Relatives and Transfer Guidelines

Find a Grave members have done and continue to do an incredible service by documenting burials, adding memorials to the site and managing them! Find a Grave would not exist without the work of incredible members and your continued efforts.

In our ideal world each memorial on Find a Grave would be managed by someone who had a connection to or knowledge about the person memorialized, but that will never be the case. As a community, we depend on people who generously volunteer their time to add, maintain and update information on people they aren’t related to and don’t even know. These members do a wonderful service.

Often times, after a memorial has been created, a family member, relative or someone else with a connection to the person memorialized finds it and would like to manage that memorial. Most often, memorial managers are willing to transfer these because they know that someone with knowledge of the person will likely make the best manager of the memorial, but in some cases memorial managers are hesitant to transfer memorials.

Over the years Find a Grave has developed transfer guidelines to help clarify when a manager should transfer a memorial to a family member. These guidelines are not intended to disrespect the work of those who create these memorials, but to help balance everyone’s interests and provide clear guidance.

This is difficult subject to traverse as there are many people related to one person. Our transfer guidelines have served well, but the site has grown exponentially, and we continue making improvements to best serve our members.

Right now, our memorial transfer guidelines include mandatory transfers for direct line family members (spouse, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, great-grandparent, grandchild, great-grandchild), but the most connected family members are not always those in a direct line.

We’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the idea of our transfer guidelines being more rounded instead of only direct line – adding aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, first cousin, or _____?

We’re also interested in your perspective on the idea of transferring memorials to any family member when requested if the memorial manager is not themselves related.

Please share your thoughts with us through the comments below!

69 comments

  1. I feel the guidelines should be left as they are. There are enough people related to the deceased the way the system works now and to add aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. would make it even more confusing when more than one person asks for a transfer. Please stress the importance of Virtual Cemeteries to people more so that they can keep their family members together including the ones for whom they have made the memorials. Thank you.

    Like

  2. The transfers should probably be expanded to include more non-direct line relatives. Further to the notion of transferring, how, on your side, can you tell when a memorial “owner” is no longer alive, or not using the website? Are there trigger emails for lack of activity by the users? If so, after a period of time, could further triggers suggest to direct line descendent memorial owners be asked if they would like to assume ownership of those memorials. If nobody responds to that, who then “owns” the memorial?

    Like

    • Hi Jason, if you suspect that a member is no longer active you can send us the information through this form and we’ll look into the account: https://www.findagrave.com/contact If a member has been marked inactive by Find a Grave or is linked to their memorial page as a Fallen Graver, then the memorials are managed by Find a Grave. Members can request management of non-famous Find a Grave managed memorials through “Suggest Edits” on the memorial page.

      Like

  3. To me, I don’t “own” the memorials that I add to FindAGrave. If any family member requests transfer, I gladly do it.

    However, if I’m related to someone’s memorial that I have added, the person requesting transfer will need to be a more direct/closer relation than myself.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Personally I would like to see them open up to those extended family members, BUT, unfortunately there are too many contributors who feel they need to maintain the memorial rather than sending edits, etc. I believe those contributors would abuse this lessening of the transfer regs. Many, many of the contributors are here for the right purpose and I believe would voluntarily transfer those memorials. There are times when even I do not like to transfer memorials to certain (unrelated) contribs because I know their history or by looking at their other memorials, I know they will not make a better memorial than I have/could do.
    So, my vote would be to NOT open it up to further relatives.

    Like

  5. I think stretching it to include non- direct relatives would be fine. I think any relative willing to take over a memorial that is currently being handled by a non- relative is a step in the right direction.

    Like

  6. Oh, I could write a book on this one. While I have a lot of memorials myself, about 5k- no where near the people that have 100’s of thousands, a lot of it is from walking cemeteries taking photos and adding a memorial if there is not one. I have transferred every memorial that has been asked for. Of course, I prefer to keep family members but I would also transfer dear friends of mine to one of their family members. There are a LOT of members that DEFINITELY see this a numbers game, a competition, a power play. I know gravers that have in their bio “do NOT ask for a transfer, you are wasting your time”, “I will NOT transfer to anyone for any reason”, “I don’t care if they are your family, I made the memorial and it is staying that way”. How selfish of these people! There is a lady an hour from me that will post every death within 100’s of miles of here, She has threatened my LIFE over memorials to the point I had to ask for help. She would stalk me and make ridiculous edits that were not even close to being correct and then turn me in for not accepting them- they were on my own family so I know for a fact what was correct. This lady has so many memorials but refuses to transfer to anyone- what a selfish hoarder. I got a cemetery sheet to add memorials to a local cemetery- once she found out what I was doing- she started adding the same names as dups to the same one- even adding people that were NOT buried there. This is not helpful behavior along with her hoarding and not sharing with family that can add so much more than she cares to do.

    I would LOVE to see transfers broader BUT, I’m not stupid enough to think it would really work. Most people are very nice but there a WAY too many that refuse edits much less a transfer. I know it is totally impossible, but you would probably be surprised at the number that have a bio that states very emphatically that they will NOT TRANSFER to anyone.

    Like

    • You have a dozen reasons to report that woman by name to FaG. They have several reasons to summarily kick her butt off FaG. I have done (tried to do) business with contributors like her. I sometimes think these hoarders assume there is some direct link between the number of FaG pics and memorials they have taken or created AND the size and location of their awaited mansion in Heaven!!!

