was chartered last April:
http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/cgibin?rqstyp=crpdtlC&rqsdta=35913503K

The corporation's officers were listed as Chester T. Kelley and Donald R. Harrold.

The man who wrote those immortal words "Geneology is my main hobby," was almost certainly Don Harrold, who maintains a family website at Harrold.org.

I don't know why Don doesn't offer a link to his own homepage from FakeFamily.com. Could it be that he's trying to hide his honorable business activities from the genealogical community?

If my research is ever slowed by a search engine clogged with fake families, I'll be sure to drop Don a line and thank him.

[fakefamily]

Chris Dunham,

If you spent as much time on finding out the truth about Fake Family as you did researching our corporate entity, you'd see you've got nothing to worry about. But, I don't suppose that's the way these things go.

I wonder how many people are going to take a moment to actually email us or look into the truth?

Sincerely,
Don Harrold

[Jim Terry]

I have sent the particulars of Red Belt One's scam to PayPal asking them to suspend Red Belt One's account.

Jim Terry
Webmaster
Millennia Corporation
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

[fakefamily]

Jim,

You should be aware that your use of the word "scam" is not an opinion. You are making a legal claim. As such, be prepared to hear from our attorneys if you do not retract or amend your statement.

Sincerely,
Don Harrold

[Chris Dunham]

Mr. Harrold:
It took me about 15 minutes to track your identity. It took me about 5 minutes to learn the truth about FakeFamily.com. There is no excuse for hampering the research of others. (I'm sorry, is "hampering" a legal claim too?)

Mr. Terry:
Thank you for sticking up for decency in genealogy.

[fakefamily]

Chris Dunham,

It should not have taken THAT long. We don't hide who we are. We have a message forum you can post in. Our email address is posted at the site, too. Of course you didn't bother with that and you are obviously ignoring the facts about what our software does.

Fake Family does not "hamper" anyone's research: I'll post a project created with Fake Family. 1000 people in it. You find even one couple in there that's got a counter part in the REAL WORLD (Where first and last names match, and the birth states of both match, and where the birth dates are correct) and I'll retract every word I've written and make our home page read, "Chris Dunham Was Right", and stop any sales of Fake Family.

If you can't find a match, you must post here a retraction and admission that YOU are wrong about our software. That is does NOT hamper research and that you could find no evidence of a real-world connection with anything created with the software. I mean, I'm giving you a golden opportunity to prove how diabolical this software is.

Are you willing to take this challenge?

My guess is, probably not.

[Andrew Millard]

The producers of this software claim astronomical odds against it matching any real person's details exactly. My genealogy data isn't like that. It's full of holes, ambiguous dates (and names), and in some cases data collected that looked like it might be relevant so ought not be ignored.

Let's take one example from the sample fake tree provided: Susan Linda Edwards b.6 Dec 1949, Lewellen, NE. SSDI tells me that there was a real Susan L Edwards b.14 Jun 1948, with a Social Security number issued in Ohio. Now imagine that I have a tale from an elderly relative of such a cousin Susan born "a few years after the war, but the family moved around and I can't remember where they lived at the time". How am I to distinguish the real from the fake one? From this side of the Atlantic I have to employ a researcher in both places to look at local records, and the misinformation from Fake Family has doubled my research costs.

Because the fake data produced are realistic, humans will believe this data and spend money trying to verify it. The odds are also not as high as claimed for a match because Fake Family is not selecting names at random, but using the frequencies of the period in question. It is claimed that selecting from 1000 surnames and 5000 surnames yields odds of 1 in 5 million of matching the name within the decade. Not only is Susan Linda Edwards matched, but John William Williams b 1940 in the sample fake tree, there are 6 possible matches *to the year* in SSDI for John W Williams. I've not checked all the names in the fake tree, but 2 out of 104 matching forename and middle initial within the decade is looking a long way from 1 in 5 million to me.

[fakefamily]

Andrew,

The example you give proves my point: The ONLY connection between the two people (the two Susans) is their NAME. The dates don't match. The places don't match. You've not addressed the issue of spouses, children, parents or how anyone in YOUR family could connect to these names.

Regarding John William Williams, again, the only thing you'll find is a match of a name. And, you've only got a middle initial with the SSDI record.

Your imaginary tale of an elderly relative passing information to you is precisely why you do NOT take ANY data at face-value. It also neglects the main facet of your research: Why are you looking for a Susan L. Edwards in the first place?

If you know ANYTHING more than a name you will find that the information in the Fake Family data is NOT what you want. If you do NOT know anything more than a name, ANY data that's "close" you could claim a match from. But, that still does not tie the person to YOUR TREE.

All you've got are some names that show a similarity to some names. Names to NAMES. And, you don't even have the middle names from the SSDI records. JUST MIDDLE INITIALS.

You are reaching for a reason to argue this point. You'll get quite a few people who reply, "yeah!" or, "thanks for shining the light of truth on this evil software". Meanwhile, you've only - in truth - illustrated the point that Fake Family does NOT create REAL family trees. It creates fictitious name groupings from a random data set.

Your conclusion that, "2 out of 104" is not correct. What you've got are 2 created NAMES that are CLOSE to some names in the "real world". On every other count there is NO correlation. Besides all that is the fact that you would have SOME reason to connect a person to your tree. Absent other information all you've got are names that look similar.

I do not dispute that at some time in the last 120 years someone named John W. Williams probably lived. But there are also hundreds of people named George Bush in the world, too - both past and present. But they are not all Presidents. You need a little more than a name and a decade to prove someone is a part of your family tree.

My challenge remains.

[fakefamily]

Andrew,

I also challenge your assertion that we claim "astronomical odds" for matching "exact" details.

The odds are 5,000,000 to one of getting a name to match. That's mitigated by the fact that you'll have many names in your tree from which to draw, obviously. So, let's say you've got 5000 names and the odds of any one Fake Family tree project creating a match of First and Last names becomes 1 in 1000. But, that is ONLY A NAME. And does not include middle names. If you throw in middle names you are back to 1 in a million.

But, to be conservative, I'll stick to the VERY conservative 1 in 1000 of matching only a first and last name of one person. Now, you have to have SOME other data from which to make your conclusion that this person is related to you somehow. Take your pick: By birth date? By birth place? By spouse? By parents? By siblings? By death date? By marriage date and place?

Take any of these. Let's say, by spouse. Let's even say all you know is a spouses first name. That's still 1000 times 1000 which is 1 in a million that you'll get a match with a spouse.

I'll even cut that number in half. Let's call it one in 500,000.

So, what you COULD get is one spouse with first and last name and one spouse with only a first name. No dates. No places. No children. No parents. No marriage information.

That's called: NOTHING. I'm being super conservative here and 1 in 500,000 still leaves you with NOTHING if you don't have other data on your end to corroborate.

Let's just throw in the date of marriage. Fake Family will choose from 120 years of data (by default). So, take your 1 in 500,000 and multiply by 120. You are up to 1 in 60,000,000 now that you get two spouses (one with only a first name) and a YEAR of marriage.

1 in 60 MILLION.

I've given very generous odds. And we still have not connected these fake people to ANYONE in your tree. If you begin to ask how these folks are even connected to you, you find that if you go to parents or children or siblings of either spouse you get odds that now reach the stratosphere.

Look, I'm not saying you will never find a common name in a Fake Family project. What I am saying is that the leap from "Hey, I found a name" to "This person is in my family" is a HUGE gulf that Fake Family (by design) just cannot cross.

[fakefamily]

NOTE: All this is truly a moot point since we do not actively promote Fake Family, nor do we even sell it to the general public. There are so few people that even know about it that this is all kind of a - well - moot point. I would venture to say that we've gotten more publicity from this blog than anything we could have (or would have) done.

[Andrew Millard]

Fakefamily wrote "The example you give proves my point: The ONLY connection between the two people (the two Susans) is their NAME. The dates don't match. The places don't match. You've not addressed the issue of spouses, children, parents or how anyone in YOUR family could connect to these names."

My point is that I am initially unlikely to have all that information. All I know about some of my relatives is that they emigrated to the USA. I have a name and birth year from UK records but that is all. The fake information you generate is plausible and given the way it is constructed is likely to generate matches to vague information such as I have. If I find a match to vague information in a line I am pursuing, then I will spend money to verify it. How much is it going to cost me to hire a researcher to check state birth records for someone who doesn't exist? If there's no birth registration to match your fake data, but it all looks plausible (after all there's a whole tree that looks like someone researched it thoroughly, so perhaps it was just a mistake in the birth information) perhaps I try searching elsewhere for that person, marriage and death records might be searched at more cost. I would have to spend a lot of money to convince myself that *one* person on a Fake Family tree was entirely fictional, and whilst I have two possible matches to my initial vague information my research is held up. There's no point pursuing the family of the Susan L Edwards born in Ohio if there's a distinct possibility I should be chasing one in Nebraska to find my relatives. So Fake Family may well cost me money to invalidate false information. As you say 'the leap from "Hey, I found a name" to "This person is in my family" is a HUGE gulf', but it will cost me to attempt to bridge that gulf. The odds of matching a single name and details in my tree may be low, but given the number of genealogists out there the chances that a good number of people get vague matches and spend money pursuing them must be reasonably high.

