|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: snowed under (Read 445 times)
|
nbrome
RootsChat Member
Posts: 130
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
I had one of those moments yesterday when you wonder if you aren't wasting your time with family research.
I spend months confirming sources and "filtering" info before I will admit it to my tree.
Yesterday I tried one of the names in the LDS Family Search Site and it immediately gave me 12 generations, going back from Nebraska to Wales and Somerset! At least I think it was 12, it might have been more. And that was just one of the lines. If I wanted to I could have followed out any number of wives and husbands along the way.
What do you do with stuff like this? Why is it there? It is an Ancestral File. By the way, I've never understood the difference between AF and the other types of files on there. Anyone able to explain in a few words?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aghadowey
Global Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 13601
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Quite simply, Ancestral File is submitted information and could be 100% accurate, partially correct or rubbish but until you check each bit of information you can't know if its right.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AngelaR
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1286
My great grandparents Basil & Sarah Sealey
|
I must admit I'd always dismissed the Ancestral Files because so many of the submitted records on the IGI are guesswork. Having just had a look now, I don't know if I'm lucky or not but LDS members don't seem interested in any of my lines 
I know the 'snowed under' feeling though - I get it when I look at Ancestry trees, so I don't do that very often either. What works for me is only to look at other peoples' trees when I'm stuck and looking for possible leads - then I research the most likely lead and carry on on my own, unless the tree looks really accurate, in which case I'll contact the owner to see if we can exchange findings.
I think I might be in danger of being arrogant or something but most of the research I've seen on my family lines is not as reliable as my own, apart from recent generations when other people may be much better informed than me (couldn't be much less informed given how little my parents passed on to me  )
In the end, thorough checking pays off. Just one casual assumption and you've got generations of the wrong family in your tree.....
Just my thoughts...... feel free to ignore!
Angela
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Any census information included in this post is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukEspecially looking for - Sealey, Rogers, Sheppard in Wiltshire; Virgin, Slade, Abbott, Saint in Somerset; and Virgin, Tarr, Beer in Devon |
|
|
|
|
kerryb
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 11957
|
I think I might be in danger of being arrogant or something but most of the research I've seen on my family lines is not as reliable as my own, apart from recent generations when other people may be much better informed than me (couldn't be much less informed given how little my parents passed on to me ) In the end, thorough checking pays off. Just one casual assumption and you've got generations of the wrong family in your tree..... Just my thoughts...... feel free to ignore! Angela
Not arrogant Angela just more thorough, a feeling I know too after looking at some of those trees which supposedly include my family!
Kerry
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukSearching for my family - Baldwin - Sussex, Middlesex, Cork, Pilbeam - Sussex, Harmer - Sussex, Terry - Surrey, Kent, Rhoades - Lincs, Roffey - Surrey, Traies - Devon & Middlesex & many many more to be found on my website .... www.kerrysfamilyhistory.co.uk |
|
|
|
|
ammonite
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 89
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
|
I think half the fun is in doing the research and making teh break through yourself. There is nothing more exciting than going several more generations back in an evening.
I try not to look at ancestry files or others as a) they are often wrong and b) seeing how many generations some one else has gone back can be depressing when you are struggling (although other times it can provide a bit more impetus.)
The one main file I know that exists with my family on misses out the one person I am having trouble finding but that I know exists, that one I would welcome assistance on from any source.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Jelly:Rutland/ Leics,
Barnes: Surrey, Gloucs
Claydon: Lincs, Suffolk,
Faulkner, Cooling, Cook, Crampton, Pask, Gresham: Lincs
Reid, Mundy: Liverpool and Cumberland
Brownhill, Middlesex, Derbyshire
|
|
|
nbrome
RootsChat Member
Posts: 130
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
What's the difference between an AF and a Pedigree Resource File?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Guy Etchells
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1100
|
The Ancestral File is a single large database of pedigrees submitted by patrons to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; it may be accessed freely by members of the public. I believe, though this could be inaccurate, it was last updated in 1996.
Pedigree Resource Files are individual family trees, submitted as above, which may or may not have been added to the Ancestral File.
The differences between the two
PRF CDs may contain notes and source documentation (not available online).
PRF data is submitted mainly over the internet and therefore avoids keying errors.
AF tries to merge duplicate files, PRF does not merge any files.
It should also be noted that the CDs of PRF display differently and may contain more information than the online version.
Note submitted by patrons not members, criticising this file is criticising fellow family historians who may or may not be members of the LDS.
It is calculated that something like 75% of all data comes from non LDS members.
Cheers
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
julianb
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1437
Portrait of the genealogist as a young man
|
Note submitted by patrons not members, criticising this file is criticising fellow family historians who may or may not be members of the LDS.
It is calculated that something like 75% of all data comes from non LDS members.
Thanks for that insight, Guy. I must admit that I am nervous about LDS member submitted items on the IGI, and have avoided AFs/PRFs for similar reasons.
However, you are right to point out that people sharing their information through PRF (and similarly trees on Ancestry etc) are doing so in good faith.
While I might giggle at how some researchers have interpreted the relative proximity (or not) of various parishes in eg Essex, I might similarly be guilty of misunderstanding the relative distances between places in say Ontario, Canada.
It is easy to forget that there's good work done by others. I've just discovered something through a tree on Ancestry which helps me immensely with solving one of my own major conundrums. As a result I have celebrated and put my own tree (direct line only) on ancestry and wherever possible linked the records ancestry have to those antecedents of mine.
That has been an interesting exercise, because through this I've found how much others have (worryingly) the same data, including the odd typo, as set out on my FH website 
The bottom line must be whether you yourself are satisfied with the conclusions of your research, and for me, that means checking for myself. I've given up being frustrated and upset by tress that go back to Adam. 
JULIAN
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Essex - Carter, Danns, Mason, Middleditch, Pond, Poole, Rose, Sorrell, Surry, Theobald Hunts - Danns Kent - Luetchford Nottinghamshire - Baker Suffolk - Rose Surrey - Baker, Bedel, Bransden, Carter, Coleman, Gibbs, Luetchford, Quinton Sussex - Gibbs, Langridge Wiltshire - Brice, Rumble Rootschatters fh websites - http://www.rootschat.com/links/04lg/ Any census info in this post is Crown Copyright - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ |
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
The rest if the file was full of the links like that. It looks like they were looking for anyone with a matching name and rough age in the same county and fitting the details in regardless of whether it made sense geographically. Somehow, I doubt they checked every neighbouring parish working outwards logically. I don't think that in the 17th century ordinary people moved quite as much as that! Maybe if I ever see the actual PR's there will be more clues.