RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: stevecw on Tuesday 08 March 11 07:55 GMT (UK)
-
I've had a quick look but cannot find this problem raised before although I'm sure it's not unique to me, but does anyone else have a problem with Ancestry's "Hints" and other Users of Ancestry ?
For example, I've just spent time researching the Parish records and have added some further Ancestors to my Tree.
Hints linking those newies to other family trees show that one of my relatives father is down in this other person's Tree as her brother, and another Ancestor is shown as having two wives, nothing wrong with that except that the marriage dates for both are the same.
I'm getting the distinct impression that some Users are just adding names because they match, not because they are related.
This is very frustrating because it always raises the doubt in my mind: Am I wrong and does this other User have more reliable family history or are they just "filling up their Tree" because it looks good?
stevecw
-
I think you'll find that the majority of trees on Ancestry are completed by people simply collecting names.
Having made similar mistakes in the past, I now no longer rely on other peoples trees.
I want documentary proof before I add anyone to my tree!
What happens is that someone doesn't do proper (or any!) research, and creates an error on their tree.
Other people suddenly find links to that tree and copy the error without checking.
Then you find the same error in 8 trees!!
It takes so long to undo the errors that others trees have.
-
I don't think any serious researcher gives more than a passing glance to other people's trees on Ancestry these days. Usually they are worse than useless, often misleading in the extreme, and can result in months of work correcting/deleting data.
Even worse is to import someone's GEDCOM directly into your own tree, as I stupidly did in my early days . . . I still find the odd error from that among my data after several years.
In either case, if there is information that appears to relate to my family, I now create a separate file in my FT software to import the data so I can check it thoroughly before incorporating it in my main tree.
Mike.
-
Thanks KGarrad, that's a relief, I'm only just finding this out for myself.
I've even emailed some of those involved to enquire about their sources/data and I think their total lack of response to my enquiry is due to their humiliation that they have been rumbled ! ;D
Very good point Mike, the problem is sorting out the good researchers from the "Point-Scorers" but as you quite rightly say, some of the errors are BLATANT!, you can even see some who haven't even bothered to check the predictive text before saving so you end up with a family member who died in Plymouth, U.S.A. instead of Plymouth U.K. >:(
stevecw
-
so you end up with a family member who died in Plymouth, U.S.A. instead of Plymouth U.K. >:(
I think that's another problem with Ancestry completely!
If the other person doesn't quote a country, when Ancestry provides a hint, it seems to default to some US address/county!
I KNOW where Devon is, but Ancestry thinks it is in New Hampshire!! ::)
Somebody even had my father married to his mother on their tree!! :o
-
Somebody even had my father married to his mother on their tree!! :o
;D...The problem with what I'm finding out about my lot, is that I wouldn't totally dismiss that ! :-[
stevecw
-
Sorry I disgree with most of your points, especially the comment that "the majority of trees on Ancestry are completed by people simply collecting names". As with ALL data, the onus of checking that the data is correct lies with the person receiving the information, not the one giving it. Yes, a lot of information posted on Ancestry is wrong, but it is the odd snippet which is correct, that can find a way through a brick wall that makes it all worthwhile.
With regard to people in the US putting in American counties instead of English ones, that is partly the fault of Ancestry themselves, because on the US website there used to be a drop-down box to enter counties, instead of text entry, and it was all too easy for people to select the wrong one.
And lastly.... everyone makes mistakes, including the people who filled in the census forms, and the enumerators who transcribed them.
P.S. If you don't want Ancestry hints, you can exclude a tree in database searches in the preferences section for that tree.
-
Sorry I disgree with most of your points, especially the comment that "the majority of trees on Ancestry are completed by people simply collecting names". As with ALL data, the onus of checking that the data is correct lies with the person receiving the information, not the one giving it. Yes, a lot of information posted on Ancestry is wrong, but it is the odd snippet which is correct, that can find a way through a brick wall that makes it all worthwhile.
With regard to people in the US putting in American counties instead of English ones, that is partly the fault of Ancestry themselves, because on the US website there used to be a drop-down box to enter counties, instead of text entry, and it was all too easy for people to select the wrong one.