As to what this type of fake data does for those of us pursuing one-name studies I hate to think. Then it is only the surname that need match for the data to be relevant to what we are researching.

Fake family also wrote 'I also challenge your assertion that we claim "astronomical odds" for matching "exact" details.' and followed that with an argument that concluded 'you get odds that now reach the stratosphere.' What's the difference between astronomical and stratrospheric odds?

You may not promote or sell Fake Family to the general public, but it looks like a fairly sophisticated piece of software, and at $75 apiece you must need to sell quite a few to recoup costs. Users are each likely to create a number of trees to attract traffic. Perhaps there will soon be 100000 people on Fake Family trees. Each person generated increases the chances of a match to my tree.

[Jim Terry]

Don,

I used "scam" in the classic dictionary sense "A fraudulent business scheme." You admittedly generate fake genealogies for making a quick buck.

By your own words "The content created is seen by people as being REAL. There is no dispute about that. And, SO WILL THE SEARCH ENGINES." You also misused our software to help promote your questionable commercial venture without the permission of Millennia Corporation.

But all we hear from you are rationalizations and threats: "As such, be prepared to hear from our attorneys if you do not retract or amend your statement."

Jim Terry
Webmaster
Millennia Corporation
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

[fakefamily]

Andrew,

You say, "My point is that I am initially unlikely to have all that information. All I know about some of my relatives is that they emigrated to the USA. I have a name and birth year from UK records but that is all. The fake information you generate is plausible and given the way it is constructed is likely to generate matches to vague information such as I have."

Again, thank you for your considerate replies and questions.

However, I grant you might not have all that information. But you must have SOMETHING besides a name. Once you move to something besides a name the data created with Fake Family distances itself from your tree in remarkable fashion.

The part about this that I'm still hoping you'll see is that just a name is not enough. You need other data to corroborate that name. And, I don't mean from Fake Family. I mean from YOUR research.

You are not researching names in a vacuum. You why you are researching the people in your tree. Those names will be associated with SOME other data. If not you may as well research some one else's tree for which you have no knowledge.

That "other data" from your tree is what separates your family from anything created with Fake Family.

In summary, I want you to know that I appreciate your comments and your tone. I do not enjoy being attacked, flamed, and made-fun-of. Your posts are engaging without rancor and I thank you for that.

One more thing, regarding our cost: I can promise you we have lost big time money on the development of it. With no plans to market it to the masses, those losses show no sign of being recouped anytime soon. That may sound like an odd business model, but it's just the truth. And, let me be even more clear: By "any time soon" I mean, more literally, that we have no plans to release it other than to the very small number of folks who have access to it now. A point I made earlier is still true: We don't advertise it and the traffic we've gained from this blog is more than we would have achieved under any circumstances with our own marketing efforts (which are basically non-existant).

Whoever made this information available to Dick Easton (and, Mr. Easton himself, actually) has had the opposite effect from what they desired. Instead of less attention and less people interested we've got MORE of both.

However, neither of those will weigh in on my decision to keep Fake Family a limited-release software. And, that's if we sell licenses to anyone else ANYHOW.

On a side note: You would probably find it fun to see the way it works. It's pretty interesting watching generations of fictitious folks migrate across the US...

[fakefamily]

Mr. Terry,

A) You chose to air something publicly which was best suited in an email. We immediately removed the images (although under the "Fair Use" clause of US copyright law we are not compelled to do so, by the way). A simple email would have sufficed.

B) There you go again: Talking about stuff you don't have a clue about. We are not a fraudulent business scheme. Well, unless you mean we are "fraudulent business scheme" like Mormons are a "cult". I don't suppose Mormons like being referred to as a "cult". Wait, check that, I KNOW they don't like it. Well, lots of people have that OPINION but if you ask the Mormons I know they will tell you it's a FALSE opinion. Well, if you'd spend less time making libelous comments and more time looking at the facts you'd see that our corporations are certainly not "fraudulent" nor is our software a "scheme".

We DON'T EVEN ADVERTISE IT. This blog brought to your attention something that is not an issue. Certainly not at the time of this blog posting.

Regarding this supposed "misuse" of your software: I certainly did not know that it was a "misuse" to show folks how to use Legacy. We profit ZERO from telling anyone about Legacy. If you don't want us to show images of Legacy, we will absolutely honor your request. But that is not due to any law it is due to our NON-FRAUDULENT business model.

I must say that it would be nice if - every now and then - people would check with folks before they start airing publicly what is a business matter between two corporations. I can't imagine posting on a public blog a disagreement (whether real or imagined) I had with another corporate entity.

Finally, it's also sad to see you boil down my comments as "rationalizations". I guess one man's "rationalizations" are another's "reasoned replies to baseless attacks".

I choose the latter.

[fakefamily]

Mr. Terry,

Wait, one more thing: We do not claim to "admittedly generate fake genealogies for making a quick buck."

Those are your words that come from your world view. However, they do not represent what we do or believe.

Your take on it may be that we are hucksters of some sort or another, but your take is not "truth". We neither admit to what you posit nor do we ever look to make a "quick buck".

You see, to make a "quick buck" implies that we are actively either using the software or selling it in any number. We do neither with any degree of urgency.

Your opinion, notwithstanding.

Sincerely,
Don Harrold

[fakefamily]

Andrew,

I just noticed something. You show that a real Susan L. Edwards shows up in the SSDI, right? In fact, the Susan Linda Edwards in the Fake Family project would have died as "Susan Linda Morales". The SSDI record you would want to find would be Susan L. Morales. However, the Fake Family Susan Linda MORALES died in 1974 in Nebraska. SSDI records do NOT show a Susan Morales who died in either 1974, nor in Nebraska.

So, what you've got in the case of Susan L. Edwards MORALES is a complete miss in SSDI.

Sincerely,
Don Harrold

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

Much Ado About Nothing ...

Big deal, someone actually admits to creating 'fake' family trees. These actions are no worse than Family Tree Maker's World Family Tree CD's (and let's remember they SELL those) which are loaded with unverified, totallly false info.

Or no worse than companies that sell websites and CD's that feature genealogies with links to fictional kings and queens.

Or the ones that sell lineages that go back to Adam and Eve.

Any competent genealogist will insist on verification of the facts before adding these people to their family trees. They won't be able to do that, so they'll discard this info. Name collectors, who just don't care, will add them.

Although I'm not in favor of what this form is doing, it may be a good thing for genealogy in the long run if it encourages people to start posting their sources (which fakefamily won't have.)

Come to think of it, I seem to recall an entire family tree for the Wheeler family from the show Into The West posted on the TNN site with no objections from the genealogy community. This was a fictional family, much like fakefamily's families.

There's so much (expletive deleted) on genealogy family websites now that fakefamily's efforts probably won't even raise the level of background noise.

[Mark Roy]

The fact that the guy is generating bogus trees is just part of the problem. The purpose of the product is produce information (which will *never* be useful) in order to lure people to a web site in hopes they'll click on an ad.

Anyone who creates a business or product based on duping people is a slimeball, IN MY OPINION (so don't sue me!)

[Chris Dunham]

Here are just two ways this product could hamper my research. If I were starting a single-name surname project, I might Google the surname to find new leads. FakeFamily could produce an entire family line using that surname, the existence of which I would then have to disprove. The fake family websites might even crowd authentic websites out of the first few Google SERPs.

Or suppose I'm writing a town history, and FakeFamily happens to assign my hometown to a fictional family. Again, I would have to waste my time proving it false.

However much Mr. Harrold tries to rationalize his rationalizations, the end-result of his little enterprise is to make it harder for me to do my job.

I think I'll go over to GenForum, and start posting made-up answers to people's queries. The good genealogists should be able to prove them false.

[Bobbi Deo]

I contacted my State and Federal legislators. If this is not a crime it should be made one. I suggest that other readers do the same.

Bobbi

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

You're right Chris ... the good (or should I say real) genealogists would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

That's part of being a genealogist. No genealogist worth their salt would ever put anything into their database without confirmation of the facts or without a big, fat warning in the notes.

If someone is starting a single name project, I would certainly hope that they are verifying information they are putting into the project. If they aren't, they're just name collectors offering nothing of value to the genealogical community.

And if sonone is doing a town history, what are the chances that they would be fooled into thinking that someone that appears in no other record is worthy of inclusion.

The Genealogical Proof Standard has been codified for this very reason. As a reminder, the GPS consists of five elements:
1. a reasonably exhaustive search;
2. complete and accurate source citations;
3. analysis and correlation of the collected information;
4. resolution of any conflicting evidence; and
5. a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.

Any of the fakefamily data would not pass point 1. Lack of source citations (point 2) should be another red flag. Steps 3 and 4 would quickly eliminate and fakefamily data from consideration and inclusion.

