RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Rena on Sunday 12 March 23 17:37 GMT (UK)
-
I've been drawn to look at some names on my online trees. I haven't checked everything but have noticed that Mr Nobody has incorrectly "corrected" the spellings of my kin. Against the names of my kin that I have documentation to back the facts and additionally the ancestors involved are not some distant past shadows, they died when I was a baby.
What is the point of some people's actions of altering information that is backed up by documentation.
What drew these people on familysearch.org to "amend" my grandfather's middle Scottish names "Stephenson Dalglish" to "Stevenson Dalgliesh" and what caused myheritage the amendment of my gt. grandmother's surname to "Mumford" instead of her actual surname of "Munford"?
-
I had a similar irritation on Family Search this week.
Someone had given my great-great-grandmother a new first name. There were around 15 sources already attached to the person... all with the same correct name, so goodness knows why they did that.
I have sometimes altered things on Family Search but I have always added a note, in an attempt to collaborate and explain my suggestion. Not that anyone has ever replied 😂
It really irritates me that this person changed a name and did not even attempt to explain why they thought they were right!
-
Yet another reason why I won't put my tree online!
-
It's not the being online emeltom it's being online on familysearch. Their aim is to have a collaborative tree that anybody can amend which is why you get the issues mentioned above.
I assume people use it because it is free but without ownership these things are bound to happen.
An online tree on a site where you own the tree is much more robust.
Pheno
-
I had never looked at the family trees on FamilySearch, so I looked at one with the same fore- and surname as my gr gr grandfather (a fairly uncommon surname). I soon shut it down for the sake of my blood pressure!
-
For the life of me I don't understand why people get so upset by errors (even gross errors) in online trees. I don't have an online tree anywhere so no one messes with my tree. If there are mistakes, they're mine. But I'm glad other people put their trees online because they often contain useful clues. Just because you find a mistake doesn't mean the whole tree is wrong; just because there's no source given doesn't mean there is no source; just because the information is incomplete doesn't mean it can't be completed.
If you were to rummage around the specimen drawers in the Smithsonian or the Natural History Museum in London or any other museum, you'd find plenty of misidentified, mislabeled or incorrectly filed specimens. Shocking! Mistakes are made but life goes on.
-
^^^ like
-
I don't have a Family tree online, but the ones I have seen that relate to my line sometimes have glaring errors. A male relative of mine, according one online tree, married his second wife six years after his death? I usually message them with the correct info.
Carol
-
If you were to rummage around the specimen drawers in the Smithsonian or the Natural History Museum in London or any other museum, you'd find plenty of misidentified, mislabeled or incorrectly filed specimens. Shocking! Mistakes are made but life goes on.
... but why go to the trouble of physically altering somebody else's work that has been backed up by documentation?
-
I don't have a Family tree online, but the ones I have seen that relate to my line sometimes have glaring errors. A male relative of mine, according one online tree, married his second wife six years after his death? I usually message them with the correct info.
Carol
lol - you've reminded me of the introduction I had to making a family tree,
I had visited the local Church of Latter Day Saints FHS and was taken through the process by a helper. He found that they already had a tree of my gt. grandmother Lucy Speight, which he kindly printed off for me.
I went home and eagerly entered the details into the freebie gedcom programme that I'd downloaded. Then discovered a blib - investigation showed that a son had sired his own father!
-
I do very much like looking at other people's trees and considering the clues they hold... the only thing I find really irritating is when people make no attempt, on Family Search shared trees, to explain the changes they are making. If someone 'corrects' someone else's work, it is not asking a lot for them to add a note to say why they think the change is needed!
-
I suppose I get uptight about that particular part of my tree because I feel close to them; I was brought up in the same village, in the house my grandfather lived in all his married life, and I know them very well! I have found this man in muddled trees on several public sites over the years.
-
There is nothing wrong with putting ones tree online.
As usual there is a big But.
1 - Only you have to have control of its content.
2 - Anyone alive on your tree has to be shown as Private to anyone viewing your tree
3 - Follow rules 1 & 2
Personally I would never ever put any tree on familysearch, it is just not safe enough for me.