      Like

  7. I think any relative should be allowed to manage a memorial. If there is a problem with more than one relative wanting a memorial, the one closest in the relationship should be given preference.

    I believe the majority of transfers made to me have been sent to me without my permission or knowing my relationship to the person. Many of them are distant relatives who I know about only because of finding them for my tree.

    When you say transfers for direct line family members are mandatory, how is that put into practice? I have dealt with one member MANY times about adding quite obvious correct info, but he refuses. Many of these I would be glad to manage, but he doesn’t ask and probably would not transfer even if I asked.

    If I asked and he refused, would I ask you to intervene?

    Like

  8. I’m very fussy about the memorials that I manage and I don’t want to transfer them unless I’m forced to do so.
    My reasoning is mainly because just about every memorial that has been transferred to me from Find A Grave’s management has needed tweeking, correcting or needed additional information. I know that Find A Grave did not create these memorials, but in general, I’ve found that they were carelessly created or managed by the original creator. I actually look at the memorials created by someone who requests management of one of my memorials before I transfer to them, but I have always transferred within the current guidelines. Very often the person asking for out of guidelines is new to Find A Grave and has no clue about how it works. I worked hard to create my memorials and don’t want to transfer to someone who won’t care for them as I have. Long story but please don’t change the transfer requirements. Thanks for listening.

    Like

  9. I think they are fine as they are. There are too many people who are name collectors and do absolutely nothing to contribute to the site. If more people would ask nicely instead of demanding and insulting the person managing it, memorial managers would be more inclined to transfer. Expanding the list will be problematic. It is fairly easy to verify direct line. How do you verify cousins or great-aunts and uncles? In my opinion, this is just going to cause more problems than it solves.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. A memorial should always be transferred to any family member when held by a non-family member. In cases where two family members request the same memorial, current guidelines should prevail.

    Like

  11. I always transfer memorials to anyone who asks, unless I happen to be more closely related to the person. That said, I don’t think we need to expand the category of those to whom transfers are *mandatory.* I’m afraid that would be asking for more disputes and conflicts.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I feel rounding out the current guidelines could be appropriate for the cases you stated about but also keep in mind that these are only guidelines and not rules. That can be a sticky point as everyone has their own views and opinions. Direct relatives should always be required but you also shouldn’t be turned down just because it’s an aunt or cousin as long as the manager doesn’t have a better claim.

    Like

  13. Please don’t open transfers to any family member. It’s hard enough dealing with people who are trying to ‘collect them all’ like this is Pokemon. Extending transfers in the direct line makes sense – perhaps great-great-grandparents. Aunts/uncles/niece/nephew makes sense too. When you get into cousins and beyond you open up a whole new can of worms. So many people consider friends and other extended folks “cousins”.

    I’d much rather see findgrave underscore what it means to collaborate. There’s almost never a *need* to manage a memorial, other than self-satisfaction. Further extending the transfer guidelines past a few levels creates chaos, and underscores that people who have been doing this volunteer work are not actually valued at the same level as a distant family member who shows up and demands management of memorials created years prior.

    I transfer memorials to others almost every time I’m politely asked, but I still feel this is inviting aggravation for your most dedicated contributors.

    Like

  14. I would like to see non-direct ancestors added for transfers. Some of my ancestors had ten or more children. Some are easy to find, some aren’t. Also, we may remember some ancestors (like great aunts, etc.) but future generations will not have memories or know of these people.
    My purpose is to pull families together, so future generations will have a starting place. It should not be about who has the most memorials but correct information.

    There are a few people who make FAG sites for everyone who dies in our area. I started one for my mother and by the time I got back to finish, someone else had pulled in a picture of her. Just had an uncle die and the same situation. It’s not fair to those of us who really are related and knew the people or have been told about the people from members. No tokens are left and we don’t know the site is out there.

    Like

  15. I feel the transfer guidelines should stay the same. People will ask for a transfer and have never sent a single edit for the memorial or even placed a flower on the memorial. Some that ask continue to make burial unknowns or plops and dont care about the factual information.

    Making the transfer option a part of the edit tab would be a good change. Explaining the person can suggest any change without having to manage as an explanation. Have a pull down box to choose relation or not related and a comment box would be better functionality.

    There are bigger issues that Findagrave needs to center upon than transfers (burial unknowns is biggest and mass emailing of members with change of any rule – make them rules not suggestions). There will always be unhappy people no matter what you choose to do.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. We as a group try and encourage family members to come forward and “claim” if you will, their relatives as it is always better to “keep it in the family”.One issue we come across is that many memorial pages are created with little or no information, so identifying people in the first place is very difficult. In our experience, many edits come from non family members who have done the research needed, whereas a family member or someone who is doing their own family history project is, by the very nature of how this works, not going to be directly related to everybody, and as has already been suggested by Find A Grave, how does it work when several people may want to manage the same page.

    People often ask if you are related to someone, or ask how did you find that information. It is fairly obvious that these folks are related. Often if tokens are left with a personal message attached, again it is is obvious when a relationship is often mentioned. Sometimes we find that if a memorial page is being offered for a transfer, lots of members, mostly new ones that are perhaps first timers on Find A Grave, don’t want the transfer, or at least not at that time.

    Again as mentioned, the guidelines have worked pretty well over the years and is there really a queue of uncles and aunts waiting for the chance to manage a certain memorial page. Page managers should simply, in our view, just use common sense and if something should in their view be transferred, then just do it without having to necessarily try to figure out how close, or otherwise the relationship might be. Of course you could transfer the page to someone, who then gets a request for the page to go to somebody else and so on.