As for the authentic websites being crowded out of the first few Google SERPs (whatever those are), isn't that wat GPS point 1 (a reasonably exhaustive search) is all about?

I do not want it to look like I am defending Fakefamily. I'm not. But I also don't think that this data will fool many genealogists. They're just playing the search engine game and may have come up with a tool that will work for a few months until the search engine programmers leapfrog back over them. Then they'll be on to some other idea.

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

Bobbi,

Are you suggesting that creating works of fiction should be a crime? If so, you'll have to go after everyone that has submitted and unresearched, undocumented family tree to Family Tree Make and had it published and sold on one of their WFT CD's.

[Chris Dunham]

Dino, my point is not that good genealogists will be fooled into incorporating phony info into their work, but that they will be slowed.

I get plenty of leads from lousy sources. Some pan out, and many don't. My objection to the FakeFamily scheme is that it's a nuisance, not that it's the end of genealogy as we know it.

(Note that FakeFamily uses dates only since 1880, and that leads from family-history websites are generally more reliable the more recent the event.)

You're absolutely right that, if it catches on, the Google engineers will take action. Unfortunately, many good family websites will be caught in the crossfire.

[fakefamily]

Chris Dunham,

Once again, I challenge you to show *factually* with REAL data from a Fake Family project even ONE family that matches anything in the real world. I've given you the most nominal of criteria: Where first and last names match, and the birth states of both match, and where the birth dates are correct.

Heck, I'll even lower the standards: Just show me a man and woman with birth states and birth YEAR!

Or, man and woman with birth state and birth year plus or minus a year or two.

I mean, seriously, prove your point with FACTS not SPECULATION devoid of facts. "Andrew" posted above about how he found "2 out fof 104" when in fact what he "found" was the OPPOSITE: The names he searched for were NOT found in the SSDI database as presented in the Fake Family project.

I hate to be picky, but I'd sure like to see some of this idle speculation turn productive and move toward PROOF rather than opinions based on agenda.

[Peggy]

http://www.fakefamily.com/reply2.htm has got to be the biggest load of self-serving BS I've read in a while. The argument seems to be that

1. FakeFamily makes fake families, so they won't be verifiable as true.
2. This is better than scraping information off of other people's web sites and/or using Traffic Equalizer.
3. Search engines are "stealing" content from web pages anyway.

Search engines are there to help us find web pages of interest. If you don't want your web page "stolen", add a robots.txt file that prevents indexing. Just because others are filling the internet with crap, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to add more crap.

Bottom line: FakeFamily pollutes the search engine results with fake data. Sure I may be able to tell that the "William Jones" that came up as a hit is not who I'm looking for after visiting the page, but I've just wasted my time doing that.

[Chris Dunham]

I think we can all grant your premise that the websites your software will produce are completely useless. They are no better or worse than the sites composed of randomly generated keyword-laden sentences which now clutter the Internet. If you consider this admission a moral victory, I would recommend that you seek spiritual guidance.

Problem is, sooner or later I will visit one of these fraudulent sites, and waste time dismissing it is fraudulent. If your product works as advertised, the results will not be instantly falsifiable as you suggest. Even ten minutes of my time is too much to waste for the sake of your bank account.

[fakefamily]

Peggy,

Your rantings prove one thing: Facts don't matter to people with an agenda.

The "argument" we make is different than the fictitious one you suggest.

A) Fake Family creates FICTITIOUS data for which there are no correlations in the real world. There is a difference between "verifiably true" and outright FICTION. Your hysteria aside, the numbers prove that there is no way data at a Fake Family based site could be construed as TRUE. It COULD look "real" based on organic algorithms but it cannot look "TRUE". TRUTH will be easily borne out with a cursory glance at YOUR DATA.

B) We do not argue that Fake Family is "better" than "scraping data". Our point is that the people who use Traffic Equalizer (et al) to generate bogus content are hypocrites to decry Fake Family for creating fictitious lineages. If you glean from that argument we believe it is "better" to use Fake Family than those products, you do so at your own intellectual bankruptcy. It's not our argument and we don't make any moral equivalant in that regard.

C) Search engines do steal content. That's not my lone opinion. There are 8000 publishers right now engaged in a lawsuit versus Google for the outright copyright infringment of thousands and thousands of authors. The French news agency sued Google for stealing their news. Everyone from porn sites to "mom and pops" are suing Google for this. So, while you may find it an amusing side to our argument it is, nonetheless, and argument gaining momentum each day in court rooms across the country.

D) Your comment that, "Search engines are there to help us find web pages of interest." Is, factually incorrect. The search engines of note (Google, Yahoo, and MSN) are "there" to turn a profit for investors. And, your ability to boil down into a sentence the business model of the "search engines" is not proof of anything more than your naive view of what the search engines "are there" for. I've spent the last 10 years of my life in businesses that work directly with or now (sadly) in competition with "the search engines".

When you say, "If you don't want your web page 'stolen', add a robots.txt file that prevents indexing," you are making a comment that in any other business would be laughable. For example, a pawn shop owner can't stock his shelves with stolen merchandise and then say, "the homeowner left their door open and besides that they didn't tell me I COULDN'T take their stuff". In the real world you can't take my work and then force me to STOP YOU FROM TAKING IT.

More important, though is the fact that the search engines are not "indexing" anything. They are TAKING and CACHING everything from text to executable files. They do this with NO regard to veracity or timliness. They eschew facts for expedience.

No, you are incorrect. The word "indexing" is a euphamism for "taking and housing on my server". There's a difference.

Next, you say, "Just because others are filling the internet with crap, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to add more crap."

Peggy, I hate to bring this to your attention, but your opinion of what is or is not "crap" is just that, an opinion. Your opinion of what is a "good idea" is also your OPINION. So, your opinion is noted: You don't think it's a good idea to create fictitious lineages for which there is no way to correlate with any real families.

Okay, I guess.

But, here's the part you miss. And, this is the lynch pin: The search engines TAKE our content. Even using your skewed view of what that means, you admit they do take our content, right? Well, while you are so worried about Fake Family you might ask that the search engines use the same standard you are so adamant about. You should hold Google (et al) responsible for what they TAKE and then serve up to you. They serve to you from THEIR SERVERS without any fact-checking or even a moment's thought about whether what the present to you is valid, real, or usable.

Let me know when you start that campaign.

On that note, it needs to be discussed that while Fake Family creates obvious FICTION, Ancestry.Com and Family Tree Maker disemminate BOGUS information daily. The difference? That BOGUS information is passed off as real from a source you are supposed to be able to trust. AND that BOGUS information is from ANYONE and added to REAL family trees.

And, oh yea, they make MILLIONS on their data. Some good data. Some bad. You going to hold Family Tree Maker accountable?

The notion that Fake Family is even in the same fictious-information-passing league as Google, Ancestry.com or Family Tree Maker is laughable.

Your post concludes with this, "FakeFamily pollutes the search engine results with fake data".

Peggy, I hate to say this to you, but Fake Family does nothing of the sort. The search engines have a business model that includes taking things for which they do not verify data. As long as that is their business model, you better check your sources.

But, if you find a Fake Family based site, at least you know you'll be able to see it for what it is in mere moments. You'll not fair so well with the REAL genealogical pollution from the likes of Ancestry and Family Tree Maker.

Of course, I don't use them as primary sources anyhow.

[fakefamily]

Chris Dunham,

Well, step one, I guess is close to being resolved. You say, "I think we can all grant your premise that the websites your software will produce are completely useless. They are no better or worse than the sites composed of randomly generated keyword-laden sentences which now clutter the Internet.

That's at least a tacit admission from you that Fake Family will not produce REAL or even PASSABALY REAL lineages.

Regarding my challenge, I assume also, you've sidestepped that. Another admission that what I've been saying all along: There is no way to confuse Fake Family with a "real" lineage.

You add "If you consider this admission a moral victory, I would recommend that you seek spiritual guidance."

As is so frequently the case, words are put in my mouth. I do not consider anything a "moral victory". Fake Family is a PIECE OF SOFTWARE. You (and others here) are the ones assigning moral weight to our software. I do not.

You close with this, "Problem is, sooner or later I will visit one of these fraudulent sites, and waste time dismissing it is fraudulent. If your product works as advertised, the results will not be instantly falsifiable as you suggest. Even ten minutes of my time is too much to waste for the sake of your bank account."

Well, now we get to the crux of the matter: It's about "wasting time".

So, we've gone from the hysteria of yesterday to now the pages created with Fake Family data will be time-wasters.

If time-wasting is your concern, you should take that argument up with the search engines. If they would spend a little time researching the information they disemminate your time would be wasted less frequently.

But, that won't happen. Why? Because the search engines would have to spend THEIR time and THEIR money on even the slightest bit of data-verification. And, they'd go out of business.

[Chris Dunham]

"You (and others here) are the ones assigning moral weight to our software. I do not."

