RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: Lydart on Saturday 30 December 06 15:27 GMT (UK)
-
I should get out more .... but have just been browsing, as one does when its raining, and have found Ancestry's 'Family Trees', and what is more, have found some of 'ours' on it, way back into the 1750's. Names and places are accurate, but dates given I never knew before ... so apparently useful stuff .... BUT ... there are no sources given, and I'm always suspicious.
What I want to know is, what do other RootsChatters think of the info on that site ? Do you trust it ? Is there a way of contacting the person who put the info on, so that you can verify it ... and they must be very distant relatives anyway !
-
Hi,
I'd be as skeptical as I am with GR trees - no sources, no evidence.
But you are able to contact them, Click on one of the records and near the top it says - You are visiting "name of person" owned by "Username".
If you then click on the Username it provides a profile - in the case of the one I looked at it was blank, and on the right there's a link to "Contact this person via Ancestry's anonymous connection service"
Hope that helps.
Mary
-
I've had a couple of emails recently from people who have found my tree on Ancestry, although I have answered them both I have no idea whether they have ever received the answers because I heard nothing back.
There is a place for sources when compiling these trees, I know because another distant cousin has actually, surprise, surprise added me as a source.
Kerry
-
Thanks for that ... I too have my doubts about GR trees ... and also the hot matches they send me ! I get requests about names I've never heard of ! I suppose somehow its done automatically, but if that is the case, I dont think much of their computer programme that they use to offer me the names I don't know !
At least I have had the pleasure of seeing someone 'borrow' my tree (which I have since removed) from way back when I was just starting this; it was full of mistakes and he took it wholesale, mistakes and all !!
I'll try what you suggest about the Family Trees bit of Ancestry, because I might just find someone reliable who had researched a branch of the family I'm only just starting on !
-
Through the tree's on Ancestry I have now contacted 3 "extra families" for my Trees.
I admitted that some of there info was new to me and I have been very lucky to have made contact and to keep contact with them.So we can update each other. It has also cut down on cert. buying..if you order one in turn.
I found someone who had my friends family on there just before Christmas. He sent me 43 pages of her family backed by census and other details.WOW :D
If you are sceptical use the details they give as a guide and you may turn up something useful as it could be the right area to start searching for proof.
As for GR....Well >:( dont start on that one Hot matches...even a luke warm one might be nice ???
Tazzie
-
Today I have made my first connection via Ancestry Family Trees.
I did some searching, came across a branch of my Tree that looked pretty good, then emailed the tree owner. I had a lovely reply this morning, confirming all my information - dates, ages, places etc etc all matched and we both had relevant certificates.
We both have extra information to swap, so I'm feeling quite excited :D
Jan
-
I am suspicious or skeptical if the trees don't contain or I should say list sources of information. It doesn't take that much more effort to input source data ... a few extra key strokes.
Sources are very important and are easily verifiable. I have contacted two people through ancestry family trees. Never heard back so I must assume the worst.
Happy New Year to all.
yn9man :)
-
I've tried to contact 3 or 4 people on there who've listed trees with entries of interest. Never had a single reply. :(
As for GR...took my tree off ages ago. I got fed up with Uncle John Cobbly & all contacting me for info & not even getting so much as a thank you for my time & trouble. & then one person splashed all my living rellies everywhere >:( >:( >:(
I'm VERY cautious about online trees.
Debbie
-
Thank everyone for the answers so far !
I've been having a play around with it, and can see how it works now I think. One line I'm interested in quotes sources as IGI for the late 1600's ... just not happy that IGI is all that accurate, but then, how else do I check back in the 1600's !! Anyway, its really just name and date collecting ... and I'm more interested in what people did than in their dates ... although I have found one group of people on it where each of the couple had been married before, taking into their new joint marriage something like 15 children ! I wonder if several times GR.Granny knew what she was letting herself in for !
I'm going to have a go at contacting some of the source people, just to see ... watch this space !
-
I hope you get some success Lydart with your contacts!
Kerry :) :)
-
I've been having a play around with it, and can see how it works now I think. One line I'm interested in quotes sources as IGI for the late 1600's ... just not happy that IGI is all that accurate, but then, how else do I check back in the 1600's !!
Right there with you. IGI isn't that accurate for 1800s and 1900s data so why should it be more accurate for the 1600s.
Keep us posted on your results. :) :)
yn9man
-
You might find that some of the trees are a bit stale on ancestry. About three years ago I found something on the equivalent ancestry trees area which was wrong, and wrote to the individual concerned. He acknowledged his mistake, but prompted by Lydart's sense of adventure, I checked back today and the errors are still there.
