Welcome, Guest. Please login or register for free.
Did you miss your activation email?
Sunday 12 October 08 13:11 BST (UK)
Welcome Home Help Shop Search Calendar Login Register
Search Images 

Online
 
  First Name(s)

Last Name

 
News: Ad: Click for a 14 Day FREE trial with Ancestry.co.uk What could you find in 14 days?

+  RootsChat.Com
|-+  General
| |-+  The Common Room
| | |-+  The Lighter Side (Moderator: Boongie Pam)
| | | |-+  Errors that breed.........
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Errors that breed.........  (Read 357 times)
keebleancestors
RootsChat Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Errors that breed.........
« on: Tuesday 13 May 08 13:01 BST (UK) »

I don't know where else to post this but it's on my mind. I was transferring some of my husband's stuff to yet another database yesterday, and arrived at his longest line. It's one of those (initially) posh lines that has been researched "professionally" and half the county (Kent) come from, you know the ones. It goes back to the 14th century.

The problem here is that somewhere in its proliferation around the internet a rather glaring error crept in. The first man in the line, Richard Kingsnorth, somehow got credited with a lifespan of 112 years. Because that is theoretically humanly possible (but extraordinarily unlikely in those days) I assume the software this first found itself on didn't pop up a query.

Anyone who looks carefully can see that his son has the same first name and the same date of death. I think we can all see what happened.

The trouble is that the error has proliferated. Everywhere you go online and see this man's entry his dates are given as 1382-1494. Nobody has checked it, corrected it, or made any note at all.

Inevitably it has arrived on Ancestry's One World Tree. Another error to add to that ridiculously error-ridden database. I'm sure it's on all the other similarly created databases that collate submitted entries.

I suppose it doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things, but if all research became that slapdash it would make a complete mockery of genealogy.

I actually spoke to Ancestry about this once. They phoned me to remind me that my annual subscription was due, and asked me for my opinion on their service. Usually they just help themselves from my credit card, so this was nice.

The minion who'd been assigned to survey my opinion obviously didn't know much about UK genealogy, frankly. When I suggested that Ancestry offer Parish Records he told me that they already did. I tried explaining that but I honestly don't think he understood what I was telling him. Even when I said this would probably be the best business move they ever made he just kept repeating that it was already part of the site...I gave up on that one.

Then we moved onto the subject of really silly errors on One World Tree. People living 400 years, dying before they were born, dying twice, and in two different countries, having 3 sets of parents, and living in places like New York, Scotland. He explained patiently that these entries were collected from trees submitted by members. Yes, I knew that. I suggested some sort of quality control. "You do know that this makes your site look very foolish, word gets around. It could be affecting business?" Usually that's what makes their ears prick up.

He said it would be quite impossible for Ancestry staff to check every entry. I agree. He also said that we can submit corrections. Yes, I know, I've done it many times. I got the impression that his whole attitude was "Who cares?" as he hastily moved on the the part where I paid for another year's subscription.

I told him that would be my last year. All my lines were now pre-census and without Parish Records they didn't have much else to offer me. This seemed to shock him, but not for long. It was a bluff of course, I enjoy doing research for other people far too much to lose access to what they do have.

Really I don't know what the answer is to these proliferating errors, my only hope is that newcomers to the hobby get warned about them early on, and learn to always check everything, and that enough people make the effort to correct them when they find them.

Any thoughts?

Logged
peterbmillzz
RootsChat Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 145


I Miss you Dad VERY MUCH...


Re: Errors that breed.........
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 13 May 08 13:24 BST (UK) »

Hi keebleancestors
totaly agree - trouble is to many people just "Best Guess" when the going gets tough.  They dont understand the knock on affect.  Sorry to se I am your 1st reply.
Peter
Logged

Mills - Twickenham (Middlesex) and Lavenham (Suffolk), Baillie, Coster, Welham
Parmenter - Lavenham
Census information is Crown Copyright http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
BettyofKent
RootsChat Veteran
*****
Online Online

Posts: 738


Ray & Frank Skinner


Re: Errors that breed.........
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 13 May 08 13:51 BST (UK) »

I found  another tree on Ancestry the other day with  one of my lines on it. The older sister of one man was down as his daughter. The dates were correct, so it was clear there was a mistake. I was going to correct it, then thought  "oh blast it, why should I, I've corrected so many transcription errors & I'm fed up with it all" Angry

I put a basic tree on the OneWorldTree section when I started my family history & I've made some good contacts from it, but the additions made by other people are a scream, with people marrying before they are born, living to impossible ages & having children at a great age, & so on.  One line includes Lady Godiva, Alfred the Great & goes back to Adam & Eve!
I now know better than to use the OneWorldTree, & use the personal tree that can't be added to.