That goes without saying.

[fakefamily]

Chris Dunham,

No, it does NOT "go without saying". You and others here have made a production out of nothing. You've completely ignored the facts about Fake Family. You are too prideful to admit that I'm right about the statistics. You are too scared to take my challenge because you know you'd lose and be forced to admit that our software doesn't do the supposed damage you and others here claim.

No, it does not "go without saying".

You and others here took shots at me personally, my company, and our software. All the while you've never used it and you don't know me at all.

This whole thing was a waste of time and could have been handled with a few emails to ask some questions about what Fake Family actually does.

If you believe the moral highground is taken when you defame things you don't know about, or attack people you've never met, or present as factual that which is neither fact nor educated opinion, you are incorrect.

And, THAT goes without saying.

[Peggy]

My personal genealogy blog was just spammed with a comment linking to www. reconnectwithfamily. com . The site has what appears to be genealogy data, but is covered with ads, and the genealogies appear to be fake. Could this be a site demonstrating the use of the Fake Family software?

[Peggy]

"But, here's the part you miss. And, this is the lynch pin: The search engines TAKE our content. Even using your skewed view of what that means, you admit they do take our content, right? Well, while you are so worried about Fake Family you might ask that the search engines use the same standard you are so adamant about. You should hold Google (et al) responsible for what they TAKE and then serve up to you. They serve to you from THEIR SERVERS without any fact-checking or even a moment's thought about whether what the present to you is valid, real, or usable."

You are right, Google, MSN and Yahoo don't do any fact checking. That is not what they are meant to do. Their goal is to make money, but the only way they can do that is if people use their service. People only use a search engine that gives useful search results. They do actively try to exclude pages designed only for search engines, such as those made with Traffic Equalizer. You are just adding to the problem.

[fakefamily]

Peggy,

You sidestep all of my reply to say, "You are right (the search engines) don't do any fact checking"???

And you add, "Their goal is to make money..."???

So, let me get this straight: You have a problem with Fake Family because it creates data sets which are OBVIOUSLY not real, BUT you are cool with companies who distribute fake data for profit?

Uh, okay. Guess I can't argue with that "logic".

I continue to be amazed at how you folks ignore the truth: That Fake Family data sets cannot be seen as "real" and that statisically, your odds of even finding one couple that matches anyone in your family files is 1 in 5 BILLION. And, that's not even including dates (or all the other criteria).

Peggy, are you at least willing to grant that even if you don't LIKE Fake Family (for whatever reason you choose), the data Fake Family creates is NOT a problem?

If you want to debate whether fictitious lineages are "good" or "bad" on their own merits, that's one thing. But, I'd love for one of you to challenge the numbers here.

[fakefamily]

Peggy,

And you are not serious about your blog, are you? You're not suggesting that a genealogy site with ads is "bad" are you? You are not REALLY suggesting that someone is using Fake Family and targeting YOUR BLOG, right?

Whew...

[Peggy]

"You're not suggesting that a genealogy site with ads is "bad" are you? You are not REALLY suggesting that someone is using Fake Family and targeting YOUR BLOG, right?"

No, of course genealogy sites can have ads. The problem is fake genealogy sites generated for the sole purpose of displaying ads. There is no point in such a site if there aren't any visitors to click on the ads. The temptation is then to promote the site in any way possible. It can't be (well, shouldn't be) promoted through the legitimate means of links from other genealogists or genealogical directories, since the data is all fake. That leaves the temptation to spam.

The comment left on my blog was clearly spam: the comment was generic, and the site was linked to as "Ellis Island Research", which the site definitely is not. I don't think my blog was "targetted" at all, except in the sense that it was a blog about genealogy. I don't know that the site was generated using Fake Family - but it looks like the kind of site that could have been.

"Peggy, are you at least willing to grant that even if you don't LIKE Fake Family (for whatever reason you choose), the data Fake Family creates is NOT a problem?"

Sorry, it is a problem. You keep saying that the data set it creates is OBVIOUSLY not real, but that isn't exactly true. First of all, one has to click on the link from the search engine to go to the site to determine it's not real. That is a waste of people's time.

Secondly, your own site promotes the software by saying "The thing about a family tree created with Fake Family is that the data all fits." That means that the data is only "obviously" not real if you look up the information using other sources. Of course that needs to be done with any information found on the internet, but, again, putting completely fake information on-line simply wastes people's time.

[jenn-f]

Mr. Harrold seems to be deliberately ignoring the major points. I suppose that is a good idea if he wants to promote his views but it clearly displays a "Devil may care" attitude.

Over and over, Mr. Harrold says things like "The search engines of note are there to turn a profit for investors." That very brief sentence is quite accurate but is notable for ignoring the rest of the story. In fact, the search engines make money by offering a service that attracts users and that, in turn, generates the profits. Mr. Harrold's schemes reduce the usefulness of search engines, thereby discouraging users from using these services. In fact, if Mr. Harrold's schemes succeed in filling search results with garbage and fictitious content of interest to no one, users will stop using search engines and profits would cease. The search engines would have grounds to sue Mr. Harrold for restraint of trade.

We could simply say that FakeFamily is worthless. The truth is that it is even worse than worthless; it detracts from the effectiveness of search engines, intrudes on people's use of the Internet, wastes time and adds more "spaminess" to the online experience. Mr. Harrold's software should be considered the online equivalent to all the spam mail we receive: ads for "male enhancement" products, quick weight loss scams and chances to make money by transferring money from Nigerian bank accounts. In short, Mr. Harrold is the same sort of con artist.

Mr. Harrold is one of the same slimeballs that is ruining a good thing and taking us all down a long path into the garbage pits. But, of course, he does not see that.

Mr. Harrold: You are not the emperor and those are not new clothes that you are wearing. Everybody else sees what a fool you are.

How long do you wish to keep saying that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?

[fakefamily]

jenn-f,

Your reply is about what I'd expect from someone who ignores facts - either deliberately or out of ignorance.

What "major point" do I ignore? I've replied to every single comment and every single point made here. Please show me what I've ignored.

Your description of the "search engines" and their business model is naive - at best. AT BEST. If I didn't know better I'd think you were joking, actually.

I don't know if you understand the way the "search engines" work, so here's a little primer:

They send "robots" and "spiders" to websites. These "robots" and "spiders" take whatever they find at the websites and store that information at the "search engines" computers. The "search engines" then manipulate the data, decide who sees this information, how it is displayed, and what ads to fly around it.

So when you make the tired, sad, uninformed comment about "filling the search engines" with ANYTHING, you're not just wrong in spirit, you are wrong in FACT.

Now, if the search engines reversed their model and said, "We will pay you for your information but only if it is true, valid, and meets all our standards," you'd have a case for your "filling the search engines" baloney.

But, you won't see that happen any time soon. See, "jenn", that would mean the "search engines" would have to stop stealing and start PAYING for what they take.

The latter is not as profitable as the former.

No, "jenn", you're wrong and that's the problem. You don't like Fake Family because of the DATA it creates and you have a woefully-incorrect understanding of how the "search engines" operate.

In conclusion, "jenn", you are another in a line of people who do not argue what our software actually DOES. You don't even discuss the numbers or the literal truth about it's output. No, you'd rather grandstand and make speeches about "spam" and cluttering the internet.

When you are ready to discuss what the software does and the numbers behind it's output, let me know.

You'll be the first here to do so. Funny how that works, too. I mean, all this outcry over software that produces content which clearly is NOT real.

Anyhow, "jenn", it's not illegal to produce fictitous lineages - yet. I know people like you would love to see that sort of thing, but it's just not gonna happen til the US Constitution is gone first.

Now, you're not in favor of THAT are you?

[fakefamily]

Peggy,

So, let me see if I understand: Fake Family data (remember, Fake Family does not even create a website, only DATA) is a time-waster and THAT'S your problem with it? You say, "That is a waste of people's time."

You also misconstrue our website. You bypass all the facts and statistics (common among the posters at this blog) for one "nugget" you think you find: "The thing about a family tree created with Fake Family is that the data all fits."

Peggy, what I mean is that the data presented with Fake Family COULD pass as a LOGICALLY and ORGANICALLY ordered lineage. The data fits in the same way that the "data" fits in the plot of a fictitous movie: If you watch a movie and the characters are supposed to live in the United States circa 1800 the movie won't be very believable if the actors are wearing thong bathing suits and driving Toyota Prius's around the town. Hence those things are scripted out - or more importantly, not added.

Just because something looks organic and plausible does not make it real. In fact, since you don't even attempt to argue the numbers behind Fake Family, I'll assume you grant them and agree with them. If not, please pull out your calculator and show me where they are false.

You conclude with, "putting completely fake information on-line simply wastes people's time".

Peggy, you should learn a bit about what it means to "put" something "on-line". If I "put" something at my website that something appears on your computer screen under three conditions: A) Search engines take it and serve it to you, B) You visit my site on your own volition with no invitation from me, or C) I contact you to ask you to visit my site for some reason or another.