    As an overview, we would suggest leaving the situation as it is, but giving the page manager the discretion to decide what is the right thing to do, and if there is a dispute, then let the Find A Grave administrators adjudicate on a case by case basis

    Steve / ECP Team

    Like

  17. I think the transfer guildlines should be extended. Why shouldn’t someone who doesn’t know the person transfer to someone who does no matter their relationship? There is a cemetery here who did all their memorials & won’t transfer any to anyone. How is that fair? I’m having a terrible time getting people to transfer. They don’t even reply when you ask.

    Like

  18. Yes, should’ve already been able to manage aunt/uncle/cousin. I’ve had many issues with people misspelling names or having wrong dates and absolutely refuse to change the info even with proof. It’s extremely annoying when I actually knew these people and complete strangers can have wrong info for them and act entitled like they own the memorials when not even related? It’s downright frustrating. You should be able be close family, that of course a closer connection should get the ownership of memorial. I have a great great grandmother with wrong dates. I have a uncle who was a POW in WWII with wrong name. I would very much like to change it when snobby people refuse To correct the info. I mean isn’t it about accuracy after all?

    Like

  19. I have never had an issue with transferring one of my memorials to someone else, even if just a close friend, with more information than I had from walking a cemetery. And the odds that 2 family members would request a transfer at the exact same time is not very likely. If I received a transfer request from a family member, I would do so immediately; hence a second family member would have to request a transfer from the new manager. On the flip side, I have had other contributors ask me if I wanted a certain memorial, just because I did my research and linked a family member from a cemetery I was working on. If I’m not related, I will sometimes decline, but on other occasions, they REALLY wanted to dump theirs, so I agreed to take it. Sad.

    Like

  20. There has to be some limit. One degree of separation to aunts or uncles or cousins sounds fairly reasonable, but honestly, the vast majority of transfer requests that I have received in the past ten years are for ridiculously distant relationships. Example 1: Great grandfather’s brother’s stepson’s second wife’s sister (and no, they never met, it was 100 years ago). Example 2: eighth cousin is a routine request I receive from someone who is trying to manage every descendant of his Mayflower ancestor. He asks this when it’s my neighbor I’ve known for over 25 years, who still has a living wife, six children, and 14 grandchildren who could ask if they wanted….transferring to an eighth cousin who never even heard of the man until he died and I added him to the local cemetery and linked him to his ancestors seems without purpose except to feed the requester’s “feel good” desire to add to his family tree collection.

    Generally speaking, especially with these very distant relationships, you may make the requester “feel good” by being able to collect all the names from their extended family tree, you risk making those who do the work of recording local cemeteries and local record sets feel not so good and unappreciated. The goal is to create a burial/final disposition database, not to play collect trading cards of your dead relatives. Who gets to collect that Mayflower passenger who now has 65,000 descendants? Inspire people to contribute, not just collect/claim names from their extended family tree. Obviously, the main goal is to drive business to Ancestry, so you could direct people to collect there on that site, leaving this database just for data. Another obvious solution would be to allow multiple tab views or layered views of a memorial page that could be controlled by different people. Creator, multiple family members, even Sponsors could have their own tab/layer/version. You can never make everyone happy. I suggest you don’t try, and definitely, please don’t just dismiss the feelings of those doing the work to create records who also enjoy managing the memorials they create. Our enjoyment of the site should be taken into account too.

    When I have done a ton of research into a possible cemetery, printed topographic maps, knocked on doors, ordered death certificates, purchased obits, then driven miles, hiked out into the woods to find a grave, I photograph, create memorial, post photos, gps, links, write bios…etc etc. and then a month later someone says, “this just popped up as a hint on Ancestry, this is my 4X great grandfather’s first wife’s first husband” Is their “attachment” to the memorial page more valuable or important than mine? Again, they may have never even known this person existed until I did the work. I do it because I enjoy it and I am an expert in my area. It matters greatly to me that the memorial info (my work, my research) remains correct. Why should my enjoyment matter less than this distant (often non-blood) relationship? These are real examples. Set limits. Acknowledge and honor the commitment and work and enjoyment of those who create valid, accurate memorials on the site, and allow them to maintain their own created memorials when possible, not just say they have to hand anything and everything over to pretty much anyone who asks. Many are happy to do so, and that is a big part of their enjoyment of the site, and that’s great. But people aren’t one size fits all, some of us get enjoyment from continuing to manage our created and highly researched memorials. I love hearing from people year after year who contact me to ask about a grave or my research. Sometimes those communications result in further expanding and clarifying the research I have done. If it goes to the first person who asks, I lose that enjoyable and valuable contact if I am no longer the manager. My enjoyment shouldn’t matter less than someone else’s desire to claim a page for their eighth cousin twice removed. Not everyone uses the site only to look up their family tree. Many of us are documenting our town or region, or a historic event or location, a famous person or family, or a battle or regiment, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. No system is perfect. And I’ve only done this (requested to manage graves of family and non-family). I’ve had no problems, but I’m
    sure problems have occurred with others. I would defer to management’s best judgement.