The IGI isn't much better, with people baptised before they are born etc, & one of mine apparently married three times after he died. He didn't exactly rest in peace Grin

Betty
Logged



KENT:
Stutely - Wittersham & Stone
Padgham - Wittersham
Wanstall - Northbourne
Taylor - Ringwould & Ash
Skinner - Deal
Bushell - Walmer
Cornwell - Ash, Sandwich, Wingham
Dennis - Eastry & Dover
Fagg - Elmstone
Laurence - Northbourne & Betteshanger
Relf - Kent & Sussex

Also
Funnell - Sussex
Schloss - Nottingham & Massachusetts
Cohen - Birmingham


"Census information is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.
jillruss
RootsChat Aristocrat
******
Online Online

Posts: 2060


Gt Gt Grandfather Shepherd 1827-1910


Re: Errors that breed.........
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 13 May 08 14:39 BST (UK) »

I have a branch which also seems to be connected to half of the population of Canada (slight exaggeration!! Grin).

To date, I've had at least 4 very pleasant emails from different Canadian women all telling me the baptism place and date of a particular common ancestor in Yorkshire back in the 1750s. Each one has exactly the same details and, when I ask them where they got the date from, none of them know!!  Roll Eyes

Each time, I have to gently tell them that, being local, I have searched the original register for that particular parish and that the baptism did not take place there. I'm not sure if they believe me!!  Undecided

Thing is  - it's an exact date , so where on earth did it come from?  Chinese whispers, or what!!?

Jill
Logged

See Surname Interests Table +
Major brickwalls:
John Frith mge to Fanny, Bucks? c 1798
Bathsheba Boothroyd bp W Yks c1802
John Bishop bp E Yks c1758
Joseph Symonds mg to Sarah, prob Berks c 1735-40
John Horwood mg to Martha, Berks c 1735-40
Sarah Sculler bp  Berks area c 1675
Paul Phillips bp  Berks/Bucks c 1720
William Newell bp Berks/Bucks/Oxon c 1765
Richard Troughton mg to Jane, Westmoreland c 1732
Mary Simon bp Shrops c.1795
behindthefrogs
RootsChat Marquessate
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3403


EDLIN


Re: Errors that breed.........
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 13 May 08 14:41 BST (UK) »

Much of this early information from the 16th century and earlier is based on the records of the Heralds Visitations.  These weren't very interested in actual dates just in proving an ancestry.  When you add actual dates from baptisms and wills to the results of the visitations then you find these huge anomolies.

Much of the information in these extended trees and also on the IGI is directly extracted from the 19th and early 20th century publications of the Heralds Visitations

What chance do we have if those living within a hundred years of the actual events couldn't get it right?  

David
Logged

Living in Berkshire.  Origin Northampton & Milton Keynes
DETAILS OF THE FOLLOWING NAMES CAN BE FOUND IN SURNAME INTERESTS AT FOOT OF PAGE
Wilson, Higgs, Buswell, PARCELL, Matthews, TAMKIN, Seckington, Pates, Williams, Webb, Arthur, MAYNARD, Caves, Norman, Winch, Culverhouse, Drakeley.
Johnson, Routledge, SHIRT, SAICH, Mills, SAUNDERS, EDLIN, Perry, Vickers, Pakeman, Griffiths, Marston, Turner, Child, Sheen, Gray, Woolhouse
Census Info is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
behindthefrogs
RootsChat Marquessate
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3403


EDLIN


Re: Errors that breed.........
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 13 May 08 14:51 BST (UK) »

I have a similar problem to Jill with our American cousins.  There is whole dynasty who claim descent from one of the founders of Harrow school.  I have a copy of his will, shows that he never married and left his fortune to his brothers and sisters.