You ascribe the same weight to "C" as "A" and "B". While not holding the parties involved with "A" and "B" responsible for their involvement with your searching.

Finally, all this is still such a moot point because it is just not statistically possible for any data created with Fake Family to be taken as geneological work. It is all fiction. Fiction that looks like it COULD be real but NOT for YOUR family tree.

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

Don,

I get it, at least.

First, your product will be adding an imperceptible blip to the tons and tons of cr@p already out on gen web sites.

Second, you've found a rather ingenious way to trick the search engines (sure beats millions of metatags, or white text on a white background, etc.).

Third, a vast number of internet "genealogists" are really name collectors who don't care if the names they are adding are factual or not, so this data won't matter to them.

Fourth, the actual genealogists will have no trouble quickly eliminating fakefamily data.

To all the other posters to this topic:
In genealogy, documentation of sources is not an option, it is essential. If you haven't documented each and every entry in your database, or added a note explaining why there is no source documentation you are guilty of creating a work of fiction, too. What percentage of your databases are unsourced?

[fakefamily]

Dino,

1) Yes.

2) I would not use the words "trick the search engines" because they have no fact-checking to "trick". However, I understand your point.

3) I think I agree with your third point. My assertion is a little more nuanced: If you see a name and that's all you go by, you will constantly be adding bogus data to your family tree. Therefore nothing generated by Fake Family will impact your data more than anything else.

4) Yes. By "actual genealogist" I would include ANYONE who knows even simple, cursory, obvious facts about the tree they are researching.

Your final comments about unsourced data is very relevant. The irony of all this is that Fake Family provides data which is CLEARLY not "real" whereas there are millions of erroneous pages of *real* family trees floating around.

How many time do you see, "Source: WFT submitted by Joe Blow..."?

Folks, that stuff is not primary research AT ALL. And, worse, Family Tree Maker (et al) make millions passing that data to you every day.

Let me say that what Dino presents is a rational take on our software. I do not suggest that Dino agrees with our reasons or that he likes our software. On the contrary, he may find our software a "waste of time" (as has been mentioned here). Yet, I appreciate Dino's ability to discuss what Fake Family actually DOES as opposed to arguing why it's bad - without even understanding what it does in the first place.

Thanks for the post, Dino.

In conclusion, I want to say that if any of you would like to show me ways to make Fake Family's output more OBVIOUSLY "Fake", I am always open to suggestions. Let it be known, however, that to date I've not received an email from anyone on that issue.

Sincerely,
Don Harrold

[NoFakes]

A few comments.

1) There isn't much point in analyzing this too much; Fake Family doesn't pass the sniff test.

Despite that, I'll go on.

2) The odds that Don Harrold posts on his site suggest that there is an extremely small chance of finding a specific person in Fake Family based on First Name, Last Name, Birth Year, and Birth State. As others correctly point out, search terms rarely include that much information. It seems quite likely that people will waste time looking at manufactured data that looks real, but isn't. If people don't waste time doing that, then Fake Family isn't worth using; it's either got to generate traffic--and thus fool people into wasting time--or it isn't going to deliver the ad hits.

So which is it, Don? Will web surfers ever visit sites made using the Fake Family data? If not, is Fake Family worth using? One way or the other, someone loses.

3) Dino is lecturing people about good genealogical practices while simultaneously supporting a product that creates fake data.

4) Any product that needs as much defense as Fake Family is worthy of suspicion.

5) "Beating the search engines", expressed as a goal on Don's site, takes advantage of a useful tool--search engines--in order to put money in the pockets of people who don't create value.

6) Is that smell getting worse?

[fakefamily]

NoFakes,

1) The odds posted at our site (and here) don't "suggest" anything. They prove that the odds of finding FAMILIES or lineages or even COUPLES that match anyone in YOUR family tree is statistically very unlikely on a scale that makes this whole conversation moot.

2) The amount of traffic generated is not the issue. There are other SEO reasons for creating content - of any sort - than just "traffic" to any one site. And, your point is not a conundrum of any sort. I do not claim anything other than the content created with Fake Family meets the criteria of content that search engines will find spiderable (stealable). What the search engines do with the content they steal is up to THEM.

3) Dino did not lecture anyone. He made the case that you should be using primary research for you genealogical work. And, he starts by saying what is TRUTH: The data created by Fake Family is FICTION that cannot be seen as REAL unless you are absolutely ONLY looking at *a* name and you ignore every other thing about that name which would EXCLUDE it from your family tree.

4) Your sob story about the search engines is old and tired. Once more, the search engines don't have to take our content. They choose it. They COULD pay us for our content. But they don't. They COULD hire people to check facts and verify data. But they don't. They COULD stop paying people to fly ads on their sites based on "content" that they don't even physically look at. But they don't.

And, don't make me laugh TOO hard with your sanctimonious "in order to put money in the pockets of people who don't create value" line. LOL!!! The search engines create NOTHING. They TAKE and they PROFIT on what they've taken.

The "value" comes from people who get "free" information. Well, I've got a newsflash for you: The data the search engines TAKE is not FREE. Someone created it. And as long as the search engines are allowed to steal and profit from what they've stolen, the level of content quality will continue to sink.

People like you are always amazing. Facts just don't matter.

Oh, and while we're discussing "smell", how 'bout the stench of the filthy pornography that Google and Yahoo and MSN serve up to ANYONE who wants it. In Google's case, RIGHT FROM THEIR SERVERS.

Yeah, that's a nice "smell", huh? The smell of corporate greed feeding children a daily dose of porn. You like that smell?

Right.

Tell you what, you start hammering the search engines about THAT issue and then get back with me on Fake Family's CLEARLY fictional data.

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

NoFakes,

First, I am not supporting the FakeFamily software. I just "get it." I understand what Don is doing. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

Second, if bringing up the Genealogical Proof Standard in a genealogy blog is lecturing, I plead guilty.

I thought that the whole idea behing genealogy was to factually reconstruct a person's lineage. FakeFamily won't hinder me (a professional genealogist) in the least. And it shouldn't even slow down even a marginally competent genealogist.

Don, as for helping the research-impaired name collectors, maybe when you create your GEDCOM you could put a SOURCE or NOTE tag with a disclaimer in the records.

[NoFakes]

Reply to Don:

1) The odds posted on your site don't "prove" anything. The theory about lies comes to mind: "There are three types of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistice."

2) You use a "don't blame me approach" regarding what search engines do after they index the content of a site. Your rationalization is a mixture of scorn for search engines, the most useful tools on the 'net, and scorn for genealogists who don't live up to your expectations. Both attitudes are wrong and comtemptible. They are similar to the arguments used by low-life spammers.

3) Dino certainly did lecture people. Reread the paragraph that begins, "To all the other posters to this topic..."

4) I didn't tell a "sob story" so I don't know what you mean. I am not worried for or about search engines. I value the services they provide to me, and I do not object to their business models. If I don't want my content to be included in their indexes, then I do not post it on the web or I secure it. What we me to tell you how you can do that? It's not hard.

The search engines *do* create value. They provide a service that is extremely useful. If they didn't, then you wouldn't be worried about SEO, and neither would anyone else. Your shouting that search engines "create nothing" and "steal" is nothing more than an transparent attempt to re-direct the criticism aimed at you and your product.

You seem quite concerned that the "level of content quality will continue to sink." I, on the other hand, am quite happy with it. Prior to the Internet, the old adage "Freedom of the press belongs to people who own one" was far too true. Now, anyone with access to a web server can publish whatever they want. Most of that content is not valuable to me, but that's not the point. Some of that content is wrong (IMO), or in poor taste (IMO). So what? Every other form of publishing is subject to the same limitations.

Personally, I prefer pornographers to people like you. They try to make money by providing something that people want. Whether you or I think that people should want it is not relevant. You, on the other hand, want to make money by providing a tool for other people to fool search engines and in so doing, trick third-parties into wasting time.

I would rather not expose children to pornography, but I think the responsibility for that resides with their parents. It's regrettable that search engines will sometimes return results that include objectionable content, but there are tools and settings to avoid that and search engines should not be the web's de facto censors.

Dino applauds your ingenuity, but I don't. In this case, I judge the end product, not the means.

[fakefamily]

NoFakes,

I thought I'd seen it all. You've finally shown me something new, though:

You place the disemmination of hardcore porn to children ABOVE a piece of software which creates obviously FAKE family tree data.

You know what, it's sad to watch people like you. Instead of admitting the truth and finding ways to discuss an issue on real terms, you will say or do ANYTHING to further your agenda.

Thus ends my dicussion with you on the topic.

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

NoFakes,

You are forcing me into a corner defending Don, which is a position that I really don't want to be in since I'm not that much of a fan of his product.

You said: "pornographers [...] try to make money by providing something that people want" and Don tries to make money by fooling search engines. There are plenty of people out there who would like a tool to fool the search engines. Why don't we let the market decide? If Don's product is something people want, they'll buy it. If not, they won't and it'll be off the market. Simple as that.