Nor do I trust any online family tree, I always assume they are full of errors.
-
"I always assume they are full of errors."
What you find written on a death certificate or on a census might be wrong, too. Or in an obituary or a newspaper article.
-
It "might" be wrong but it is not very common as these are official documents which people usually take care to try to get right. On the other hand far too many on-line trees are just quick compilations by people who have little understanding of even the most basic checks and have cobbled together various strands of information without looking for supporting evidence. They remind me of the Victorian period "family historians" who created a supposed history by taking a few names and then doing a quick trawl through the local parish records for similar names without actually checking whether they were related.
A quick check of twenty on-line trees containing one of my G-grandfathers and his descendants , all of whom I have well documented, shows sixteen of them contain errors : Wrong marriage, wrong children, wrong birthplace, children to wrong parents, wrong death etc. Mostly things that are easily checked by reference to PRs and Civil Registration.
What is particularly galling is that so many do not post their sources so it is not possible to check the validity of their entries.
(And a question for Erato here : what is the point of posting a tree on-line if it is inaccurate and without sources ?)
Having said that, I have found that trees posted by serious investigators can be of great help in tracing ancestors by pointing in new directions. I have recently gone back another three generations on one line after a tip from an on-line tree that had picked up a misspelling in the formal records that I had missed.
-
A few years ago, I painstakingly drew a family tree for an aging relative - in pencil (in case I made a mistake). I have an online tree, based on official records. The spelling of the one side family surname varied over the years and in various official documentation and censuses etc. etc.... and so was spelled 4 different ways. spelling differed in different individuals within the same family even within the same generation and differed on their birth / marriage/ death certificates and or censuses.
As Erato says, even official documents cane be incorrect. At least two members of my family have even had their first name written incorrectly by the registrar. In my father's case his mother ended up correcting it herself.
Anyway, on my paper family tree, I used the same spellings that I have on my online tree, that being what was most commonly used for the individuals.
I sent my work of art to my relation who promptly got quite upset about the spelling I had chosen and was adamant that the family name had an a rather than and e (or it could have been the other way round). I explained how spellings could vary etc but they were having none of it. Luckily I told them to just rub out the offending letters and alter them.
You'd be surprised how many people in this day and age automatically make assumptions on how names and surnames are spelled when there are even more variations now than there were in the times when people could not read or write.
In the case of my paper tree, I didn't see it myself as an issue, but of course it isn't my surname. I get enough trouble with my own. I understand that in the long distant past that these spelling variations were normal, but of course whatever spelling was used may not have been how the individuals thought their name was spelled.
-
Over the weekend I was looking at Census records and I found some of my family members (a father, mother and three children) at a particular address...
...then I found exactly the same family recorded as boarders at a totally different address a couple of miles away.
I wonder what was going on there!!! ???
-
For the longest time, I have said that spelling is an adventure rather than a science!
I have a twig that feeds into a minor branch of my tree.
A mariner, who was only known as Jack (as in jolly Jack Tar), married and produced 3 sons. When they were adults, the first called himself Jackson (the son of Jack), the second Jackston (Jack's town). The third son took himself off to Holland and was known as Jakobson (Son of Jacob)
Then there are the Whannells, who after 2 generations had morphed into Windmills!
Regards
Chas
-
(And a question for Erato here : what is the point of posting a tree on-line if it is inaccurate and without sources ?)
Why ask me? I've already said that I do not have an online tree myself, so I am hardly one to understand the motives of those who do. I have no reason to believe, however, that the motives of people who post defective trees are any different from the motives of people who are so sure that their work is irreproachably correct.