    Like

  22. Unless it is my own direct relative (or someone not as closely related to the person as myself unless there is a compelling reason), I always transfer a record when asked. I have run into the “I made this so I own this” people and have had people refuse to transfer a direct relative , will refuse to update obviously incorrect information and had one woman DEMAND that I remove a photo I posted because it was “her” record. *sigh* It was my great-great-grandfather and no connection to her at all except that it was “her cemetery”… It’s become like Pokemon-go for headstones… I feel that a non-family member should transfer it to a reasonably closely related family member–the current relationships listed in the guidelines, and niece, nephew, grandniece, grandnephew, first or second cousin. I also feel that there needs to be reasonable moratorium on adding recent burials from the newspaper obituaries and funeral home posts to allow family members time to add it themselves or to be able to inform family of the person’s death. Again, it’s not a race and there is no prize at the end. it’s about memorializing the dead without forgetting these people have family grieving for them. Being kind is so important.

    Like

    • What about those Find A Grave members who are not interested in genealogy? A military historian (professional or hobbyist) may have researched every member of a specific military unit and created those memorials. Or a local historian researched an abandoned cemetery and finds records for 15 people who lie in unmarked graves that have been missed from every canvas of the cemetery, meaning Find A Grave is the only place where those graves are all listed together.
      Too many users think these members “have no valid interest” in managing the memorials they created. It is that lack of respect for others that Find A Grave is now promoting.

      Like

  23. As the manager of 80K+ memorials, I really don’t see transfers as any sort of issue. I’ve been on Find A Grave for 12+ years and have researched every memorial I have entered. Perhaps for that reason, I have only been asked to transfer about 1,200 over the entire time. I believe my low number of transfer requests is because my memorials really don’t need to be worked on as they are mostly complete.

    That said, I freely transfer to anyone who asks. I do believe that someone who has a relationship to the individual should manage the person’s memorial. I always feel bad when I get a long family history type email from someone who thinks they’re contacting a distant relative only to have to tell them that I’m not related and all I know about the person is where to find their death certificate.

    But then, again, I do have something of a problem with “collectors”. People who feel they need to manage every person in their family tree and then do absolutely nothing to add to the memorial. I still transfer to these people because I would rather the distant relatives contact another distant relative rather than me but I do grit my teeth a little when I do it.

    As far as the guidelines, I think I might tweak them only slightly and make them read something like, “Direct relatives within 4 generations are required transfers and transfer to other family members is strongly recommended.” Don’t open it up completely to any relative or you may find that you are increasing your workload behind the scenes with people complaining that a manager didn’t transfer 4x great aunt Tilly. But do encourage the managers to transfer such memorials.

    Like

  24. I think the guidelines are best the way they are. I can’t image how many feuds would break out if a first cousin would not transfer to a 2nd cousin 3X removed. Will we be required to PROVE we are closer family. Please, just leave it alone.

    Like

  25. Find a Grave’s mission statement “ is to help people from all over the world work together to find, record and present final disposition information as a virtual cemetery experience”. How can this truly happen when some volunteers want to “own” memorials. This, indeed, is a difficult, problem, with a difficult resolution. The memorials can be created by volunteers and personalized and nurtured by family members. The answer will not satisfy everyone, but there has to be a middle-of-the-road compromise for the sake of the “MEMORIAL”. While I don’t have the answer, I do have an opinion.

    I truly believe that it is best to have a memorial in the hands of a family member if available. Many times someone will add a memorial based on the obituary from the newspaper which is a good first step. (That is sometimes the only recognition of a burial). But I do not believe that person “owns” the memorial even if they did add it. There are many errors based on just the obituary. That is where family members have the history, stories and family connections to the memorial and should have the right and the ability to add those changes and corrections to the memorial and even to have it transferred if requested for them to maintain. No one should claim “ownership” of a burial memorial. Just as you don’t own a person in life, how can someone claim ownership of someone’s final resting place memorial. Adding the guideline to transfer to any “direct line” (includes “2,3,4 great”) would be a start. Also, adding other family lines is also a way to get these memorials in the hands of those that will nurture and add the family connections.

    When Find a Grave added the options of linking family members, adding bios and “other” pictures, they gave root to the idea of growing the family core and family stories. Those people that think they “own” a memorial and do NOT transfer, do NOT allow death certificates, obits, or other pictures to “their” memorials are not allowing Find a Grave to fulfill its mission statement. We are, after all, Volunteers are we not? One final thought is that as volunteers we should not own memorials, but we are managers of memorials; and with that, we need to let the memorial grow with family information. In essence, I believe many volunteers have forgotten what our purpose is.

    (A volunteer over 10 years)

    Liked by 1 person

  26. I would leave it as it is now. I think the transfers will get out of line, take up excessive time and cause more questionable transfers. I have close to 60,000 memorials. It would take more of my time processing them. Second. If you are going to add that many more exemptions you might as well not ask. Just transfer everybody. I am not going to try and ensure it really is a third cousin or not. You will have people just building family trees on Findagrave. Why pay for Ancestry? You will create a lot of work for you and us. In my experience the requests are not really because they can add something I can’t. It is just because the feel better if they are in control. but in fact don’t add anything new. After I got past the idea I did not control my own family, I realized I didn’t really need to. I made all of the changes I wanted to. Who really needs a transfer????

    Second. Understand all of the work, time and money I put into creating the 60,000 memorials and 180,000 photos. And then the work to do the research, correct and update them so the entire data base is correct. I am a volunteer and have some responsibility and satisfaction for for the work I do. And then someone sitting at a computer decides they like my work and want to add it to their list of accomplishments? ???? And like with the 1600 fulfilled photo requests they don’t even have the time to say “Thank You”…

    Why should I continue to volunteer for your website if you are going to take away all of the work I do?