The line that they published comes from a submission to the heralds by one of their ancestors when he was trying to lay claim to a particular coat of arms (the one in my avatar).  The heralds actually rejected his claim but it didn't stop a huge USA family claiming the descent and the coat of arms.

The actual line of descent which I haven't completely proved looks much more interesting than this false one.

David 
« Last Edit: Wednesday 14 May 08 09:18 BST (UK) by behindthefrogs » Logged

Living in Berkshire.  Origin Northampton & Milton Keynes
DETAILS OF THE FOLLOWING NAMES CAN BE FOUND IN SURNAME INTERESTS AT FOOT OF PAGE
Wilson, Higgs, Buswell, PARCELL, Matthews, TAMKIN, Seckington, Pates, Williams, Webb, Arthur, MAYNARD, Caves, Norman, Winch, Culverhouse, Drakeley.
Johnson, Routledge, SHIRT, SAICH, Mills, SAUNDERS, EDLIN, Perry, Vickers, Pakeman, Griffiths, Marston, Turner, Child, Sheen, Gray, Woolhouse
Census Info is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Rossdal3
RootsChat Veteran
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


The 3 Lions


Re: Errors that breed.........
« Reply #6 on: Wednesday 14 May 08 00:19 BST (UK) »

Hi there I agree with all you say and I think that Ancestry need to take more responsibility to control those who seek to deliberately mislead other researchers.

I have read on other RootsChat threads that some people put false information in their trees on purpose.  I've noticed a few Bradford, Florida, USA entries for some of my relatives who were born and died in Bradford Yorkshire England and very rarely went out of Bradford all their lives. I contacted Ancestry and got the "brush off".  BUT just last week I got an alert for a match with my Scottish cousin's tree.  Knowing she was currently researching this particular relative and had broken through one of our "brick walls", I felt confident to just merge her data.  I knew it was well researched with all the correct sources.  I started the merge and checked that the data on-line was correct and as only her and my tree came up to merge, I went ahead!  So imagine my surprise when I checked the saved data, only to see that my current data for a Scottish address had automatically been changed to:

"20 Jun 1879
Paisley, Renfrewshire 
Died: 6 Apr 1923
Street, Harford, Maryland, USA"

There was no reference to the USA in either my cousin or my tree, ours were the only trees to be merged.  We would never do this deliberately to mislead others and the only explanation is a "glitch" in the Ancestry database!!! The thing is how many other people copied the incorrect data in the time it will take me to correct all the "garbage data" I now have in my tree?

regards,
Jill


Logged

Holdsworth
Hardisty
Holmes
Craven
Gaunt
Brock
Wedgeworth
From: Bradford, Pudsey, Idle, Calverley & Norfolk
PaulaToo
RootsChat Aristocrat
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 2408


Me 'n Gerry


Re: Errors that breed.........
« Reply #7 on: Wednesday 14 May 08 00:32 BST (UK) »

Ancestry makes my head spin. I had a month's free trial with my Family Tree Program... did two weeks and cancelled.
I had managed to get most of what I wanted by way of the census, which is about all that they have that's of any interest to me, but there were some gaps. Other people with more patience have filled them in, thank heaven for friends.
The lady, when I cancelled was most surprised. I told her I had had enough. I couldn't get my head round the mistakes. She was very sorry and thought I might get used to the site if I stayed for the full months.
In yer dreams.
I have the IGI and FreeBMD, coming on FreeCen and embryo FreeReg
Not so many mistakes on them.
I haven't looked at family trees on Ancestry, but I can guess, and as you say, people just lift it and plonk it... wherever. Such a shame.
Logged

Bartlett/Henley on Thames
Caponhurst/Buckinghamshire and?
Denchfield/North Marston/Bucks
Webb/Winchester
Mathias/Pembroke/Pembroke Dock
Smith/Portsmouth/Portsea
Purchas/Bucks and?
Olliffe/Bucks
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »


[Copyright] [Free RootsChat Webspace] [Your Surname Interests] [Shrink Link] [About Us] [Terms of Use]
All Census Lookups are Crown Copyright, National Archives for academic and non-commercial research purposes only
RootsChat.com cannot be held responsible directly or indirectly for the messages or content posted by others. Inline images in messages are the copyright of the respective linked sites.
RootsChat.com, Europa House, Bury, Lancashire, BL9 5BT
0.234:22