And lastly.... everyone makes mistakes, including the people who filled in the census forms, and the enumerators who transcribed them.
P.S. If you don't want Ancestry hints, you can exclude a tree in database searches in the preferences section for that tree.
I agree that the onus is on the receiver of the data to make checks.
But that doesn't make my statement any less true! :D
And I think you misunderstood what I said about counties.
I have looked at people's trees on Ancestry, and they have (for example) BMD info as "Plymouth, Devon".
The hints received from Ancestry, and the data when I want to incorporate that data into my own tree, will then say something like "Plymouth, Devon, Pennsylvania".
The only problem with the original data is that there is no country mentioned!
Or sometime no county either!!
-
... the onus of checking that the data is correct lies with the person receiving the information, not the one giving it.
I couldn't agree more. My intention was not to criticise the tree owners (though I sometimes wonder why they bother at all if they are so careless about their research) but to help save others from learning the hard way as I did when I started out. :)
Mike
-
Sometime ago, out of curiosity, I did a detailed anaysis of the hints given in early tree I had put on Ancestry. Taking a sample, covering people born between about 1700 and 1900, I checked all the hints I was offered against what I believe is correct and for which I have primary sources - a mix of certificates and parish record data. The overall statistic is that about 50% of the information in the hints was right, 50% wrong. Only about 20% of the people had a set of data that was, in my view, wholly correct and could have been imported en bloc.
Buried amongst the dross there can be useful information. I do still occasionally scan hints, and still do sometimes find useful nuggets. With a litttle practice it's not to difficult to recognise the symptoms of the "size matters" brigade, and to spot the errors that propogate from tree to tree. For some of the earlier history of some of my lines, I have a specific set of markers ( akin to DNA genetic markers !) that, when present, immediately raise the "probably rubbish" flag.
I will also admit that cross-comparing my data with hints and other on-line trees has identified cases where either I'd made the wrong connection, or my initial anaysis though correct was not sufficiently rigorous to eliminate an alternative.
Lastly, remember that all these providers of data / tree software are in the business not out of altruism but to make money. Convincing people "it's easy" is part of the marketing. And making it easy to copy others' data is part of that. Yes they do say that the onus is on the importer to check, but it's obvious many people don't.
Real research, as you are discovering, can be slow, tedious, and sometimes very frustrating. But there is the reward - and I think it particularly applies in this forum - of the personal satisfaction of a job well done.
So overall my advice would be to keep looking but treat anything you find with caution.
-
hello ,i have had problens with hints being put on my tree without permission
some one decided my relative was hers and changed place of birth. i have proof mine is the correct one.
hopefully i will be able to rectify this
sylvia
-
Wise words indeed johnxyz although I do agree with Mike in that some (not all) researchers can be critisised for taking the easy option not realising their action has a knock-on effect for others, just like dropping a stick of dynamite amongst all your hard work and research?
It is due to this that I have a "blacklist" in my mind of people not to take too much notice of and as has already been noted, SOMETIMES you can find little gems amongst the rubbish..........it's a bit like prospecting for gold really ?
Good luck with your problem Sylvia, I am quickly learning to go into a state of denial !
stevecw
-
I have found that very, very distant relatives collect data off my tree, then when I ask where the connection is, they refuse to answer! If I cannot prove the connection or see a relevance in it, I don't add it - why do I need all these "hints" if they are not of any use? Like you say, perhaps some people just like to increase the size of their tree!
-
I have found that very, very distant relatives collect data off my tree, then when I ask where the connection is, they refuse to answer!
Me too, I naively thought those creating trees, like me would only be too happy to share information and Certificates etc (after all we could be related) but I haven't had a response from any, their silence is deafening.
Still I suppose the positive note from it is that they don't get on my Christmas Card list !
stevecw
-
Sorry I disgree with most of your points, especially the comment that "the majority of trees on Ancestry are completed by people simply collecting names". As with ALL data, the onus of checking that the data is correct lies with the person receiving the information, not the one giving it. Yes, a lot of information posted on Ancestry is wrong, but it is the odd snippet which is correct, that can find a way through a brick wall that makes it all worthwhile.
