RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Deirdre784 on Sunday 03 June 18 10:24 BST (UK)
-
Researching a difficult branch of my husband’s tree last night, I found a link to another tree including the lady I was looking for.
Starts off fine, living in Pontypridd, south Wales, has Mary Ann married to her first husband, though no source, and the family in 1881 and 1891, but then I realised that she also had her married to 4 other husbands, all at the same time, producing 65 children between 1872 and 1899 🤔
The tree has her marrying a David Williams in 1879, a Gomer Williams in 1880 and a James S Williams in 1881, despite the attached 1881 census showing her as married to her actual husband Isaac Andrew Williams. She then has her marrying another David Williams in 1886.
The tree has her actual husband Isaac Andrew Williams emigrating to Canada, and marrying an Anna Williams in Ontario in 1870, back in Stockton on Tees, Durham by the 1871 census, in Pontypridd (correct) in 1881 and 1891, and dying in Ontario in 1922 (he really died in Pontypridd in 1902).
Her ancestry profile (from Australia) says she’s a beginner, but that her tree is not copied from anywhere, is all her own work, from 8-12 hours research a day 🙄 Amazingly she has old family photos, but i’m guessing they are the Canadian side, and not those from Pontypridd.
-
I can't comment on this tree, but it doesn't surprise me. I've been researching for decades (pre-Internet) but only recently started looking at Ancestry trees. What I have found is often very poor stuff, with impossible 'facts' not backed up with any source references. I feel it's usually a waste of valuable research time to consult these trees. Also, why do they have so many people aged 100+?!!
Treat with extreme caution, I'd say.
Melbell :(
-
Her ancestry profile (from Australia) says she’s a beginner, but that her tree is not copied from anywhere, is all her own work, from 8-12 hours research a day 🙄
It sounds as though she definitely needs to join Rootschat!
Philip
-
Very funny Deirdre , that lady must have been worn out ! ;D
-
I can't comment on this tree, but it doesn't surprise me. I've been researching for decades (pre-Internet) but only recently started looking at Ancestry trees. What I have found is often very poor stuff, with impossible 'facts' not backed up with any source references. I feel it's usually a waste of valuable research time to consult these trees. Also, why do they have so many people aged 100+?!!
Treat with extreme caution, I'd say.
Melbell :(
I wasn’t planning on adding anything from there to my tree, just amused by it. Have seen some where the children are born before their parents, but this combination seemed totally illogical.
-
Many Ancestry trees make fictional cartoons and horror movies look realistic. People marrying in infancy and people who were born in the 1600s on the 1851 census etc.
-
Have just had a little browse.... one of the ‘marriages’ produced 31 children, including 5 born in 1880, no quarter or source, but all listed as born in different places in Glamorgan, two of which i’ve never heard of. Profile says she has lots more to add to her tree (I hope not on this branch!).
Can’t trace it down to see if she is actually descended from any of this ‘family’, but may message her to suggest, nicely, that she may like to re-examine this family group.
The real Mary Ann Williams (nee Rowlands) was still alive in 1911 in Pontypridd, widowed, but saying 11 children, 7 still alive, 4 have died.
-
Maybe she is having a bit of fun ? Waiting to see if anyone copies her impossible tree? ;D
-
Can’t trace it down to see if she is actually descended from any of this ‘family’, but may message her to suggest, nicely, that she may like to re-examine this family group.
It will be interesting to see if she replies! ;D She could, as a beginner, not realise that hints on Ancestry are just that, hints. She may think that because they come from a subscription site, they must be right.
-
I think possibly beginners (as well as others) take hints as facts?
Fancestry have people believe you literally just type in a name & up pops your family tree but it's only suggestions of who may be your relatives which people don't realise.
However, if being truly interested would they not be doing the arithmetic, geography & sorting out the possible from the impossible ???
Annie
-
My grandmother apparently married someone who died when she was ten years old. Don't know when she married him as that is not in the tree, just the spouses name and his dates of birth and death. I sent the tree owner a note a couple of weeks ago but have heard nothing and it is still there.
-
Maybe she is having a bit of fun ? Waiting to see if anyone copies her impossible tree? ;D
janan - you have a devious mind - I love it! ;D ;D ;D
-
Perhaps Ancestry should take some blame for these ridiculous links.
Why do they give hints of couples who married in (say Norfolk) in the 1600s when you are actually searching for a marriage in Birmingham in the 1870s, just because one of the couple happens to have the same name as the person you are researching.
-
I have one branch in my tree, in which there is a well known Kennethmont family. There are several trees on "Fantacestry" which have members of this family included. According to said trees, some members of the said family have reached the (+) side of 120 years of age, and female members are having children at the (+) side of 65 years old. It's all very well documented, in "Fairyland", that is. Mind you, it's interesting to note that "Fairyland" has a U.S.A. location.
Malky
-
I have got very irrelevant hints before for people with common names. Imagine having a John Smith born 1792 in London but you are unsure of parents, and get a hint for a John Smith born 1792 in Cumberland. Ancestry hints are a waste of time.