Two possible reasons for this. The first is that the individual concerned has passed away and the tree has been forgotten about; can't do anything about that, but remind myself to think about making appropriate arrangements for when that time comes for me.
The second is that it is difficult to make changes to the trees once loaded. ::)
I'd be interested in any views/feedback about how easy it is to actually change trees on ancestry once info is loaded.
JULIAN
-
Julianb -
Sorry I can't provide any feedback on how easy/hard it is to update a tree. I just wanted to comment that several of the trees I have looked at are as you say "a bit stale". ;) ;)
I would assume it's the responsibility of the person(s) who put the tree on line to continually update. It appears though once a tree is on line it stays on and any additions/deletions/corrections/changes must go in/on a new entry. Therefore, another assumption, is it may be difficult to change or alter a tree once loaded.
yn9man :)
-
... and presumably, as this hobby gets even more popular, and more and more people add info to Ancestry, some of which is wrong and some correct... about the same people, the info we seek will become more and more confusing and muddled !
-
I've made some very useful contacts by putting my tree on Ancestry, & it's easy to make corrections. However, anyone using the OneWorldTree can add to any tree, which makes interesting reading. The Mormons have got to mine, & I now go back to Adam & Eve (& beyond!!!) :D
My own tree on my PC goes back, so far, to the 1700s, & I'm happy with that 'cos I can prove it! :)
Betty
-
I like the bits I can prove too!! I believe I go back to Adam and Eve too but without proof I'm not interested!
Kerry
-
I have made some wonderful contacts through Ancestry trees. One thing to note when contacting through Ancestry's anonymous system is that if the tree is even a couple years old, the email address Ancestry has for them might not be valid and I don't know if Ancestry tells you that.
Another trick I have learned with Ancestry is to follow the branches of the tree down, and quite often the actual ones on Ancestry have living people. I would be angry if I ever apperaed there, but honestly, I have been able to contact people via that route, and very successfully, on a number of different branches.
The way I use the information: if it isn't sourced, it is a good starting-off point for me. And then I do the research from there. And in most cases, I have a new cousin.
Kath
-
Last week I happened to see a message posted on this site from a newcomer to genealogy about the reliability of trees on Ancestry, and there were of course the replies one would expect. Yesterday whilst browsing through an Ancestry tree for a possible connection I came across the following that clearly vindicates those replies, and I wonder if anyone has seen any other tree that can beat it.
Amongst a catalogue of historical celebrities this tree has, in I hope the correct reverse chronological order, lots of Plantagenets including the kings of England, John of Gaunt, Eleanor of Castile, Duke Cosimo Medici, St Anselm (amongst other Saints), and all the Martel kings of France as far back as AD560 including Charlemagne.
As the tree author lives in Australia I suspect regailing everyone with these sort of names must raise a few XXXX's (tinnies of, that is). Speaking of which, my genuine connection to this tree is via a Devon family called Beer, one of whom was my 5xGt grandfather. Sadly, they were mere rustics unrelated to Charlemagne. However, je ne regret rien, as I might otherwise have said. Come to think of it, Anselm, as well as being Archbishop of Canterbury, was a Benedictine. Do I detect a whiff of alcohol here? Ah! Now I see it. According to my dictionary, Charles Martel (a name reminiscent of a cognac itself), grandfather of Charlemagne, was the 'Frankish ruler of Austrasia AD715-741'. Austrasia. Australasia. It's a simple enough mistake anyone could make. If you thought about it.
Happy New Year,
Peter
Moderator Comment: topics merged
-
I doubt that even DNA tests could substantiate that claim, Kerry !
And if the Garden of Eden was, as is thought nowadays, to be in the modern Iraq, I'm not sure I'd like to search there for relatives !!
Happy New Year to all who have given their opinions on my query ... any more welcome ! I've emailed some of the 'sources' on the Ancestry site ... waiting ...
-
It may have been my posting you saw. (*)
I've been browsing Ancestry's trees ... quite amazing, some of them !
As for Anselm, technically if he was a Benedictine monk, then he should have been celibate, and therefore childless !! So who are his descendents ?!
(*) Moderator Comment: topics now merged.
this is a reply to Rickards, #17
-
Hi Peter,
Please don't think all Aussies are quick to add fancy names to their trees, even after a few XXXX :D
I am extremely strict when it comes to adding to my tree, even with a scotch in my hand.
Happy New Year, hic! ;)
Margaret
-
Hi,
In reply to Lydart, since your posting, Anselm seems to have disappeared unless he's staring me in the face through the haze from last night. However, Saint Arnulf is there too.
