Amusing tree on Ancestry

[magnacarta]

I think the Oxford dictionary people should pick this up or a medical journal. ☺

[jaybelnz]

Treebusters would be another good one Philip 

[groom]

About 11 years ago I made contact with someone who was related on my maternal side and we became quite good friends. One day she emailed me to tell me she’d traced our great x 3 great aunt going to America, marrying twice and having children. Looking at it, it checked out, names, dates etc. So we added it to our trees.

However, 3 years ago when new information came online I decided to double check and found she didn’t go to America but stayed near where she was born in London. Unfortunately between those years my friend had died, so although my tree is now correct, hers still contains the wrong information and has been copied by others. I have contacted some, but have only heard back from a couple.

[philipsearching]

Treebusters would be another good one Philip 

Do you experience feelings of dread on your computer or ipad?
Have you or any of your family seen a dodgy online tree?
If the answer is "Yes", then don't wait another minute.  Log in to Rootschat and call on the experts.
TREEBUSTERS

A Rootschat production starring Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Bill Ramis.  Full supporting cast of Marquessates, Aristocrats and Veterans.
(Distributed by Spatchcock Films Inc)

[Vance Mead]

This problem arises because our ancestors gave their children names like John, Henry, Elizabeth and Margaret. This was very inconsiderate of them. How are people supposed to know that there might be more than one John Williams or Elizabeth Jones?

I suggest that we help our descendants by giving our children names like Murgatroyd Mumpsimus Smith and Scholastica Nonesuch Jones.

[Ayashi]

I think I'm allergic to finding stuff like that. I find it so painful... One of my distant cousins did admit to putting incorrect info in a tree on purpose once to weed out the sheep from the researchers- I'm pleased to say I found that out after I questioned it.

I have seen what looks like accidental mashing up of stuff, like somehow the tree got corrupted and the links went to the wrong places.

With the "back to Adam and Eve" trees I can at least credit them with the amount of time and effort that must have been put into making those in the first place.

One of the more interesting trees I've seen went back perfectly well to about 1750 and then the birth date of one ancestor was typo'd as 1850 and then they'd apparently found a person that fit and started back through the 19th and 18th centuries again!

[Kiltpin]

This problem arises because our ancestors gave their children names like John, Henry, Elizabeth and Margaret. This was very inconsiderate of them. How are people supposed to know that there might be more than one John Williams or Elizabeth Jones?

I suggest that we help our descendants by giving our children names like Murgatroyd Mumpsimus Smith and Scholastica Nonesuch Jones.

So true, so true.

In my wife's tree, every Tom, Dick and Harry is called Mary.

Regards

Chas

[Melbell]

You won't be surprised to know that I have no Ancestry or any other online tree.

I once helped a beginner and then let her loose to do her own thing.  When I asked how she was getting on and what sources she had used to verify what she'd found, she was amazed when I told her that Ancestry wasn't the original source!  I blame myself to some extent for not explaining the situation more clearly. But why don't people do a bit of reading about how to research before jumping straight in?

Melbell

[groom]

But why don't people do a bit of reading about how to research before jumping straight in?

I think you may have hit the nail on the head, Melbell. You only have to look and see how many questions there are on all the genealogy forums re the 1939 census!!!! No, for a start it isn't a census, it's a register. If people read a bit before they jumped in, they wouldn't have to keep asking why some names are blacked out etc.