My so-called lecture (actually three sentences) was an open question to the posters on this topic to think about how many entries in their own databases are unsourced (and hopefully act as a catalyst for people to start ebtering sources.) Having been a professional genealogist for over 20 years and having seen the databases I have, I can certainly hazard a guess! By the way, what percentage of your database entries are sourced (please exclude WFT and unsourced GEDCOMs) or annotated with comments about possible problems?

[fakefamily]

Dino,

I'd like to add something which has been 100% ignored thus far:

Fake Family is NOT FOR SALE to the general public. There are probably less than 10 people who have it.

Our site is clear about that.

DH

[Jake of All Trades]

Hey! What happened to my comment, Don? What part of it do I need to leave out next time, to keep the whole thing from being censored? Was it the link to that ridiculous photo on your own website "duderockstar"? Or maybe it's just really threatening when someone says to you, "Eat a piece of humble pie". Seriously, Don, everybody likes you better without the black hat. You can even be funny sometimes, when you're not backed into a corner trying to defend some lost cause. Leave the corner and join the party; in this world you're among friends.

[D Lohr]

Don,

The fact that you have had to repeatedly defend your product here and elsewhere should be a clear indication of just how much disdain is held for your software among the genealogical community.

Taking advantage of a loophole in Google and other SERPs--that would undoubtedly be closed should your software take off--could prove fatal to legitimate researchers using a search engine. Google et al would have no recourse but to null the GEDCOM file format in their results.

Pointing a finger at Google and stating you only sold 10 copies is like purposefully reshelving the books incorrectly at 10+ research libraries, replacing the books with advertisements, then blaming the libraries for not being more vigilent.

The fact that you cannot seem to understand why people are so upset about your software, while using red herrings to defend it, is disturbing at best.

[fakefamily]

D Lohr,

What is "disturbing" is that the literal truth is ignored. The facts are ignored. What you brush off as "red herrings" are nothing of the sort. A "red herring" would be an argument based on duplicity or misdirection. On the absolute contrary is the FACT that all the hoopla that surrounds Fake Family's effect on genealogy is baseless.

It is also "disturbing" that not ONE person has contacted us to inquire about Fake Family yet you are all so very glib and pontificating about it in these blogs and message boards.

It is also "disturbing" the personal attacks, name calling, and vitriol sent our way over something that is a FICTION WRITING software that (more and more posts are saying this, too) cannot affect any "real" geneological work.

It is also "disturbing" that the search engines - who disemminate FICTION-as-fact every day to genealogical researchers - get a pass from the likes of you. These are the same corporations that make billions serving up everything from porn to kids, to the oceans of spam-filled garbage you have to wade through to find anything anymore.

Talk about "red herrings", by the way: Do you really believe it's an argument of merit to say that if uninformed, agenda-pushing people "don't like" something and fill blogs with lies and personal attacks, that somehow our software is "bad"?

I wish one of you would take my challenge and show me where any data created with Fake Family will fit in an ACTUAL family tree. I also wish one of you would have the intellectual consistency to admit that Family Tree Maker and Ancestry.Com, and the search engines all profit wildly from the disemmination of FICTION-as-fact.

Finally, and, I don't mean to sound presumptious, but, what business is it of yours if we sell our software? What law are we breaking? Is it a crime to write fiction with software?

I mean, no point in replying. I know what you'll say.

And, has it not dawned on you that we AREN'T EVEN SELLING THIS SOFTWARE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC??? Has that fact not struck anyone as significant. I mean, we COULD do that. But we DON'T.

Gee whiz. All this over software that maybe (MAYBE) a dozen people in the world have.

I'm not sure why I keep replying to these posts, but I guess I think that at some point logic, reason, truth and facts will start to matter.

[fakefamily]

D Lohr,

Oh, by the way, your fear about Google "nulling" gedcom files is misguided. That would be GREAT NEWS. If they got their grubby paws off that data it would force people to go to OTHER places for their searching. Other places that might (JUST MIGHT) have some STANDARDS about the data they TAKE. (Remember, Google TAKES without checking ANYTHING).

A world where Google (et al) is NOT TAKING OUR DATA is a good world for CLEAN DATA.

If Google was not involved with gedcoms that would mean that REAL RESEARCH could begin again. REAL sites run by REAL people might (again, JUST MIGHT) start allowing data into databases that was as clean as they could reasonably check.

That scenario, by the way, would make any content created with Fake Family sort of a HUGE non-issue. And, that would mean that we'd not be selling to many copies. And, that would be FINE with me.

If the search engines got OUT of our data and I never sold a single copy of Fake Family I would be VERY VERY VERY HAPPY.

You probably will post something now along the lines of, "The search engines are our friends and even though they do some stuff I don't like they are super cool because they let me find all sorts of neat family tree stuff for free and..."

But, if you'd take a moment and reflect, you'd see that it is TRUTH that I write here. It is TRUTH that the demise of clean data began when bloated corporate behemoths said:

"Hey, you mean we can TAKE anything we want and NOT PAY FOR IT, and then sell ads around it, and people will blame each other for bad data, and NOT US? Cool!"

I mean, come ON. Why don't you find a REAL issue to be uptight about like the 8000 publishers suing Google for what many call "outright theft" of copyrighted material. Or, how about the fact that the search engines REALLY DO profit from the distribution of every filthy thing you can imagine?

Where is your outcry over any of that?

I know, I know... All of these are just "red herrings".

But, you know what, I'm smart. I don't get any glory out of this stuff. I'm certainly not making money on Fake Family.

So, you gotta ask, why in the world would we hold these opinions and speak so passionately about these things if not for profit?

Your answer should lead you to the conclusion that we're not scumbags, "the devil", "satan's spawn", huckters, or whatever else is posted about us. Your answer should lead to you believe that we are trying to find ways to empower people against corporations who are unchecked and unfettered in their increasing control of information - who gets it and who profits from it.

There are important issues that we believe strongly about and I wish one of you - JUST ONE - would say, something like, "Well, maybe they've got a point."

Anyway, now, I'll step back and let the next round of namecalling begin...

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

Don,

You know, of course, that all of this vitriol is directed against you because you actually had the guts to stand up and say "Here's a product that can create totally fictional family trees."

FTM's World Family Tree project is much more insidious because they've taken a lot of just bogus lineages and sold them to people. I am not saying that what they're selling is outright fiction, like your product. It is much worse. In all of those WFT family trees there is a certain amount of factual data that is intermingled with a whole lot of false links, bad conclusions, unproven ancestries and just plain old "name collector" graft-on-a-branch-because-I-think-it's-right family trees.

Is your product useful to genealogists? No, but it wasn't meant to be. Does your product contribute to the body of genealogical scholarship? No, but it wasn't meant to. Is your product going to cause mass confusion and dubious scholarship in genealogical research? No, because it produces fiction.

I just wish I could say the same for FTM's for-profit CD's.

For a related thread see Dick's new topic "Ten Commandments of Genealogy."

[rdx]

Don,

"we are trying to find ways to empower people against corporations"

Who are you speaking for?

[fakefamily]

rdx,

http://p218.ezboard.com/fgensuckfrm1.showMessage?topicID=324.topic

Tell you what, if you want to discuss issues regarding Fake Family with me you first need to apologize and retract your post. It's that sort of wanton flaming and flame-baiting that destroys any chance of honest discussion of ANY issue.

[rdx]

Don,

My intention with the posting on the Gensuck board was this: 1) I was curious what people thought about FakeFamily. 2) Your software would fit well into this site's subject: Controversial issues about genealogy.

I wrote: "Just in case some of you want to join bashing them:" [URL of this blog]. I'm sorry, if this is too harsh and sounds like a call for action.

And now a confession, another post of mine: http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum5/7164.htm . This is where I first read about ArticleBot.

Your post of November 09, 2005 at 06:27 PM suggests that with FakeFamily the englightement of people blinded by search engines is on your agenda. Is the purpose of ArticleBot the same? ArticleBot seems like a pure for-profit product.

[fakefamily]

rdx,

You were not "curious" about anything. You asked others to JOIN in the BASHING. You're not "sorry" about anything other than the fact that no one "joined" the bashing in that forum.

If you are interested in ArticleBot go to our site and inquire about it there.

[D Lohr]

Don,

> Oh, by the way, your fear about Google "nulling" gedcom files is misguided. That would be GREAT NEWS. A world where Google (et al) is NOT TAKING OUR DATA is a good world for CLEAN DATA.

You view the inability to Google GEDCOM files as “GREAT NEWS”?!? Are you actually serious?

This is the most dangerous and callous comment you could have made, and it is exactly what I am fearful will happen. You have just made my point by proving my entire thesis is credible: Your software creates fictious GEDCOM files as a way of luring people searching the internet into a commercial site. Search engines will be forced to discount GEDCOM files in their SERPs—or rank them extremely low—in order to counteract this. The end result is that legitimate researchers will not be able to Google researchers working on the same family line(s). This is anything but "GREAT NEWS".