With regard to people in the US putting in American counties instead of English ones, that is partly the fault of Ancestry themselves, because on the US website there used to be a drop-down box to enter counties, instead of text entry, and it was all too easy for people to select the wrong one.
And lastly.... everyone makes mistakes, including the people who filled in the census forms, and the enumerators who transcribed them.
P.S. If you don't want Ancestry hints, you can exclude a tree in database searches in the preferences section for that tree.
I agree with Nick's comment on the above.
Aren't we all collectors of names? Some, I will agree, do seem to collect rather a large quantity, but in the main the objective is to find out as much as we can about our forebears and their siblings.
I add partners of gt aunts and uncles in the hope that their descendants will also be looking and can offer me more information about my own family. If nothing comes of these additions they can always be removed at a later date.
-
The proliferation of family trees on Ancestry is to me a sad sign of the times, gone are the days of the hard slog that family history research used to be.
All to often the 'modern' researcher appears to think the only source of information to be found is on Ancestry. I greatly value the resources available via the site and my research has certainly progressed with the databases added in recent times but I am at a loss to understand why anyone feels the need to have a public tree that very obviously is a compilation of information sourced from other public trees. Yes we can ignore them, but in my experience there is many, many poorly reseached trees appearing on Ancestry and I can't help but feel both sad and frustrated by this.
I would love to drag (kicking and screaming if necessary) a few folk with these trees into a record office or a LDS centre to spend a few hours working their way through a film or two ....... reading of PR films puts an entirely different aspect on research and very often provides the defining clue that ties everything together, well at least it has for me!
With regard to the number of names we have in our tree shouldn't it come down to quality rather than quantity. I have no issue with a tree a zillion names in it IF if has been thoroughly researched, after seven years of constant research I only have about 2500 names and I'll admit to a not being completely confident my research has been thorough on all those people.
My thoughts anyway.
S in A
-
I am told by hints half my familywere either born or died in USA. Rubbish. They never left Worcestershire! I have told the other member twice but have been ignored. (Rant over). On the up side I have finally found a link back to 17th century. So not all bad.
-
Well the bottom line is that Americans 'don't do' geography ! I am a member of Facebook, and when I'm there I'm continually being encouraged to put my home town on my profile. Well, apart from other security concerns, one reason why I don't do it is because they insist that the small market town where I live is in Norfolk, when it's actually in Cambridgeshire ::)
And re the comments on 'name collectors' - well I suppose you'd better count me in with those ! I have about 6000 names on my tree. There are a few reasons for this .....
1. I (unwisely) decided to research my wifes family tree by including it in with my own.
2. I like to go down all the 'branch lines', because this often flushes more distant relatives out of the woodwork who could help with my research, and maybe I can help them.
3. Going down branch lines sometimes finds unexpected useful information.
With 6000 names, I can't afford to spend a load of money doing detailed research on the outer reaches of my tree, so it's quite possible that I do have mistakes in there, so its a case of 'buyer beware' :)
-
And re the comments on 'name collectors' - well I suppose you'd better count me in with those ! I have about 6000 names on my tree. There are a few reasons for this .....
1. I (unwisely) decided to research my wifes family tree by including it in with my own.
2. I like to go down all the 'branch lines', because this often flushes more distant relatives out of the woodwork who could help with my research, and maybe I can help them.
3. Going down branch lines sometimes finds unexpected useful information.
Again, it's almost ditto to the above. Apart from:
1. It's my husband's tree as well as my own (1500 names combined - so please don't imagine I collect names willy-nilly).
2. Exactly so - although I'm still awaiting eureka moments ;D
3. See No 2. ;)
In addition, if I find something I am not sure about I will make a note of it in the comments box which can be read by other researchers. This lets others know that I am willing to be proven wrong and am prepared to admit it.
I would also like to know - Am I right in thinking that some 'serious researchers' look down on those of us who use Ancestry?
