Validity of Public Member Trees on Ancestry

[Greensleeves]

I am sure these dodgy trees are by no means confined to public member trees.  I suspect the private ones are just as bad but of course we can't see those so can't judge or correct.

I do sometimes find the trees useful on Ancestry as signposts when I'm struggling,  but if people just copy and paste, then its their own fault if they are adding rubbish to their trees.  After all, tree-holders on Ancestry are not contracted to provide free information to other users, so if they want to fill their trees with nonsense, it's up to them.  They are, after all, paying for the privilege.

[Mike in Cumbria]

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...?

No - I don't remember it ever being mentioned...

[Mart 'n' Al]

On several times I've contacted people to explain errors on their tree, and I have never once had a reply nor have the corrections been made.

Martin

[pharmaT]

I don't bother with other people's trees. I only look if someone has asked for help on an aspect re a shared ancestor or similar.  I just consider it none of my business what is in someone else's tree.  Although I was upset the time I googled my own name and found myself recorded as dead in someone's tree.

[Keith Sherwood]

Many fascinating responses on here already...
Almost makes me think of those images I saw in a recent news report about the environment, with acres and acres of close to the seashore seas in the Caribbean littered and polluted with detritus and rubbish.  So many wrong bits of family history cluttering up those so-called family trees on Ancestry...
Probably not a very useful analogy, but I get really rather cross about it all sometimes, and nothing much apparently being done to make things better...
Ho hum,
Keith
And PharmaT, perhaps I'm becoming too downbeat about all this.  Much more fun to hear another funny "The rumours of my death have been much exaggerated" story.  Did you for a moment check whether you still had a pulse?

[BashLad]

My uncle cancelled his ancestry subscription years ago but his tree is still publically visible.

Anyone who messages him will be left hanging a long time.

[pharmaT]

Many fascinating responses on here already...
Almost makes me think of those images I saw in a recent news report about the environment, with acres and acres of close to the seashore seas in the Caribbean littered and polluted with detritus and rubbish.  So many wrong bits of family history cluttering up those so-called family trees on Ancestry...
Probably not a very useful analogy, but I get really rather cross about it all sometimes, and nothing much apparently being done to make things better...
Ho hum,
Keith
And PharmaT, perhaps I'm becoming too downbeat about all this.  Much more fun to hear another funny "The rumours of my death have been much exaggerated" story.  Did you for a moment check whether you still had a pulse?

I carried out due diligence and checked there were no obituaries in my name and I checked both SP and GRO indexes for death records that would fit with me.

[JAKnighton]

My uncle cancelled his ancestry subscription years ago but his tree is still publically visible.

Anyone who messages him will be left hanging a long time.

You can still receive and respond to messages without a paid subscription.

[Essnell]

Just reading  this to see what you all had experienced.

I have said elsewhere how this is such an annoying part of this hobby of mine. I can forgive a little on old records which are often hard to pin down, [part of my brick walls] but when it comes to living people and it is totally wrong, I bristle.  I did contact the tree owner with no reaction.  I don't have certs but these people I saw every Christmas for about 30years , birthdays for cousins and all the rest.....  say no more.   Living Family.

Essnell