-
I have messaged her to say that i’ve been sent a hint to one of the children in her tree, and was interested to see her other husbands and many children.
I’ll let you know if she responds 😀
-
I'm helping on a request here just now on RC & found a tree on Fancestry which has the couple both dying 1881 but they appear on 1891/1901/1911 census' ???
Annie
-
When I build a tree, I might find somebody who "married one of these 3-4 chaps, no idea which one ... so I'll add them and follow the lines down, to see if anything ever makes sense..." because there's no other way to do it and remember what you found... iyswim. If I find somebody who isn't right, I'll leave them on the tree and I change their surname to include the suffix _DUD - and my notes say why I discounted them.... so I know, in case I stumble across that potential connection again in 10 years' time as it'd save me wasting time.
I guess the issue here might be that: she has no idea others might see what she's working on .... or that anybody might take it as "true".
People will use the framework as fits their purposes... and not how ANC intended it to be used, or how others use it. Some might be meticulously ONLY be adding "true/proven/must be" people ... others "toss all and sundry at the tree to see what sticks", using it as their "rough notes and finished stuff" ... all their ideas and notes in one online spot for them to use/discard over time.
-
I once saw one that went back to Adam & Eve!!! It was clearly deficient since Eve wasn't descended from Ada's rib!!!
-
I once saw one that went back to Adam & Eve!!! It was clearly deficient since Eve wasn't descended from Ada's rib!!!
So not a bone of truth ;D
Annie
-
Perhaps the owner of that one has had a bit of "ribbing" since. ::) ::) ::)
Malky
-
I have messaged her to say that i’ve been sent a hint to one of the children in her tree, and was interested to see her other husbands and many children.
I’ll let you know if she responds 😀
I hope she does respond.
It is very easy to get in an almighty mess on Ancestry and end up with someone marrying the same person several times or marrying several different people when what you intended was just to add one person once.
Still if she does respond and admit she is in a muddle and doesn't know how to sort it out then there appear to be several people in this thread who could use their expertise to get her back on track
-
Indeed, it’s certainly a shame (if it’s not true of course), given that she (like so many descendants of people who emigrated) has some amazing photos of the family, even if they aren’t the ones I’m researching 🙄
-
Had a reply from the tree owner.....
‘Oh do ill have to fix that thankyou’
-
I've been chasing down a gentleman who married one of my great aunts in 1943, and I found 2 trees which had him born in the USA, marrying my relative in England, and dying in England. They are quite plausible - his birth year is right on the American censuses they include, and his name is almost the same. Some digging, though, found a death for him in Massachusetts. I also found him on the 1939 register in England- the corrections on his record are not included in the transcription, making him hard to find. The other trees have him on the 1940 American census.
I still can't find him before 1939, though, and I think he had been adopted.
-
I think that beginners must get very excited about the Ancestry TV adverts about hints etc., and just don't get the idea that they're only hints, not facts! When I started off a friends tree for her, with only her parents and children, she took it over with huge enthusiasm, and before I knew it a week later she was back to me to show me how well she had done with her tree! She'd gone back 4 generations???, (or at least she thought she had). :D ;D
-
I have discovered a new illness. Or, to be more accurate - I haven't discovered it, I just came up with a name for it. Perhaps when I complete the definition I should submit it to medical journals.
TREETRUSTER SYNDROME
An affliction affecting many inexperienced family researchers. Symptoms include:
1) A belief that information posted on online trees must be accurate.
2) A lack of knowledge about finding and using original sources.
3) Uncritical acceptance of the fantasy that an ancestor can die before she is born, marry her grandfather, have five or more husbands at the same time, give birth to fifty or more children and live to an age of over 200.
Fortunately, there is a simple and easy cure for this syndrome - join ROOTSCHAT.
Philip
-
I think the Oxford dictionary people should pick this up or a medical journal. ☺
-
Treebusters would be another good one Philip ;D
-
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.
-
Treebusters would be another good one Philip ;D
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)
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Since doing my DNA on Ancestry, I'm even more annoyed with many of my 'matches' putting up really dire trees. It's worse than the No Trees ones.
And even worse, these are supposed to be my relations :-X :-X :-X ;D ;D ;D :-[ :-[ :-[
Gadget
-
Thinking about the tree described at the beginning, I did once create a fantasy tree in Ancestry based purely on hints just out of curioisity. It wasn't too bad but I got bored with it before trying to fill out personal details too see if my parents acquired any of the additional siblings that I have seen in other trees. I did ensure that it wasn't pubic though.
With regard to attribution of "facts" this can be difficult when data has been acquired off line. There are a number on my Ancestry trees derived from documents in my possession which I haven't bothered to scan or otherwise refer too. I know that they are right.
-
Had a reply from the tree owner.....
‘Oh do ill have to fix that thankyou’
A positive outcome. That's good to see.