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Yes, the guidelines should be broadened to any family member that requests a transfer. Who are we to say that would be better managers than a family member. My plan is to transfer any memorial to any relative who asks. I do not plan on living forever so it is best that the memorials go into the hands of a family member, no matter who they are.

    I take photos, use a cemetery catalogue, create memorials, do extensive research to link the family and love doing it all. But, contributors need to ask themselves who they are doing all that for but not the family of that person. It is quite simple when you think about it. I am so thrilled when a family member writes and thanks me for “finding” their family. After thanking them, I always ask if they want me to transfer ALL their family memorials to them. Contributors have done their job by creating the memorials,adding photos, links or a BIO. Now it’s time to let go and let the family take over.

    If you change any rule or guideline, you have to find a way to inform all FG members so they will know what is required of them. The main problem with any guideline additions or changes is that most contributors, especially the new ones, are not even aware of what the guidelines are at all. In our area, we deal with a few who make their own rules and they are not good ones. Maybe you need to have a popup screen every time someone logs into the site with a note as to where the complete guidelines, as well as quoting one of the rules each day. It only takes one contributor in an area to break the chain of edits to a family if they refuse your SAC’s every time you send one.

    Like

    • I record dead people so that ANY ONE will be able to find where the dead are buried. Those searching may not be related. They may have been a friend from grade school, a co-worker, a historical society worker (researching all the people in a county).

      Like

  28. I manage close to thirty thousand memorials (most inherited from fallen gravers) and my transfer policy is pretty simple – if asked I almost always transfer. I don’t care if the person is family, friend, or simply wants to research that line. BUT one of the reasons I hesitate to transfer is when the person asking is new to Find-a-Grave and has not created any memorials themselves nor have they left any flowers or posted any photos. Will they still be around in a year to maintain that memorial? Are they just trying to collect memorials as fast as they can? I try to write them back and explain virtual cemeteries but often times they haven’t posted an email.

    So, that is my policy. As for find-a-grave’s policy, I personally don’t think ANY transfers should be mandatory. If find-a-grave feels that they have to define some mandatory guidelines then I think they should go in the opposite direction. Make it parents and children only! I once had someone ask for a memorial because the person was her/his G-Grandfather. I refused the transfer on the basis that the person was MY Grandfather and I had created the memorial. They wrote to Find-a-Grave and complained that I refused to transfer the memorial and the next thing I knew it was transferred to them without anyone asking why I had refused the person. I wrote to find-a-grave and explained what happened and I got the memorial back but what a hassle. In the meantime changes had been made that were not accurate and I had to fix them.

    I know there are people out there that simply are collectors and are trying to get their numbers up and I don’t know how to deal with those people but as more and more people are on find-a-grave the transfer issue will continue to be an issue.

    Like

  29. I generally will transfer a memorial to any one who asks. I don’t want this to be a requirement for any “family” because people lie. And then they go to management and say I’m Joe’s 4th cousin and so and so won’t transfer the memorial to me.

    An example of a liar. I was asked to transfer a memorial to a person who said she was a relative of the deceased and that “she managed ALL the memorials in the family”. I looked at her profile and she managed a giant total of 2 memorials. I didn’t even bother answering her and did not transfer. I don’t want someone like that to then be able put in a request to F.A.G mgt. saying this person is a relative of mine and I can’t get it transferred. Are you really going to check if what they said is true?

    Just leave it as it is and let the managers make the decision. Only thing I might add to mandatory transfers are aunts and uncles.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. I have mixed feelings on this, I have transferred memorials to direct family members when requested, and have no issue with that. However as others have said, it’s more of a competition to alot of ppl and that bothers me. I have many virtual cemeteries where my family is listed and I’ve never requested for the transfer. As long as the creator is doing what is needed, edits etc. Then I’m fine with not owning it. Now my issue is with ppl who have ignored suggested edits for whatever reason. I’ve taken numerous photos and uploaded to the memorial and seen wrong info, suggested the edits only to have them ignored. But transfer rules over all I feel do the job as is

    Liked by 1 person

  31. In an ideal world, members join a website, learn all the rules, then participate. This is not an ideal world.

    I think the rules for transfers are sufficient as is. You have members who will transfer to anyone, ones who transfer within guidelines, and those who ignore the rules. That will happen whether the guidelines are broadened or not.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. In this particular case, you, FaG, has used the term “guideline(s)” many times. On the real-life webpage, you also use that term. I suggest that you and a sizeable number of FaG members need to look up and read what a guideline is. What it is NOT is a Supreme Court ruling or a constitutional amendment. It is NOT a law or regulation in any way, shape, or form. It is a GUIDE line. A suggested parameter. A basic idea. It is NOT a hard and fast restriction on the only form a relationship must exist to allow for a transfer of memorial management. Far too many of FaG’s top hotdog members are only after numbers, and they are not about to give up management of a memorial, no matter what. Secondly, far too many of these same folks will respond to a request for transfer of management with a canned reply: if your request does not conform to FaG’s Rules and REGULATIONS, then buzz off and don’t bother me anymore!!! Yeah, there are too many “numbers fanatics” who respond just that way. I’ve encountered them. Some of those people are a real stain on the good work of everyone else on this great website. Now, to my suggestion: get rid of the guidelines. I believe there are very few members who are going to request transfer of memorials for anyone they do not know or to whom they are not related. There is no reason for a numbers person to not give up a memorial on the Best Man at my wedding if I asked him to do so. Your current “guidelines” do not spell out such a situation. Getting rid of these misinterpreted and misapplied “RULES” will eliminate just about every possible kind of conflict that presently exists or can present itself.