-
Yes, must admit I started out tracking my husband's family, thinking I knew all about my side, but ended up tracking mine and various branches of it as well, so tree grew and grew! But it is annoying when someone suddenly "pinches" a bit of research its taken me a while to do, thenn won't acknowledge you when you contact them (even if its only to say thanks but no thanks). I know what you are saying about "looking down noses" - I started my research without Ancestry, visiting the old records office in London on a couple of occasions, and tramping around cemeteries (to no avail!). Ancestry is really useful, especially now more records are on line, so don't decry it! Just wish those who copy my records would be a little grateful!!
-
Like Nick I have mine and husbands combined after all we are both our childrens family!..........I also have branch lines and have found them to have been very useful...........my tree is private although I have shared it lots so most info and certs etc are in public domain but I am happy to share.
If I have found mistakes I have contacted people and perhaps been lucky but have only ever been thanked........I have sometimes found I have been wrong and had to delete a whole family...........
I do buy certs and go places to prove my findings on Ancestry & other sites but certainly wouldnt have got this far without the web.
To say most of trees on Ancestry are just name collecters I find insulting there are a lot of us who have spent a lot of time and effort let alone money who have our trees on here and yes we do collect names as this is an important part of genealogy ..no names no tree
sandie
-
Unfortunately with the price of fuel rising on a daily basis, unless you're really lucky and have all your family concentrated in a small area, then trudging around the country is going to be very costly, and probably not an option for many people. Ancestry (and the other genealogy companies) are probably among the few who are actually happy about the rising price of oil ;D
-
Incidentally, you can still get it wrong, even with certificates. For about 2 years now, I have had in my posession (what I thought was) my g.g. grandfather's death certificate, and I was very sad to see his death in the workhouse. Then, a few weeks ago, during a discussion in this forum, someone commented that if my g.g. grandfather lived in Eltham, Kent, then he would not have been sent to the Greenwich, Kent, workhouse, because it was in the wrong borough ! And they were correct - I had the death certificate for the wrong person. Certificates are no use at all, if you get them for the wrong people :)
-
I only have ancestors who to the best of my knowledge have been verified in my tree. Quality not quantity to me. I find that a lot of the ancestry trees users are just name collectors. I have found people fathering children before they were born and today saw someone born in 1802 fathering a child in 1593. :o :o :o
-
Well the bottom line is that Americans 'don't do' geography !
Nick that did make me laugh- it's so true !
We stayed with some Canadian cousins in 1988- she is a school teacher(not geography ;D) She asked where us Brits would normally go on hols and I told her att he time that a lot of us go to Spain. She then asked if we would drive there or would have to fly !!!
So neither do the Canadians ;D ;D ;D
Someone has my great grandparents on their Ancestry tree(never moved out of a small village near Taunton) who apparently died in the USA ........Grrrrrrr. >:(
Carol
-
I think quite a lot of new researchers take information they find on other peoples trees as Fact without checking - I'm sure when we all started we did the same thing! I have quite a few people who have copied info from my tree on Ancestry and then I've noticed that I've typed the date in wrong or something like that - yet the people who have copied it have just copied it directly, not checked it or anything! I like the hints bit, even if sometimes its not quite right - remember it is just a 'hint'. On occasions its actually made me either double check my research (which has been a good thing) or send me down a totally different path, one that I would never have thought of!
-
You do have to be a little bit careful, though..... when I was persuing my maternal grandfather's line, I came across an Ancestry record which stated that my 6th great grandfather Andrew Griffin was born in Somerset in 1660, and died in the Isle of Wight ..... VIRGINIA, USA ::) My first thought was 'blinkin Americans', but on further research it turned out to be true ! :-[
In fact, Andrew Griffin was one of the first trans-Atlantic traders, whose father was actually born out there in 1620. The family is mentioned in the early records of the Virginia settlements. And, Andrew must have crossed the Atlantic a few times, because his daughter (my 5th great grandmother) was born in Somerset.
So, if you see an ancestor who appeared to die in America, maybe it's true ! ;D
-
I wonder if many of those who are putting trees up on Ancestry.com do it simply as a tool, not claiming that it's Gospel, just a work in progress. It's more of a past-time, not anything too serious.