The basis of your argument has been that Fake Family is statistically incapable of generating datum that matches actual individuals. Those statistics may or may not be viable, but the real threat as I see it has never been Fake Family's unitended replication of data. The greatest risk is that search engines will begin counteracting GEDCOM files in their SERPs as a direct result of your software, setting genealogy back at least 5-10 years, effectively making the most pervasive, transferrable, file format for genealogists obsolete. You have admitted that this is in fact possible and look forward to the day it happens. I am nothing short of shocked and dismayed at your cavalier attitude.

> I wish one of you would take my challenge and show me where any data created with Fake Family will fit in an ACTUAL family tree. I also wish one of you would have the intellectual consistency to admit that Family Tree Maker and Ancestry.Com, and the search engines all profit wildly from the disemmination of FICTION-as-fact.
> Why don't you find a REAL issue to be uptight about like the 8000 publishers suing Google for what many call "outright theft" of copyrighted material. Or, how about the fact that the search engines REALLY DO profit from the distribution of every filthy thing you can imagine? I know, I know... All of these are just "red herrings".

I'm well aware of them and yes, they are red herrings.

The argument against Ancestry is particularly interesting. Your thesis is that Ancestry is a large corporation and they have fictious data because they are not as careful as they should be. The difference is that you are a relatively small business and doing it on purpose. This is like an arsonist arguing that the fire department is bigger and won't put out every fire, so why can't I set a couple blazes on purpose?

> Your answer should lead to you believe that we are trying to find ways to empower people against corporations who are unchecked and unfettered in their increasing control of information - who gets it and who profits from it.

You really need to expound on this answer, if the above paragraph is your true motivation for creating this software. Please give me further details about your software’s ability to limit large corporations' control of information and the associated profits. I look forward to your answer.

> Finally, and, I don't mean to sound presumptious, but, what business is it of yours if we sell our software? What law are we breaking? Is it a crime to write fiction with software?

There are 2 fundamental laws in our society, that which is legal, and that which is moral. You are absolutely correct, as your software is completely legal ....

[fakefamily]

D Lohr,

I am SO sick of this garbage. Do you people READ?

A) My point was that Google takes data indiscriminately. They distribute data indiscriminately. That distribution of data proliferates FALSE data EVERY DAY. The part you ignore is that the data they distribute NOW is all supposedly part of "real" family trees. So, what you have now is a system where the search engines send you to sites with false data that is SUPPOSED to be REAL. That system is FLAWED and some people argue CRIMINAL. Your inability to understand (or choice to ignore) the facts regarding the collection and distribution of data is unfortunate. If you sat down and actually thought about it you'd see this was TRUE.

And, sadly, you actually use the word "google" as a verb. This means that you are one of the masses who actually believe that Google is a benevolent, friendly vehicle that faciliates searching for the common good. (or something like that).

The only folks I know who actually use the word "google" as a verb are... Well, check that. I don't know anyone who uses "google" as a verb.

So, this whole conversation with you will be meaningless as you will just spin 'round and 'round as a dog chasing it's tail. I'll make points about the way data is collected and distributed - that you'll ignore - and you'll say "google's great".

2) Your use of hyperbolic platitudes like, "I'm shocked and dismayed" is silly. Just plain silly. You'd think we were talking about something real important. You know, like distributing porn to kids (a point you just pass right by in your praise of google). But, no, we're talking about FICTIONAL characters created with software that have no chance (NO CHANCE) in trillions of EVER being seen as "real". You say, "The basis of your argument has been that Fake Family is statistically incapable of generating datum that matches actual individuals. Those statistics may or may not be viable..."

No, those statistics (if you'd bother to pull out a calculator) "may" be viable. Let me rephrase: The statistics we quote are more likely CONSERVATIVE for many factors I've not even brought up yet.

Point being, you just gloss right past what the software actually does to talk about HYPOTHETICAL situations that are light-years from this conversation. Even more "shocking" and "dismaying" to me is that you just don't read the part where we say we DON'T EVEN SELL THIS software to the general public. And, if you try to buy it you CAN'T.

So, what we have is me sticking to the facts and you ignoring facts, speaking hyperbolically about the morality of our software, and the hypothetical impact (it) will have on genealogical research.

Dude, this is ridiculous.

More ridiculous is that I keep replying.

And, stop it. Just STOP IT with this nonsense about making gedcoms obsolete. That's insane. People still use text files, right? They still use spreadsheets, right? They still USE THE INTERNET, right? All of these file formats (and, yes, html is a "file format") spread falsehoods every day all day. They are not "obsolete" yet.

And, Google ain't gonna toss out a file format anyhow. But, whatever. I mean, now you've got ME talking about hypotheticals.

3) Just 'cause you say something don't make it true. See, when you say "I'm well aware of them and yes, they are red herrings." You are not stating fact. You are stating opinion. And, your opinion doesn't match with the facts.

It is not a "red herring" to wonder why you are so gleeful and positive about Google's inability to fact-check; their apparent ambivalence to the spread of FILTH to children; and, their role in this whole issue of "bad data" being spread around.

No, those are not "red herrings". What IS a "red herring" is your use of that term. I mean, since you can't deny the facts about our software, and you can't REALLY defend the search engines, you just drop out the "red herring" comments like that means something.

Well, it does NOT. You are not serious about genealogy or clean data. If you were, you'd be very interested in finding ways to clean up the system you've grown so dependent on.

'Cause, here's a newsflash: The search engines don't care one bit about you or the data you get. They CAN'T. The moment they begin to start "cleaning" data is the moment they become responsible for what you look at. And, ah... Now, there's a problem they don't want on THEIR plate.

So, they let you get crap data and leave me as a scape goat for your inability to get clean data.

I know this is all new to you. I understand. Really, I do. You live in a world where "google" is your buddy and, darn it, if scallywags like me would not exist, your genealogy work would be just peachy.

But, that's just not the real world.

Your take on MY take about Ancestry shows that, once more, you miss the point. My point has NOTHING to do with the size of anyone's company. My point is that Ancestry.com distributes FALSE DATA every single day. EVERY DAY. And, there are MANY MANY MANY genealogists who are sick of it. Yet, Ancestry.com continues to profit wildly from the data they distribute. This is not "my" theory, by the way. This is widely known and discussed.

The next point - that you miss - is that the data at Ancestry is supposed to be REAL. It is tied to REAL family trees. So, when you use THAT data you have the implied approval of Ancestry. Note that I say "implied" because, Ancestry has all sorts of disclaimers about, well, not blaming them if you get lousy data through them.

That's not a "red herring". That's a PROBLEM. A SERIOUS problem with genealogical research.

And, once more, your silliness continues with the line about starting fires. No, that's not the case. Here's the analogy:

Companies that sell data now start fires. They hand you the matches. They give you the tinder.

Fake Family gives you a hologram that looks like what a fire might look like.

Finally, I did not say that our "true motivation" for creating Fake Family was ANYTHING. I pointed out that YOUR assumptions are NOT true and that we have values BEYOND making money. And, D Lohr, we don't owe you any explanation about our business model. In fact, that's not even an issue that should be a part of this discussion. I allude to our beliefs to point out that we are not scumbags, hucksters, spawns of satan, the devil, or any other of the sundry epithets thrown our way.

Your final, melodramatic, statement is ridiculous. Fake Family is neither moral nor immoral. Neither good nor bad. Fake Family is not even in the same UNIVERSE as Ancestry, Google, et al.

So, when you are ready to discuss the REAL issues surrounding the ruination of genealogic research, let me know. I mean, if you really want a system that works, there are ways to get what you want.

Fake Family is not a threat to your family tree. It is impossible. And, once more, I close by asking one of you to show a family created with Fake Family that matches even ONE family in the real world. (See challenges above...)

That doesn't happen. So, what we are now left with is people like you (D Lohr) making comments that ignore facts, AND forming opinions about hypothetical situations based on erroneous facts, AND ignoring the real dangers to genealogy on the web.

Okay. Well, guess that about does it for now. Time to wait for more platitudes...

NOTE: Dear Mr. Eastman, you've actually done the opposite of what I'd think you'd want. Your blog has sent more traffic to our site than we could have ever hoped for. Now, it must come as a shock that we aren't selling the software to the general public (that would further your agenda that we were "scammers"). So, I wonder when you will take down the lies you told about us that started this whole thing.

I wonder...

[GenerationGoneBY]

I tried to find FakeFamily's email address, but the two pages mentioned do not contain contact information. Neither does Fake Family's profile page.

So here's my question. Why does the example page given on your website say it was created by Legacy? If the website itself said it was created by Fake Family, then I would have NO trouble with what you are doing. (The ad companies might, but that's another story). My webpages all state who created the page, who is responsible for the content (since I run a cemeteries site, not all the images are mine) and my genealogy site states that it was created by Second Site. Is it all correct? Probably not, but I (and my contributors) have done the very best we can to verify and prove the claims that we make, and to proof read the cemetery pages so that there are no typos, or transcriptions.
You can decide for yourself how you want to do business, but it would seem to me that you would be proud to have the pages you create say "Created by Fake Family version 1.0."