    Who am I? I was in law enforcement and the military for thirty-plus years for each career. I know all about laws and regulations and statutes and ordinances. There are a few more of your (FaG’s) “guidelines” that could use a little bit of “tweeking” to loosen them up a bit, in my humble opinion. But the powers to be will need to contact me if they are interested in any further suggestions I have. I won’t hold my breath!!!

    All in all, FaG is an absolute godsend of information for avid genealogists, as well as the amateur family history sleuth. Thank you for existing!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  33. I don’t “own” the memorials that I add to Find A Grave. If any family member requests transfer, I gladly do
    it. However if I’m related to someone that I have added, the person requesting transfer will need to be a more
    direct/closer relation than myself.

    If more people would ask nicely instead of demanding and insulting the person managing it, memorial managers
    might be more inclined to transfer. Give the page manager the discretion to decide what is the right thing to do.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Believe it or not, I have actually transferred memorials to individuals that consequently delete those memorials! And, in most such cases, I have seen them re-create those deleted memorials so that their own name appears in the “Created by” field. Direct relative or not, I will never transfer to them again!

    I am reluctant to transfer memorials to members that manage many memorials…but create few or none of their own. I will then examine the memorials that they manage to see how developed they are. For instance, have they linked the deceased to his or her parents? Are actual dates & places of birth & death filled in? Or is only the year of death appearing? Do the memorials include bio information or photos? In other words, if the person requesting transfer evidences little or no interest in improving the memorials that they manage, I have little or no interest in transferring them another!

    On the other hand, I have always transferred memorials to those that sponsor that memorial! I believe that sponsors should get automatic transfers. And if the person that created the memorial wants it back, let them spend another $5 to do so!

    Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t feel that sponsoring memorial should be an automatic transfer. That makes it a case of being able to buy the memorial.

      Like

  35. I feel the guidelines should be left as they are. There are enough people related to the deceased the way the system works now and to add aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. I have transferred memorials & these people do not add a single thing to the memorials. They just want them to have them. The majority of the memorials that I have added I have physically gone out recorded and photographed the stones, only to then transfer to someone who ‘want’s’ it/them. People have told me that a person’s memorial is their grand/ uncle/ aunt, only I later find out they are not directly related at all. This has now made me skeptical of anyone asking for a transfer. If this is happening to me then it is happening to other contributors. – Instead of transferring I tell prospective transfereries that I would be more than happy to add or take away anything on any given memorial. Some people reply with edits, are grateful, and above all, understand. But the majority of people I never hear from again.
    Another point: I have been researching for more years than I can remember, and quite often run into a deceased memorial that I am related to. If I’ve transferred such a memorial prior to finding out that I am related then I am out of luck adding data to a memorial which I gave away, as a lot of contributors do not like adding details to any given memorial.
    I don’t have any answers but opening up memorials even farther is not the answer.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Find A Grave,
    You have totally disrespected those members who have dedicated years to building the database in this announcement. Apparently, your ideal world is like a comment made by a member “It is time for the cemetery searchers, although highly commended, to step aside and let the descendants work on the bios without needless back and forth.” This announcement makes it sound as if the site builders are only here to serve as scribes while the genealogists, who rarely contribute beyond their own family, are preferred members.
    If you do respect the members who have been the backbone of this website, you’ll leave the mandated transfers as is.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. I do like the idea of being able to ask for aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, first cousin especially if the manager is not related. Because if it gets transferred to us & a closer relative asks for it then we will be required to transfer anyways. I would like to go back to great great grandparent as well.

    Like

    • You CAN ask for an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, first cousin, second cousin, and any other relative – you just have to accept that the answer might be “no”. Or do you mean you like the idea that those relatives would be required transfers?

      Like

  38. I think the guidelines are okay as they stand, however, I think they should be a bit more flexible. For instance, I think it should be okay to request a transfer. Sometimes I have a good reason why I would like a memorial transferred to me. It should be okay for me (or anyone else) to write to the memorial creator and ask to be considered. Thank you.

    Like

    • The current transfer guidelines are good just as they are. I have no doubt that even if the transfer guidelines were explanded to includes aunts and uncles and cousins, it would not be good enough according to most of those who don’t like the current guidelines. There are many who demand transfers out of guidelines and then malign those who won’t transfer OOG. How will connections to aunts / uncles / cousins be verified? Will we be required to simply accept the stated relationship no matter what? I have seen people in the FB groups for Find a Grave volunteers who tell others to just claim you are within guidelines because then the memorial will have to be transferred. I am saddened to see the site moving away from actually being a means to record final dispositions of those who have died.

      i agree with those who have said that in many ways this tends to feel like all the work the volunteers do are negated simply because a relative wants the memorial.

      Like

    • Punky — there is nothing preventing you from requesting a transfer of any memorial you come across. A great many contributor will transfer outside of guidelines. The guidelines don’t tell us which memorials we can or can’t request. The guidelines only tell us which transfers are required transfers (4 generation direct line). Those are the transfers that admin will transfer to you if the managing contributor ignores or refuses. Ask away — but use the memorial in question and click on edit. Scroll down on the edit screen to the “Suggest Other Correction” and make your request, including your relationship — whatever that may be. You never know until you try — the manager might transfer out of guidelines.