-
Ancestry hints can be infuriating. Last year I finally found a marriage I had been looking for, it was in 1790. Really quickly new hints were generated, including an entry in the 1851 census for couple. I don't think so! Also I entered a DEATH in 1870 in England and got a hint for the gentleman in the 1930 US census. I would love to know how the Ancestry algorithms work to generate such impossible hints.
I don't often look at the trees, I find it pointless but my favourite was from a hint on my great grandfather's name. It went back to God, they were 'descended from' Jesus' marriage to Mary the Virgin :o ??? and came down to the present day via a gentleman who died inn France in 1620 before having a son in the US in 1790.
On a side note, at one point my tree showed my Grandfather as dying in 1795 :-[ oops.
-
Just been trying to verify a "suggested parent" hint from Ancestry. I kept getting a christening from the wrong end of Lancashire after they had both died.
-
There is a concept known as the Pareto Principle, otherwise known as the 80/20 rule, where in any given group the number of participants that actually do any meaningful work trends towards 20% with the remaining 80% providing hardly any value at all.
In other words, the top 20% do almost all the work and the remaining 80% do almost nothing.
If you've ever worked in a large organisation you have probably noticed this.
This applies to trees in a big way, if you ever look at the tree matches you will see approximately two well-researched, sourced trees at the top of the list and then about eight other trees that are obviously copied, unsourced, or only contain a fraction of the information.
The trees that are completely out of control, with people dying before they are born and having over a hundred children, represent the very bottom of the 80%, where not only are they providing no value, but are actually a detriment to the larger whole.
Without sounding arrogant, if you post on a forum like RootsChat you are likely in the top 20% of users on Ancestry. The level of literacy required alone brings you to the top.
-
Just been trying to verify a "suggested parent" hint from Ancestry. I kept getting a christening from the wrong end of Lancashire after they had both died.
Today I looked at a hint for someone born in Staffordshire in 1856 and died in Staffordshire in 1923 (both dates recorded in the tree on Ancestry).
Why would it suggest I examine a birth in Massachusetts in 1723?
-
I go online to extend my family tree and most often don't bother to include ref nos of certificates - gotta leave them something to look for ;D
I think one American am. researcher must have been dancing with joy when she came across the death particulars of my OH's 4 x gt.grandfather, who she could see was born 1786 in Morayshire, Scotland and died in Aberdeen (I omitted to add "Scotland, UK") so according to her he must have migrated and died in Aberdeen, Maryland U.S.A. She's meticulously given him a middle name and added several children born in the USA.
-
I go online to extend my family tree and most often don't bother to include ref nos of certificates - gotta leave them something to look for ;D
I think one American am. researcher must have been dancing with joy when she came across the death particulars of my OH's 4 x gt.grandfather, who she could see was born 1786 in Morayshire, Scotland and died in Aberdeen (I omitted to add "Scotland, UK") so according to her he must have migrated and died in Aberdeen, Maryland U.S.A. She's meticulously given him a middle name and added several children born in the USA.
That's why I use Ancestry's gazetteer to standardise all my place names. If you don't include the country Ancestry will often default to the American equivalent, and it is displayed as such in search results. The researcher in your case still should have noticed, though.
-
I had a great laugh when looking at my ancestors who died in Bairnsdale, Gippsland, Victoria Australia. That's is what it says in the facts. In the story they write it claimed Bairnsdale, Trinidad and Tobago. Son suggested we visit the cemetery in cricket season. ;D ;D
-
JAKnighton
I had not heard of the Pareto Principle and found your post very interesting. It certainly seems to be illustrated in the trees/'research' found online.
Thank you,
Melbell
-
Now let's have some more fun!
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=794664.0
-
When I build a tree, I might find somebody who "married one of these 3-4 chaps, no idea which one ... so I'll add them and follow the lines down, to see if anything ever makes sense..." because there's no other way to do it and remember what you found... iyswim. If I find somebody who isn't right, I'll leave them on the tree and I change their surname to include the suffix _DUD - and my notes say why I discounted them.... so I know, in case I stumble across that potential connection again in 10 years' time as it'd save me wasting time.
I guess the issue here might be that: she has no idea others might see what she's working on .... or that anybody might take it as "true".
People will use the framework as fits their purposes... and not how ANC intended it to be used, or how others use it. Some might be meticulously ONLY be adding "true/proven/must be" people ... others "toss all and sundry at the tree to see what sticks", using it as their "rough notes and finished stuff" ... all their ideas and notes in one online spot for them to use/discard over time.
I think that is a very good point. I may look for connections in other people's trees sometimes, but I'm not judgemental about what I find there.
I also think that there are probably a lot of people out there who are not very experienced with computers. Once they have added something they may not know how to remove it, and before long they have produced a tangled web which they don't know how to amend.
-
I have got very irrelevant hints before for people with common names. Imagine having a John Smith born 1792 in London but you are unsure of parents, and get a hint for a John Smith born 1792 in Cumberland. Ancestry hints are a waste of time.
From my experience of how my ancestors put different places of birth on different documents I wouldn't call that hint a waste of time. The 1911 census return for an ancestor who died in the 1790s was another matter.