-
DNA is throwing spanners into well researched trees
Just come across one where birth certificates and family memory all say a child D belongs to one lady A & husband B
But child Es descendants do not match relatives of A s sister V
but do match relatives
of the father's B first wife + her own "sister" N s children
The logical explanation is that the "mother" was actually the 15 year old stepdaughter E s baby brought up & registered & entered on trees s as sister to N
but is actually an aunt to N
: B is her grandfather not father
E is her mother not an older half sister
This would not necessarily be known by descendants and they could just assume DNA results are incorrect as paperwork disproves it
I would never alter trees on family search but do add comments to my own trees on ancestry or to photos from galleries if I spot discrepancies on Ancestry. Tree owners can decide whether to alter or not and if they are no longer active hopefully new tree owners will take time to investigate " fact "
-
In the 16 years that I have been a member of Rootschat, I still can't believe how many people have raised issues about online trees. Genealogy is not an exact science and there will always be errors and misinformation out there. The best we can do, is to find as much supporting evidence for our own Family trees.
On the plus side, I have found documents and photos on online trees which I have been extremely grateful for and in turn, have sent items and photos to the tree owner.
Don't beat yourself up, it's a hobby to be enjoyed, their mistakes are their problem not yours.
Carol
-
"it's a hobby to be enjoyed"
Exactly. And there are different ways to enjoy it. I also collect sea shells. Some shell collectors buy spectacular specimens of spectacular species. Their shells are sort of like natural works of art and they take pleasure in them for that reason. There's nothing wrong with that but it isn't what I do. I never buy specimens because I enjoy finding them for myself and I specifically seek out the small, the insignificant and even the ugly species. That's okay too.
-
What is the point of posting a tree on-line if it is inaccurate and without sources ?
To my mind, knowing what is not a good lead, or path to follow, is just as valuable as knowing a correct one. It eliminates hours and days of work for no benefit.
Regards
Chas
-
I do know of someone who deliberately posted inaccurate family information on purpose, to see how many of those who were copying facts actually bothered to critically evaluate the evidence or lack of.
-
Often an illegitimate grandchild was covered up as the parents last child. Someone finding out their much older sister or half sister is really their mother. I think my 3xgreat gran was a result of this, her mother was 51 at the time of the birth, who I think is her grandmother. The baby had an older sister's first name as her middle name. That older sister later went on to have more children out of wedlock.
-
What is the point of posting a tree on-line if it is inaccurate and without sources ?
To my mind, knowing what is not a good lead, or path to follow, is just as valuable as knowing a correct one. It eliminates hours and days of work for no benefit.
Regards
Chas
Agreed. But how do you know it is not a good lead or path without checking it out, which is made more difficult by having no sources ?
-
My tree is a muddle not because I haven't read newspapers ,visited libraries,met professors ,written hundreds of letters ,visited numerous countries and countless graveyards BUT because I always think I will remember my sources .. I don't … or I will remember who that is in the photo . I accept and seek help from many sources and accept the peoples better filing system than mine . My tree is the best I can but I haven't mastered the merge button .I have generations of John , William,and Isabella Wharton all living within 10 miles of each other and don't get me started on all the William , Ralph and John Jutsums in Devon .
I to get annoyed by people that have my extended family down to my parents in their trees but will not accept with my screeds of written info mation that they have gt gt gt gt granddad and mom wrong and therefore all their years of work coming forward is incorrect .
I thank all the rootschatters on here that have helped me over the years . Fred .
-
Also Ancestry trees has limited space for Notes to be added, so if people expect other users to cite every source for the info they have found (especially pre census and BMD era) then they will have another thing coming. I do add sources or notes but not the whole amount of sources. And they can always find out for themselves if they are also into FH.
-
"it's a hobby to be enjoyed"
Exactly. And there are different ways to enjoy it. I also collect sea shells. Some shell collectors buy spectacular specimens of spectacular species. Their shells are sort of like natural works of art and they take pleasure in them for that reason. There's nothing wrong with that but it isn't what I do. I never buy specimens because I enjoy finding them for myself and I specifically seek out the small, the insignificant and even the ugly species. That's okay too.
My pals and I also used to take home jam jars containing sea shells that we'd collected from the beach during summer holidays.
That stopped in 1949 due to it being made illegal in the UK:-
"...Under the Coastal Protection Act 1949, it is actually illegal to take any kind of natural materials from public beaches and could see you fined up to £1,000 if you are caught...."
-
I can see banning collecting in national parks and the like but a nationwide blanket ban seems a little harsh. I've collected ~1000 species in Ecuador and if I crushed up the whole damn lot, they wouldn't come close to filling a bushel basket.