It seems to me that what you really set out to do was make a fool of Dick Eastman, but it backfired. Since I saw no link to purchase said software, and you yourself say you don't sell it to the general public, my next question is "does it even exist?"
Terea Ghee Elliott

[fakefamily]

Terea Ghee Elliott,

Now, I think I've literally heard EVERYTHING. Are you SERIOUS? Does it REALLY "seem to you" that we set out to make a fool of Dick Eastman?

Whew.

So, here we are. We've gone from Dick Eastman's hyberbolic and inaccurate original blog post to Terea positing that the software does not even exist.

Wow. Terea, Dick needs no help from us to look foolish.

But, you are correct, there is no way to purchase the software. And, that would make this whole thing sortof a moot point.

Or, maybe the software DOESN'T exist after all.

Who knows!

[GenerationGoneBY]

So you still haven't answered my question. How do I contact you to "find out the truth" about Fake Family? A search of your hated Google brings up the links here, and one apparently real family named Fake. But no where do I find any thing about you, or Fake Family. (Except the links offered by other readers, that I can't be sure are really you. Maybe they are fake data too.) So if the software doesn't exist, and you aren't selling it if it is, then exactly what is your point? I didn't see any ads on the pages I went to, so unless you have a deal with sitemeter, I don't see how any of this benefits you at all. So yes, I think you started this to make a fool out of Mr. Eastman, and his readers as well. Or is this premarketing of your product. I for one will be saving my money for real research documents.
Teresa Ghee Elliott

[Gail Moore]

Perhaps we should all pull together and boycott both his ligit businesses and his ill gotten ones and see how he likes them apples!
It has worked in the past with other large compaines.
I have no problem with a person earning an honest dollar but when someone on purpose sets out to pull a fast one of folks less informed...........well that's just a shame.
If this is how he chooses to live his life I guess so be it.........but I would not want to be him come judgement day and when facing St. Peter and those pearly gates!
His endevor may end up going up in flames on that day for sure
Gail Moore and proud of it

[Joseph]

Completely atrocious.

I have nothing major to add, everyone has more elegantly stated what I would have said. I just want to rally support with those against Fake Family. Having read the "replies", I don't buy a single word of it. Yes, in a perfect world, your statistics are right. We aren't in a perfect world yet. How can you intentionally create false information? Even if no one used it [and they will], why just create thousands of pages you have to weed through to find the authentic data? You are making genealogy harder. Having seen your homepage I tend to think you support genealogy, even enjoy genealogy. I have often found valid records through search engines. Not user submitted, valid original source information. An archived cemetery, online vital records, etc., that appeared as I was searching for my name. Now, instead of finding it on page 2, I "get" to weed through tons of useless garbage. Why do that? Just judging from the response, surely you can see that you are not well accepted in the genealogical community. There must be a reason, can the majority be wrong? Sadly, sir, you are in the minority.

While legally you will likely get away with it, how can you have something like that on your conscious, KNOWING that some idiot novice, bless their soul, will download the information and use it as true, then spreading the fiction [lies] through the LDS church websites, and other websites. It will happen. I have all sorts of names where all I have is a census listing the father's name, and state, and that is it, no further information to rule it a false by! Collaboration, in my mind, is one of the several keystones to genealogical work. Not everybody lives in Salt Lake unfortunately. I don't. I might only make it around to the Family History Library every two or three years sadly. Yes, there are resources like Ancestry.com, and other resources available at the Family History Centers available in our LDS stake center, but ultimately that is no replacement for the Family History Library. I have relatives in several hard to access locations, such as the mountainous areas of North Carolina, which Ancestry.com has no records for. Simply put almost nothing exists on those relatives, few to no records were kept, and even when I go to the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, it is rare that I find very much. I therefore depend heavily on Internet collaboration to try and get these lines researched, as people often have records passed down, such as family bibles. I rely on people who live in North Carolina who might have access to original records, I try and find relatives through message boards and email lists such as this one, and I rely on resources such as the Pedigree Resource Files and Ancestry.com's free WorldConnect resources. It is the very little I have to rely on. I often will take information from PRF [Pedigree Resource], and World Connect. I don't take it as truth until I prove it, but at least it gives me something to work off of. I would rather prove/disprove a name I have been given, then try and find a name based off of nothing. Sometimes I prove the information I downloaded from someone else was true, and therefore keep it. Other times I prove it is false, and away it goes. Usually it will take me two to three years of work before I can successfully determine whether it is true or false, and that includes at least one visit to the Family History Library in Salt Lake City. I don't mind the years of research, as long as I think someone honestly believed when they submitted their information, that what they were submitting was valid information. However, if I were to find after the fact that I had spent two to three years, and an expensive trip to Salt Lake SIMPLY to work on data that someone claimed was valid even though it was KNOWINGLY false, merely so that they could collect advertising dollars, it would take me years upon years to forgive them. I can usually find my ancestors in online family trees, and a majority of my research is proving or disproving that information. Why be redundant and do the same research twice? I believe in saving efforts in order to allow more genealogy work to be done, so if I can definitively prove someone's file, I shout for joy and call it good. Just saved me years of original research that I can now put towards another name. Simply put, I would be light years behind in my genealogy if it were not for the online collaboration I use through the sharing of pedigrees via PRF and WorldConnect. Collaboration is a VITAL part of online genealogy, and we cannot allow it to be polluted. Why would the LDS church support the PRF if it was simply a “bad” genealogy practice?

What about the copy cats? What about those who take it past 1880 in software they write. What about those who use this concept to randomly create what are billed as "valid original source records". Say for instance, cemetery records. A bunch of random names and dates. People will exploit this idea. Then we have nothing to rely on in our pursuit.

If you support genealogy, as your home page would seem to indicate, why confuse it just for monetary gain? You won't even be making that much money if, as you say, you are only selling it to a limited select group. Why not turn those outstanding programming skills, such as being able to successfully reverse engineer the Gedcom, and write your own genealogy software to benefit the genealogy community. NO good will come of your software. I bet if you took those skills and found new innovative ways to use it [PAFInsight comes to mind], almost all genealogists would purchase it.

Tell me one good that your software will have to benefit the genealogy community? At best, nothing, at worst, irreparably damage it by spreading false genealogy and inspiring copy cats.

My two cents. I would love to argue it.

[Blastfurnace]

I'm not a genealogist - I came across this site and discussion on fakefamily.com. Not being a genealogist, perhaps I don't "get it" but this seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. With the billions of pages indexed by Google, I don't think enough people are going to be using this software to really have any impact on the percentage of false data in the results.

Personally, I don't trust anything I find in Google unless it is from a known source or I can verify it elsewhere anyway. I don't see why genealogy would be any different. If I found data on "The Smith Family Website" I would question its validity. On the other hand, ancestry.com sounds to me (an admitted "idiot novice" as the last post put it) like it would be a more believable source.

I did find the opinions expressed here about Family Tree Maker interesting, however. I have seen the program and didn't realize that the data in it wasn't fully researched. Interestingly, there is an ad right at the top of this website with an affiliate link for this software. If it is also passing incorrect information, that seems like a bit of a double standard to me.

If nothing else, this whole saga has provided some Saturday evening entertainment for me. It makes me wonder, however, if there would be an equal amount of outrage if the topic was completely different - say a program that created fake VIN numbers for collectible cars.

[Sherry]

I have read the comments regarding fakefamily.com. I can not pretend to be as learned as most of you. I have only been at this great hobby for two years.

With the limited knowledge that I have, this appears to be a bait and switch. I do not understand how anyone can defend this tactic.

If it comes up on a search engine, it is a waste of time. I echo that sentiment.

Do not justify your actions by pointing out what others do. Wrong does not justify right.

You ought to be ashamed. You are taking advantage of a hobby (for lack of a better term) shared by millions worldwide for the almighty buck, it is as simple as that.

[Dick Eastman]

There is another article about this can be found on TechDirt: http://techdirt.com/articles/20051114/016237.shtml

[Tracy Hall]

On November 04, 2005 at 05:33 AM Peggy wrote:

>My personal genealogy blog was just spammed with a comment linking to
>www.reconnectwithfamily.com . The site has what appears to be genealogy >data, but is covered with ads, and the genealogies appear to be fake. Could >this be a site demonstrating the use of the Fake Family software?

I don't know whether or not it uses FakeFamily software, but it's based on the same premise -- to create fake data, or scrape data from other sites, just to draw traffic to its advertising. The site even has a "family blog" that scrapes data from real genealogy sites -- including several thefts from Dick Eastman!

http://reconnectwithfamily.blogspot.com/

[Dick Eastman]

As reported by a number of people, FakeFamily.com is now offline. I have not heard any reports if this is a temporary situation or if it is permanent.