I take very little from public trees because it's just too risky. If it's not sourced, it's not worth too much to me. My tree isn't up on Ancestry because of just that: it's a WORKING document, not meant for others to rely on, and I can keep it on my computer just as easily as online.
I do have a bit of a selfish bone to pick. My sons' ancestors came from all over Europe, and doing my and my husband's trees wouldn't be possible without online sites. And compared to the geographic size of the British Isles, the size of the US makes personal research of even recent ancestry just impossible for those who have jobs and families and pay bills. I agree we Americans are often a bit geographically-challenged, but certainly we must have other redeeming features!
;)
-
As far as I'm concerned, genealogy (as a hobby) is about sharing knowledge :)
Although some of the knowledge I've shared has been wrong :-[
-
You do have to be a little bit careful, though..... when I was persuing my maternal grandfather's line, I came across an Ancestry record which stated that my 6th great grandfather Andrew Griffin was born in Somerset in 1660, and died in the Isle of Wight ..... VIRGINIA, USA ::) My first thought was 'blinkin Americans', but on further research it turned out to be true ! :-[
In fact, Andrew Griffin was one of the first trans-Atlantic traders, whose father was actually born out there in 1620. The family is mentioned in the early records of the Virginia settlements. And, Andrew must have crossed the Atlantic a few times, because his daughter (my 5th great grandmother) was born in Somerset.
So, if you see an ancestor who appeared to die in America, maybe it's true ! ;D
Be careful with this Nick!
If he died on the Isle of Wight, UK and the Ancestry person forgot to add "England", then Isle of Wight will default to the Virginia one! ::)
I get lots of problems with Somerset (comes up as New Jersey!) and Suffolk (Virginia?).
In the absence of any proof, I would assume that the UK Isle of Wight was intended.
-
No, it's definitely the Isle of Wight, Virginia. The family is recorded in the documents of the period :)
-
No, it's definitely the Isle of Wight, Virginia. The family is recorded in the documents of the period :)
Well blow me you learn something new every day!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Wight_County,_Virginia
I bet they pinched the name off us though ;D
Carol
-
If you drive for a couple of hours in the New England area, you can travel the length and breadth of England in place names :)
When I was out there about 10 years ago, I was attending a course in Meriden, and at the weekend we drove through Chester, Essex, Derby, Guildford, Oxford, Wallingford....... :)
-
As far as I'm concerned, genealogy (as a hobby) is about sharing knowledge :)
I've had some WONDERFUL people share their knowledge with me, you're right about that. And I'm more than willing to share what I have - I'm not a member on Ancestry.com. Is there another good place where trees can be shared (for free)? I use the LDS software, so it's a PAF file. I'm also not too good at correctly citing sources since mostly I have attached digital images of what I've found. Since I don't trust uncited tree info from others, I don't know how useful my tree would be...
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Wight_County,_Virginia
I bet they pinched the name off us though ;D
Carol
Ha ha ha!! They ABSOLUTELY pinched the name!! The original English settlers left home but seemed to bring ALL their home names with them!!! Not a particularly original bunch, as far as naming things in America went. So Virginia and Massachusetts (and probably the whole eastern seaboard!) are an odd combination of English and Native place names.
-
As far as I'm concerned, genealogy (as a hobby) is about sharing knowledge :)
I've had some WONDERFUL people share their knowledge with me, you're right about that. And I'm more than willing to share what I have - I'm not a member on Ancestry.com. Is there another good place where trees can be shared (for free)? I use the LDS software, so it's a PAF file. I'm also not too good at correctly citing sources since mostly I have attached digital images of what I've found. Since I don't trust uncited tree info from others, I don't know how useful my tree would be...
I think you can put your tree on Ancestry for free. It's only the researching part that they charge for :)
-
Yes you can put it on but I think others might have to subscibe to see it.
You can, btw, export or upload your tree using the LDS software as a Gedcom file, which is the more usual format for trees.
I upload mine onto GenesReunited but again, for full access, others would have to subscribe.
-
Or use Mundia [beta] which gives free access to ancestry trees, not the attached records though. How long this will remain free though ::)