-
I guess all the visitors to Charmouth beach on the Jurassic Coast haven't heard of that law. The Museum encourages people to search for fossils and have them analysed for their records. The museum of dinosaur bones and some reconstructed dinosaur skeletons are really amazing. You can hire a bucket with the necessary tools to help in your search by chipping away on likely boulders.We have been there many times whilst caravaning there and it's great. Not that we have found anything historical, but interesting pieces of mosaic pottery and coloured glass.
Carol
-
I read it as primarily to prevent coastal erosion, etc.by removing large quantities of sand/rocks, rather than the odd sea shell/flotsam and jetsam.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/74
An Act to amend the law relating to the protection of the coast of Great Britain against erosion and encroachment by the sea; to provide for the restriction and removal of works detrimental to navigation; to transfer the management of Crown foreshore from the Minister of Transport to the Commissioners of Crown Lands; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
:-X
PS. When we lived by the coast in Scotland, I used to collect all the wood debris for use in sculptures.
-
I read it as primarily to prevent coastal erosion, etc.by removing large quantities of sand/rocks, rather than the odd sea shell/flotsam and jetsam.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/74
An Act to amend the law relating to the protection of the coast of Great Britain against erosion and encroachment by the sea; to provide for the restriction and removal of works detrimental to navigation; to transfer the management of Crown foreshore from the Minister of Transport to the Commissioners of Crown Lands; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
74 years of not picking up shells because of misunderstanding this law - priceless!
-
The Beach Police better not come to my house, the Grandkids have had so much pleasure painting shells and pebbles picked from various beaches.
Carol
-
...and all those beach clean ups over the years :o
-
I read it as primarily to prevent coastal erosion, etc.by removing large quantities of sand/rocks, rather than the odd sea shell/flotsam and jetsam.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/74
An Act to amend the law relating to the protection of the coast of Great Britain against erosion and encroachment by the sea; to provide for the restriction and removal of works detrimental to navigation; to transfer the management of Crown foreshore from the Minister of Transport to the Commissioners of Crown Lands; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
74 years of not picking up shells because of misunderstanding this law - priceless!
;D
I had better things to do
Once you've made your sea shell necklace there's not much point collecting more shells.
-
In recent days I have been adding lots of sources to my family tree on Ancestry such as more census entries, PR's etc, ones that I have checked for myself first before accepting them.
My ancestor wed in Burford, Oxfordshire in 1685 and he was said to be of Winslow, Bucks, which is many miles away, about 30 as the crow flies. He was a hatter and haberdasher. Goes to show that unless there is a source, it can be hard to tell if they came from another parish either near to their residence or miles away.
-
My 5x great-grandfather William Smith, who lived in Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire, lived just long enough to appear on the 1851 census where it was revealed that he was born in Leckhampstead, Buckinghamshire; 60 miles away.
Had he died prior to the census I would never have guessed he was born there. It would have been a complete brick wall. As it stands, I have been able to trace his family back a further two generations in Leckhampstead.
-
My 5x great-grandfather William Smith, who lived in Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire, lived just long enough to appear on the 1851 census where it was revealed that he was born in Leckhampstead, Buckinghamshire; 60 miles away.
Had he died prior to the census I would never have guessed he was born there. It would have been a complete brick wall. As it stands, I have been able to trace his family back a further two generations in Leckhampstead.
Lucky you as my ancestor James Smith is on the 1841 census in Oxford, not born in county of residence he says in 1841, and died in July 1849. I also have two other direct ancestors who died just before the 1851 census and said "not born in county" in 1841. One of the I think came from Cambridgeshire and the other maybe from Dorset as her late husband was from there, he died in 1831.
I wonder if my James Smith was from a neighbouring county such as Berks, Bucks or Gloucestershire. One of the witnesses to his 1819 marriage was born in Buckinghamshire, and her aunty married a Smith but due to the surname it may be coincidence. The other witness had an Irish or Scottish surname, Carney, and was originally from London and worked in a similar trade.
