|
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: How cross would you be, or am I over reacting? (Read 4805 times)
|
|
|
Jellis
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 67
My Girls
|
Dear Lesleyhannah
I got one of those the other day. The trick is to look at their tree first!
A few weeks ago I had a go at my sister in law's tree. I saw the name 'Alice WRIGHT' on Genes and asked if it was the same person; married so and so..the answer was yes, and I did receive some useful information for which I sent my grateful thanks. I was able to tell him where Alice's parents married. The chap asked several times to view my tree even though I repeated several times that the WRIGHT family wasn't mine and no connecting lines were on it. I felt mean about it but my tree is no use at all to him.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lesleyhannah
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1077
|
Hi Jellis
In that situation I offer what information I have about the family, that's not on the tree. Often I have a BMD certificate, where I can share the information , or maybe other documents or photos of that branch. Just to show I am genuine. Sometimes you learn more from the email info than the trees.
However you do get people who even when you send all the info you have on a person still keep asking for access to your tree (even when, like you, you tell them that particular branch isn't included in your tree).
Lesley
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
les_looking
RootsChat Senior
Posts: 309
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Even on this forum time and again i see the same people asking for look ups,
which is no problem, but it is pretty obvious that their only research is what other people are doing for them so they are only seeing info' that Roots members are finding for them, i saw the other day the same person posting about 5-6 look ups for different census, now at the best of time we know that cenus information is a guide and not enough to call it fact
lol back to the original question how are people who then view their tree to know how much information is 2nd hand or that info' is the only thing that they have found and is now fact because it's on a tree,
i know myself info given means nothing and doesn't stick until you have researched it yourself,
anyone who just adds data from a tree they have seen or information obtained from here is asking for trouble
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick29
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2927
|
Even on this forum time and again i see the same people asking for look ups,
which is no problem, but it is pretty obvious that their only research is what other people are doing for them so they are only seeing info' that Roots members are finding for them, i saw the other day the same person posting about 5-6 look ups for different census, now at the best of time we know that cenus information is a guide and not enough to call it fact
I'm not sure you can ever call it fact with absolute certainty - I recall reading some while ago that at least 40% of the population have a father who is not the man mentioned on their birth certificate (I think I have the correct number), so you can't even totally rely on certificates. What you need to do is to compare the information obtained from various sources, and determine how likely it is to be correct. The further you go back, the less you have to work with, so the possibilities for error become greater.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Best Wishes, Nick. Research interests: Field - Luton & Islington Hole - Somerset, Suffolk & Surrey Farnish, Parker, Cattermole, Last, Wasp, Church - Suffolk Lewin/Lowin/Lowen - Hertfordhire Martin - Eltham & Greenwich, Kent (London) Stead - Greenwich, London (Kent) & Maidstone Wood - Hertfordshire Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
les_looking
RootsChat Senior
Posts: 309
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
yep Nick, might not have explained what i meant properly lol
i noticed the person i mentioned who was asking for info, when told what was found then commented
"ok thanks i'll delete such and such a person" just on the say so of what was found on a census,
and without themselves having seen the original or doing some research themselves,
Roots is brilliant for like minded and knowlegable people but i would not on someone finding some info' for me then rely on it,
some subscribe to different packages for different reasons, i assume most do to get the best information available, and knowing that they are doing everything possible to get it correct, others do it via the free versions (and i do NOT knock that) but my opinion is your % rate of getting it right drops, then taking data from a tree and accepting it is even lower.
Having said all that if we all did it the same way then Roots etc would be redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lesleyhannah
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1077
|
I think it's a bit harsh to assume everyone asking for lookups is just too mean to subscribe. I DO subscribe to ancestry and findmypast - with other occasional sites as and when - but when I ask for lookups it's because I just can't find the person I'm looking for myself. In my experience RCers are brilliant at finding people who've been transcribed under the most unlikely names - I owe thanks to many people on this forum who've discovered individuals or families I couldn't find.
My pay-back is that I always report mistranscriptions to ancestry, in the hope it helps others.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
lesleyhannah
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1077
|
Point taken Les! Didn't mean to sound critical - just thinking out loud! (And wondering whether I've asked for too many lookups!)
I think when I first started I could hardly find anything for myself, even though I had subscriptions, so I've learnt a lot from people who've done lookups for me. Maybe the person putting all the requests on the site is just very inexperienced and enthusiastic?
As for checking other people's findings, well I suppose I do. If someone finds a person I couldn't find, then I'll look up their suggestion, because if it's my family I may be able to pick up other clues that would help. But when I first started my research I think I did take what other people said as 'gospel' because everyone seemed to know loads more than I did. I learnt from experience when I realised some things didn't 'add up' and I had to go back and do loads of deleting and checking.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
les_looking
RootsChat Senior
Posts: 309
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Point taken Les! Didn't mean to sound critical - just thinking out loud! (And wondering whether I've asked for too many lookups!)
I think when I first started I could hardly find anything for myself, even though I had subscriptions, so I've learnt a lot from people who've done lookups for me. Maybe the person putting all the requests on the site is just very inexperienced and enthusiastic?
As for checking other people's findings, well I suppose I do. If someone finds a person I couldn't find, then I'll look up their suggestion, because if it's my family I may be able to pick up other clues that would help. But when I first started my research I think I did take what other people said as 'gospel' because everyone seemed to know loads more than I did. I learnt from experience when I realised some things didn't 'add up' and I had to go back and do loads of deleting and checking.
no problem Lesley 
luckily i think, i didn't find my way onto Roots until i was well into my reasearching so did a lot of digging myself,
otherwise as you say when new you may assume others know best, at least as you say you had to do some deleting etc, whereas some trees stuff is added and then that's it, no alterations, hopefully as the online trees/programmes evolve, one day a pop up will come on saying THAT'S WRONG lol or wishfull thinking 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
|
|
|
|
|
