Author Topic: Validity of Public Member Trees on Ancestry  (Read 3125 times)

Offline Guy Etchells

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,632
    • View Profile
Re: Validity of Public Member Trees on Ancestry
« Reply #18 on: Friday 17 November 17 14:35 GMT (UK) »
Please re-direct me if this is already a well-worn/much-discussed topic, but how frustrated have other Rootschatters become through looking at all the erroneous information on the section on Ancestry called Public Member Trees...?
Members must in many cases simply copy or add in information on there to their own trees, believing or perhaps merely hoping that it is the truth and nothing but.
And I have cross-referenced on there recently and discovered that whole twigs or branches have almost been airbrushed out, particularly if there has been a previous marriage. 
I suppose it's sometimes about what people want to see in their trees, not warts 'n all...
Keith

Welcome to the real world!

The trees on Ancestry are no worse the the 16th and 17th century trees in the Heralds Visitations.
Even certain Heralds were not adverse to making the tree fit the whim of the family, Ancetry trees are a 21st century take on that.

Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline Keith Sherwood

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,382
  • The grass covers and the rain effaces. Victor Hugo
    • View Profile
Re: Validity of Public Member Trees on Ancestry
« Reply #19 on: Friday 17 November 17 18:54 GMT (UK) »
Hi again, Guy,
And there was me thinking those heralds were quite beyond reproach, especially if you wanted your very own personal coat of arms drawn up...didn't they also go round battlefields soon after the slaughter had finished, sorting out who had died or not?
Keith

Offline venelow

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Validity of Public Member Trees on Ancestry
« Reply #20 on: Friday 17 November 17 19:06 GMT (UK) »
I did come across a Visitation Report that listed all the people they had turned down. I think it was in Somerset.

I guess they didn't have the wherewithal to purchase a whim....

Venelow
Canada

Offline pharmaT

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,343
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Validity of Public Member Trees on Ancestry
« Reply #21 on: Friday 17 November 17 19:22 GMT (UK) »
Hi again, Guy,
And there was me thinking those heralds were quite beyond reproach, especially if you wanted your very own personal coat of arms drawn up...didn't they also go round battlefields soon after the slaughter had finished, sorting out who had died or not?
Keith

Their word was law but just as today money talks.  Why bother with the truth when there's money at stake

Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others


Offline C-A

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Originally from the UK, but live & work in Italy
    • View Profile
Re: Validity of Public Member Trees on Ancestry
« Reply #22 on: Friday 17 November 17 20:29 GMT (UK) »
My tree is public on Ancestry, although I have recently started keeping my main tree on my pc.  Generally I find that people just copy from other trees without checking the facts, which is a shame but having said that I sometimes find info which gives me a clue I can follow.

The thing that really drives me mad is when people download photos/documents etc from my tree and then don't respond to requests to share info.

In any case I will continue to share, because every now and then I find people (like on Rootschat) who are incredibly generous with sharing what they have discovered, and I hope I can do the same.
Richards, Seddon, Welsh, Clark, Suttie, Ritchie, Tinworth, Harrington