I have not found any settlement or apprenticeship records yet for James Smith but he was a tin plate worker.
Maybe Ancestry DNA will be the best answer.
-
Something drew me back to my familysearch tree today. The last time I visited, I discovered somebody had changed Munford to Mumford. This time I discovered that a mysterious Jonathon has decided that my gt. grandmother's surname should be amended from Munford to Memford.
I hope I'm not drawn back to that website again.
-
I hope I'm not drawn back to that website again.
Seems like a good idea. But then, I don't have an online tree anywhere as I see so many instances of people altering other people's trees. BUT I am more than willing to share my knowledge, if asked and I have been known to offer information to those who might have strayed from the truth.
AND I will always remember attending the local FS search room and overhearing a conversation between a member and someone who was uploading their tree - "But I'm not sure I've got the right wife". "It doesn't matter" was the response from the church member. :o
-
I hope I'm not drawn back to that website again.
Seems like a good idea. But then, I don't have an online tree anywhere as I see so many instances of people altering other people's trees. BUT I am more than willing to share my knowledge, if asked and I have been known to offer information to those who might have strayed from the truth.
AND I will always remember attending the local FS search room and overhearing a conversation between a member and someone who was uploading their tree - "But I'm not sure I've got the right wife". "It doesn't matter" was the response from the church member. :o
It obviously mattered to TWO people who have recently amended Maria Munford's profile on MY tree.
The other amendment has her marrying a man more than twice her age, but no back up documentation.
I really must not look at my tree again.
I really must not look at my tree again
I really must not look at my tree again
ad nauseum
-
Worse than that, BumbleB, years ago a genealogist (charging lots of money) contacted me about information on a local family that I had actually already researched. When I corrected her information (and explained why she had to have found the details for another relative with the same name) she said it didn't matter because it was for someone in America and they'd never know the difference. Fast forward a few years later and the American client contacted me looking for more local information so I explained that the research she had paid for was incorrect (people usually don't produce children that are older than themselves for a start). She seemed a bit annoyed and I never heard from her again. Goodness knows how that family tree ever turned out!
-
Not sure you can do this, BUT you could always remove your tree from public view :o
I have been known to add comments to trees on Ancestry where information on my families are incorrect, BUT they are only comments and offered with back-up.
aghadowey - how dreadful :-X
ADDED: Lesson learned - DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH
-
The trouble with Family Search is that a tree there with your family on it isn’t yours.
-
True, but that can also be said for other sites.
-
No doubt. But someone can alter my tree on Anc*stry only if I invite them to. (Apart from adding comments, which I too have done on a tree that got my family egregiously wrong, and whose owner ignored my messages.)
-
I once had a researcher for me who I paid to look up anyone with a certain first name and surname in Westminster/Holborn but all I got was any instance of the (relatively common surname) surname in the parishes instead of what I asked for, anyone with a certain forename, George. She charged me for it, so I paid her and never used her again.
Better to be a muggins I say.
-
I once had a researcher for me who I paid to look up anyone with a certain first name and surname in Westminster/Holborn but all I got was any instance of the (relatively common surname) surname in the parishes instead of what I asked for, anyone with a certain forename, George. She charged me for it, so I paid her and never used her again.
Better to be a muggins I say.
Horrendous. :-X BUT there is always someone who spoils it for everyone else!
-
This business of disputed trees and origins etc., is nothing new, after Thomas Cockburn Hood published his book in 1888.
Search Hood in Cockburn's book below referring to the above 1888 book, see ...
The Records of the Cockburn Family by Sir Robert Cockburn Bart and Harry A. Cockburn
https://archive.org/details/recordsofcockbur00cock/page/n13/mode/1up?q=Hood
Not related to Cockburn-Hood, as far as I know.
Mark
-
I have got the occasional comment on my Ancestry tree saying the age at burial is slightly out to the baptism. Well I cannot help what the records say, and ages back then were not fixed like today. Many did not know their exact age.
-
My 5x great-grandfather William Smith, who lived in Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire, lived just long enough to appear on the 1851 census where it was revealed that he was born in Leckhampstead, Buckinghamshire; 60 miles away.