      Like

  39. I’ve been a member for over 14 years and photographed hundreds of cemeteries across 18 states. Every time this subject comes up, you (Find A Grave) act like I should be grateful to hand over what I worked to create to FAMILY who would not know where their relative is buried or what the grave looks like had I not added that memorial.
    Let me set the record straight. That ain’t the way it is. I’m a darned good member, doing the hundreds of edits and the other corrections I get every week. Those are easy things. Photographing and creating the memorials are the hard part and they’re the backbone of Find A Grave. I timely transfer within the guidelines. I also transfer beyond those guidelines when I feel like it. I don’t like being forced to do something. Those FAMILY people are more likely to cuss me out if I don’t transfer a 3rd great grandfather who died a hundred years before they were born. When I do transfer like that, they don’t do anything and even decline edits when I have documentation for a change. One gal said she had so much to add, she’d constantly be bothering me. Now, five years later and all she added was two sentences.
    I know there are at least 3 admins still with FaG that were around when transfers were first started. For several months we had to transfer anything that was asked, no matter how distantly related. If we didn’t, the person could run to admins and get the transfer, sometimes even more than they asked for. A lot of good members threw in the towel over that hubaloo and walked away. Those were people who would research at a courthouse to get an idea of where a burying ground up in the hills of Kentucky would be, then spend weeks or months tramping around trying to locate it. They left FaG and didn’t look back because FaG didn’t appreciate them. And now you’re wanting to do it again.
    I know what I’ll do if the transfer gudielines are expanded. I’ll find some place else on the web but it won’t be anything to do with Ancestry or Find A Grave. The memorials I created will remain, but say syanora to thousands of photos.

    Like

  40. I feel that is should be expanded to any family within 2 generations. I feel it has become a race who can add the most memorials and people takes lists of Cemetery records and add them to the site with no pictures just to gain the most memorials. I don’t think that is what the site is for. Some care and concern should be taken in giving memorials to family, no matter how distant. Maybe they are the only one that care about family history. I will always transfer a memorial no matter how far the relationship is if it is not one of my own family. I am here to help families.

    Like

    • What about the members who have other interests, such as military historians, taphophiles, local historians, sports fans, royalty watchers, local historians, folk art enthusiasts and others? They enjoy contributing to the site, care about the memorials they created and manage, and have always been welcomed by Find A Grave. Maybe the genealogists need to take off their blinders and see the whole picture.

      Like

  41. well. The transfer feature is the only thing about findagrave that irks me no end. Many reasons. First totally unnecessary with the edit button in place- people can add information.
    Most time “close relatives” ask me for a transfer saying they are direct line. Well if direct why would a member of 12 years have not created the memorial ever. Or they get the transfer and add nothing not even a freaking flower. Or has happened in the past they get the transfer and delete it, create a new one and use my photos. There are many of my relatives on findagrave that I do not manage. I would not think of asking for a transfer I am just very grateful that they were added.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. I absolutely think that allowing non-direct line transfers is more ideal than leaving a memorial with a person who just lives to collect them. I respect and appreciate their efforts to input memorials, and their profile will always show that number even if they no longer manage them all, but anyone who creates a memorial from an obituary and then refuses to transfer it to a relative simply because they’re not “direct” enough is doing this for the wrong reasons. The only reason relation should come into play is if a remote relative is managing the memorial and a closer one wants it transferred to them instead.

    At this point, any relation at all is more relevant than a mass memorial manager.

    Like

    • If you actually did respect them, you wouldn’t think they MUST relinquish a memorial to any relative. Who are you to say what is the “right reason” for doing this? The site doesn’t describe itself as “a genealogy site” or “for genealogists”, so all interests are welcome. Anyone who is entering mass memorials cares more about the site than their own tree.

      Like

  43. I also believe that the transfer guidelines should be left as is. I usually transfer memorials unless it’s a “newbie” and from past experience I see that they don’t stay active long…sigh.

    Like

  44. I haven’t had an issue with a transfer. I only request for close relatives. I will also take over a memorial if the original member is no longer active. I do wish however there was a way to see WHO provided the details of the memorial. As the contributor of the information is as important as the person who originally created the memorial.

    Like

  45. If a memorial is accurate I do not really “see” the need to transfer to a direct relative or anyone for that matter. I have discovered many of my relatives memorials and never felt the need to request a transfer to me. I have even submitted edits which were approved as expected. Maybe I have just been lucky. But, I do understand that some have a need to manage their ancestors memorials. Especially if they are inaccurate and for whatever reason will not be made correct. I think the transfer process is fine as is and would suggest enhancements to streamline it. Include a transfer option just like there is for report a duplicate. Once selected, the requirements for transfer are listed. The requestor makes a selection as to how they are related and other if they need to supply a compelling reason for the transfer if not a direct relative (e.g., sister in law). If after 21 days the request has not been addressed send it on to find a grave administrators for review or just approve it. If rejected, give the requestor the option to forward the declined request to find a grave for final review and approval or not.