To Margaret I have to say I'm not convinced by your comments. If - 1 you're an Oz, 2 you like imaginative family tree building, 3 you just had a few tinnies watching England collapse (again) and 4 thus have a couple of days' innings now going free to use up the rest of your supply then the combination could be interesting.
By the way, for anyone who didn't know, Saint Arnulf is the patron saint of brewing. In view of my previous posting, nuff said I think.
Peter.
-
Peter, Peter, Peter.
Yes 1. I am an aussie, thus having been born with alcohol in the blood.
2. not so, I can prove I am related to King Richard, ;)
3. sorry about the cricket. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
4. never any leftovers, silly boy. Reminds me - must get to the bottle shop before the next innings start.
cheers
Margaret
-
About 3 years ago I put a tree on Ancestry not as big as the one I have now not as accurate so I deleted it but I can still find this tree on Rootsweb There are a couple of errors and a complete line that is wrong. So do not trust what you see. I do not know how to delete of Rootsweb
Jim
-
About 3 years ago I put a tree on Ancestry not as big as the one I have now not as accurate so I deleted it but I can still find this tree on Rootsweb There are a couple of errors and a complete line that is wrong. So do not trust what you see. I do not know how to delete of Rootsweb
Jim
Jim
Thanks for that very helpful (and scary) information. Makes me very very nervous of putting a tree on Ancestry :-\
JULIAN
-
About 3 years ago I put a tree on Ancestry not as big as the one I have now not as accurate so I deleted it but I can still find this tree on Rootsweb There are a couple of errors and a complete line that is wrong. So do not trust what you see. I do not know how to delete of Rootsweb
Jim
Thanks for sharing the information about your tree and Ancestry. Makes me even more skeptical than before.
yn9man
-
I'm becoming very suspicious of a lot of people who have posted Trees on the sites mentioned. There is one that I know of - has over 3000 names - has no sources listed.
I was browsing a few day ago - on the Rootsweb.com site (it says supported by Ancestry.com).
Found this guy's (is Australian) Tree, he seems to have traced his Ancestors back to HENRI 1 (King of France) he has a note on this site - I will not reply to email queries unless they relate to my direct ancestors, all other will be deleted. Is this guy real - his name in his email address is guitarhero - he has 8000+ names listed . Sounds like a nice chappy??
Sarra ;)
-
Well that's a good start isn't it :o :o
I will not reply to email queries unless they relate to my direct ancestors
Why did he start his family history in the first place if not to come into contact with other people! :-\
Kerry
-
I've been browsing Ancestry today ... what is SO annoying is that you put in your search, say Fred Bloggs, born 1800 in a named town in Hampshire, UK ... and you get everything else from every where (mostly USA) EXCEPT dear old Fred ... if they don't have a Hampshire Fred Bloggs, why doesn't it say so ? >:( >:( >:(
-
I've been browsing Ancestry today ... what is SO annoying is that you put in your search, say Fred Bloggs, born 1800 in a named town in Hampshire, UK ... and you get everything else from every where (mostly USA) EXCEPT dear old Fred ... if they don't have a Hampshire Fred Bloggs, why doesn't it say so ? >:( >:( >:(
Lydart
On the left of search results on ancestry there are stars (bit like our posting stars). The more stars there are the better the quality of the match. I suspect with your recent search they will only show three or two stars, if that.
Alternatively search on "exact matches" by ticking the "exact matches" box
JULIAN
-
Thanks for that ... will try for Fred again !
-
I've been browsing Ancestry today ... what is SO annoying is that you put in your search, say Fred Bloggs, born 1800 in a named town in Hampshire, UK ... and you get everything else from every where (mostly USA) EXCEPT dear old Fred ... if they don't have a Hampshire Fred Bloggs, why doesn't it say so ? >:( >:( >:(
Lydart
On the left of search results on ancestry there are stars (bit like our posting stars). The more stars there are the better the quality of the match. I suspect with your recent search they will only show three or two stars, if that.
Alternatively search on "exact matches" by ticking the "exact matches" box
JULIAN
The library edition I use on occasion only shows three stars and above thereby eliminating moany of the non matches. Well that's a good start isn't it :o :o
I will not reply to email queries unless they relate to my direct ancestors
Why did he start his family history in the first place if not to come into contact with other people! :-\
Kerry
My thoughts were right with you on that. Maybe he justs like "virtual" people .... ::) ::)
yn9man
-
Sad very sad ::) ::) ::) ::)
He wants introducing to the joys of Rootschat!!!
Kerry