Had he died prior to the census I would never have guessed he was born there. It would have been a complete brick wall. As it stands, I have been able to trace his family back a further two generations in Leckhampstead.
Thankfully, I was able to find my 3x great grandfather in the 1851, not long before he died. Surprised to find out he was born in Bridlington, E. Yorkshire, quite a distance away from Halifax, W. Yorkshire where he spent his adult life. I don’t know if I would have ever proved the connection otherwise, as his name, William Ford, is not uncommon.
Looking at a couple of Ford trees online, I see one has my grandfather serving in the British Army and dying in Liverpool. He never served in the army and died in Canada.
-
My 5x great-grandfather William Smith, who lived in Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire, lived just long enough to appear on the 1851 census where it was revealed that he was born in Leckhampstead, Buckinghamshire; 60 miles away.
Had he died prior to the census I would never have guessed he was born there. It would have been a complete brick wall. As it stands, I have been able to trace his family back a further two generations in Leckhampstead.
Thankfully, I was able to find my 3x great grandfather in the 1851, not long before he died. Surprised to find out he was born in Bridlington, E. Yorkshire, quite a distance away from Halifax, W. Yorkshire where he spent his adult life. I don’t know if I would have ever proved the connection otherwise, as his name, William Ford, is not uncommon.
Looking at a couple of Ford trees online, I see one has my grandfather serving in the British Army and dying in Liverpool. He never served in the army and died in Canada.
I was shocked to find my great great gran was born in Sussex and not London where she lived from babyhood. Her mum and dad moved to London when she was a baby and she was baptised in North London and always said she was born in that part of London.
I quite like that though, someone who grew up from babyhood in a different area of the country to where she was born. Although her Kent born father's mother was from Southwark.
-
Sorry, I do understand you are hurt and upset, but I can't agree that information is your property. You have simply gathered the facts that are already out there. Unless you write a book, such as a historian would, then your interpretation of those facts can be copyright. That said, I do know that you are entitled to be upset but I think for reasons other than merely sharing what you found. People certainly don't have the right to demand the results of your research but on the other hand, if no one ever shared anything, humankind would not have advanced as far as it has :)
-
I always like to share my work and keep my tree open, these people are long dead and nobody owns their ancestors, as the further back we go, each individual ancestor will be the ascendant of many more people. I have had people copy and paste info from my tree but I do not mind as I like to help others doing my FH, it is give and take. Nobody has the right to demand info or demand how you came by it though.
-
Coombs I like your attitude
It's a very expensive hobby and I appreciate all the help I have had throughout.
+ Am willing to share documents. photos.dna results and knowledge
Tho I'.was surprised that several people have copied images showing which siblings of an ancestor my late aunt has DNA matches too .
that image is unique to her .which I have explained in a comment +added a request that people inform me of their connection
If people copy an image from me and have a closed tree I message + ask how they connect
My father's image was copied by a family member of his second wife
+ By someone with a huge tree who collects pics & distant relatives but at least the relationships are correct .
Sharing can help put in touch with living relatives .
Also by sharing ..others can spot mistakes or discrepancies in my trees 🎄
-
I also do blogs/bios on possible leads and write down what i have found so far. Such as the known witnesses, any apprenticeship records etc that I have found to see if there is a link between the 2 families. I think if several families lived in a village or a neighbouring village over several generations they will all marry into one another or be distant cousins by blood or marriage. Such as Joe Bloggs' wife Mary Bloggs (Nee Keeble) had a great aunty who wed one of Joe's grandfather's sisters.
-
Yet another reason why I won't put my tree online!
My direct line Ancestor, a Tanner who died in Selby, Yorkshire, England, for whom I have an:-
English, UK, Death Certificate,
Will proved Yorkshire, England,
British Death Duty listing,
Yorkshire Newspaper Death Notices and
his Widow continuing in Selby Yorkshire and
their Selby Yorkshire, England, grave photos of them both (kindly taken by a Rootschatter).
Someone had erroneously claimed the above Tanner died Selby, America and linked their US family back to him in error.
I might put it online, but only if I owned/controlled the website.