    Like

  46. As ever, opinion on this issue is divided. We talked amongst ourselves and we have a suggestion which may be too radical for some, but why not allow anyone to create a memorial page, even if one already exists ? This idea came from looking for someone on an Ancestry family tree. As all Ancestry users know, there can be hundreds of family trees for what can essentially be different parts of the same family. A result of this is that one person can be represented hundreds of times, each with an individual page. Nobody suggests Ancestry should limit any one person to one page only, and so why not on Find A Grave ?.

    Almost everyone has said that they don’t “own” the memorial page they create, and importantly pages are created by folks for many different reasons, especially when they have no family connection. By allowing others to create their own commemorations would mean that every page would be as valid as any other, whether it had a lot of data or none as there is no obligation by Find A Grave to add any. Well crafted and researched pages would then remain just that. To go back to the Ancestry analogy, you can tell who has done the real legwork, and who has simply lifted the information. Often we find the same basic factual errors are repeated ad infinitum, but the real good pages always stand out. If you had someone with 20 family tree pages, you would always use the best researched page for information if it were needed.

    By letting others create their own pages it would eliminate the “elitist” element who think no one else has a right to commemorate someone’s passing and would allow those who have recently lost someone, but for obvious reasons have had no time to create their own memorial in their own way, to do so without having to worry the obituary chasers for a transfer. Members would have to respect each others memorial pages and if this was done in conjunction with the revamp of the edit system, then people who view the pages would have to decide on the voracity of the information they are seeing, much as you have to when viewing the family tree pages on Ancestry.

    Also if Find A Grave did away with the public view of members memorial totals (why have them anyway) and just let each member know their own numbers would also solve some of the issues that clearly still exist around that. Obviously the idea is not perfect as info can still be copied and used, but we think it’s a form of flattery, but many we are sure would have a different point of view.

    In these sad and worrying times, we should be helping each other and figuratively reaching out, rather than having some of the deeply entrenched views some members have around extended family relationships. We should be more inclusive rather than exclusive and with the huge amount of fatalities occurring worldwide right now, perhaps more than any other time, we should try and respect the needs and the wishes of others.

    If Find A Grave adopted in essence our idea, it wouldn’t intrinsically change anyone’s right to carry on the vital work which all of us believe we are doing. By letting others do the same thing it would encourage more folks to join our community without being afraid they will be slapped down by the elitist element that no doubt exists, and it would also reduce Find A Grave’s workload as the need to send edits and suggestions, as well as the contentious merge and duplicate issues would be greatly reduced and may even be made redundant.

    All we would ask is that everybody plays fair. Having a single page commemoration, even allowing for flowes and tokens to be left, really seems to be a backward looking view in this age of equality and allowing others to have right to create their own memorial pages just seems the right thing to do.

    We thought about shared management but can you imagine the problems that would cause !!

    From all at the ECP team, please stay safe

    Steve

    Like

    • Steve, first, it appears you haven’t noticed that Find A Grave’s purpose is radically different than the purpose of Ancestry’s family trees. Find A Grave is supposed to be collaborative – everyone working together toward a common goal – and be a virtual representation of the cemeteries (where we don’t see 20 markers for the same person). That is more like FamilySearch’s tree where there is one entry per person and everyone works together to make it accurate.
      Second, why don’t Ancestry users consider creating their own memorials on Ancestry’s other free site, WeRemember? It provides exactly what you want – as many memorials for the same person as people want to make. AND it allows more than one person to add “memories” to a memorial. Look at this example:
      https://www.weremember.com/thomas-brown/0r3j/memories

      Like

    • I totally disagree with your reasoning. Find-A-Grave would become more like some of ancestry’s tree entries, pure fantasy. Connections would be horrific – multiples of same “children” to parents, no way to follow through with a single line. A single page to collect information on a person is much more concise, and allows for collaboration from the community to create a complete and meaningful single page for a person, not multiples with a splattering of information on each.

      Like

  47. Just to reiterate, the suggestion is simply to allow others to commemorate their own, in their own way. If there is a perception that there is going to be hundreds of pages created by others, then there is an issue here which obviously is not currently being addressed, which is the point we were making.

    ECP

    Like

    • If this were to happen, there would be more than one memorial for a given gravestone; how would the linking take place? If no linking, then each volunteer would create their own “parents, siblings, children”. I see that an issue. You’d have to work around that issue, plus others. I’m trying to be open on this, but it’s hard to grasp when what has been done in the past was a perfect way to memorialize a gravestone. (The concept that has been done in the past is great; it’s us volunteers that can’t “get along”). Again…..my two cents.

      Like

    • Currently others can commemorate by sending edits or SACs to the creator, or ask for a transfer. If you are inferring contributors will create memorials only for relatives or friends, then there will be a mass exit of a lot of wonderful contributors whose purpose is to be sure all persons are remembered, not just those who have a relative or friend who may be a contributor. What you are saying is what can and does happen on ancestry family trees, so why duplicate that? The intent on this site is not to build a family tree, although the improvements have allowed connections.

      Like

  48. It is a fact the many elitist members simply ignore edits and suggestions and requests to transfer as has been demonstrated by other posts in this thread. Why should there be a “mass exodus” of members simply because others may wish to commemorate those that have passed in their own way.

    This is about fairness to others, nothing else. We would also assume that Find A Grave would not implement our idea as it is too radical a change for some, but it is, as we say, just a suggestion, and we can’t see any others here. Just broadening out the generation requirements for transfers seems to upset some people, so a change is unlikely anyway. If the moral point we are making here is being missed then that is ok with us, and little more needs to be said here by us on the subject.

    ECP

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s