RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Pheno on Sunday 22 July 18 15:16 BST (UK)
-
I fail to understand how people expect to be taken seriously when I see examples such as the one below.
There are 11 Ancestry trees which include Richard Lanning of Dorset, all of which indicate his date of burial as 24 September 1763 at All Saints, Kington Magna, Dorset. None of these 11 trees have a source for this piece of information.
One or two of them have attached, to this man, a copy of Richard Lanning's will which is signed as being written by him, of sound mind, on 28 March 1766.
I believe his burial to be on 28 Feb 1769 at Kington Magna.
How can they expect to be taken seriously having stated his burial as 1763 and including a copy of a will written by him in 1766.
It makes my blood boil!
Pheno
-
That’s why I never take any notice of other peoples’ trees on sites such as Ancestry, especially if they are unsourced or have as a source, Ancestry Trees. I expect what has happened is that one person has put it on their tree and others have just copied without checking. Happens all the time.
-
yep I get this completely -- theres so many not checking - just copying and then the next one copies.. how ridiculous...
I am working my Jarrom 's at the moment and kept getting '''' Hints''''
which I checked and they were just so wrong..
but one had copied -- so had the next --- which eventually will make people think its correct.
I check and triple check and still make errors..
this new possible match... is a bit of a terror..
I will stick with what I find.. with a bit of paper.. to prove it otherwise .. NOPE
xin
-
The trouble is people see the same wrong information on several trees and assume because so many people have it that it must be true. I spent many years confirming my 5x great grandmother's name as Isabel, with the help of several wonderful people on RootsChat and much help from Gloucestershire records office, BUT there are lots of trees on Ancestry that have her name as Elizabeth and some have traced Elizabeth's line back into the 1500s. I contacted someone about their tree and was told "how dare I be so arrogant as to assume I am correct and all those other people wrong " despite the fact not one of those other trees has any source for her name being Elizabeth and I have copies of several documents from the Record Office which prove she was Isabel.
Carolyn
-
It's astonishing the number of times I have seen trees that are completely wrong.
Not just that but so obviously wrong. For example having a mother born 1750 and a child born 1760. One person being so careless I can understand, but 12? Madness.
-
I'm not sure whether it's ever been done but I often think that 'How people use Ancestry' would be a great research project!
The continual stream of Ancestry 'Hints' make it very tempting for people (beginners?) to accept those that seem to 'fit'. Especially if multiple trees show the same data and few sources are attached. It's only later that you start to realise that any erroneous/questionable data just get propagated willy-nilly to other trees (which is why multiple trees often show the same data :)).
The 'hints' implicitly encourage beginners to grow and fill their trees quickly. This is how I started out too. It was only (much) later - largely through Rootschat - that I started to take 'research' more seriously and learn more about standards, good practices and pitfalls.
'Better' research (based on primary positive and alternative/conflicting evidence) is painstaking, time-consuming work! I still use Ancestry - though I'm becoming more and more dissatisfied with it - and I still look up the occasional 'hint'. But for every 'hint' I try to find the evidence for and against.
My guess is that a relatively small percentage of Ancestry members are really willing and able to do the 'hard work' of evidence-based research. And critically evaluate any 'hints' they get.
Mike
-
Looks like Ancestry gave them the probate record as a hint and they added it without actually reading it. Or one person did and everyone else copied them.
I am seeing more of this type of thing. Census records added but it's the wrong person, baptisms records added that belong to the children but attached to the parent. Unfortunately you can't make people read the records when they are intent on getting as many names as possible into their tree.
Before I try and help someone I always check how many people they have in their tree as that sort of gives you an idea of what you are dealing with. I learnt my lesson when I tried to help someone. The tree owner made me an "Editor" and I found I was dealing with a tree of 100,000 people including my hi-jacked 4XGreat Granny!
There is nothing to be done about this as no matter how carefully a tree service is monitored and pledges to an Honor Code are made human nature is such that some people will copy without checking. I have seen this on Wiki Tree as well as every other genealogical tree building site.
Just Carry On applying the Genealogical Standards of Proof and if something is a theory but not nailed down don't put it online. Or if you do make it super clear that the person is the most likely candidate but more proof is needed. Someone might provide that proof in the future.
Venelow
Canada
-
The tree owner made me an "Editor" and I found I was dealing with a tree of 100,000 people including my hi-jacked 4XGreat Granny!
Blimey! There's been discussion of huge trees before but 100,000+ takes the biscuit. Does this person have a life outside of building this tree?
My Ancestry tree looks completely unsourced - but that's because it's the export of a bare gedcom from GR. I think I'll keep it that way.
-
Here we go again with this old complaint (with which I entirely agree, by the way).
If you don't want your stuff used and abused, don't give it to Ancestry or anyone else online. They 'own' it if you give it to them and the whole world.
Simples!
Melbell
-
"I fail to understand how people expect to be taken seriously ....."
I fail to understand why there are literally hundreds of posts on this same topic. It has been beaten to death over and over again, always with the same conclusion - don't trust unsourced online trees.
-
Hi, I am not banging on about Ancestry per se, they simply provide the platform and I don't have any complaints against them.
I just cannot understand how people can add two facts to the same person - one stating that he died in 1763 and the other stating that he made a will dated 1766. Do they never review their trees? The software I use would tell me that I had two conflicting facts like this.
I don't ever use Ancestry hints without checking their veracity first which is why I was searching for the sources of these documents, initially within the 11 trees that contained the information.
Pheno
Anyway I have calmed down now!
-
I have to admit that I find it odd when for example I find someone born in 1700 in Co Durham was said to be baptised in London as a baby, a good 250 miles away. Their so called source is a baptism from the London records. But again, it may have been an Ancestry hint and the tree owner just took it as gospel due to the same name and age group, which is very foolish to do. That is as bad as finding an entry on the IGI/Anc etc, that fits and then deciding it is the right one as it is the only one that fits.
-
I have to admit that I find it odd when for example I find someone born in 1700 in Co Durham was said to be baptised in London as a baby, a good 250 miles away. Their so called source is a baptism from the London records. But again, it may have been an Ancestry hint and the tree owner just took it as gospel due to the same name and age group, which is very foolish to do. That is as bad as finding an entry on the IGI/Anc etc, that fits and then deciding it is the right one as it is the only one that fits.
I had to smile at this ;D my Great Great Grandfather married his wife in Co Durham and when looking at the census her birth place was down as London Middlesex........ Oh I thought it must be an error and I continued to look as the two pre marriage census stated her parents where born in country/Co Durham her out of county/London and they all lived in Co Durham with as far as I knew no reason or connection to London, her dad was an Agr Labourer so unlikely he was working in London, no sisters of her mother married a Londoner, so not visiting familu, so I ignored it for years.
10 or 15 yrs after I started I actually found the baptism in St John Hackney London and was still not convinced researching from the bap as I was convinced it was another of the same name with the same parents names living in London.......... and then as the internet began and the trees of unrelated name collections and I have seen my great great grandmothers baptism infilled into other London families, her being given different parents, marrying some man and having children and at first I doubted myself and looked at the trees of unrelated names, none which stood up to research, so early on I realised copy and paste was the new way and out with researched cited and proved
-
I sometimes think it would be fun to create a very sloppy inaccurate tree, with a totally fictional family, and fictional photos, comments, stories etc, and noting lots of very odd creative sources! Then sit back and watch the fun! If someone copies or contacts me (about this fictional tree) ;D ;D ;D I'll just reply with some even more bizarre comments and photos!
-
:) Do you want some ideas for said totally fictional family .... :)
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/08/so-many-australians-are-claiming-jedi-as-their-religion-that-its-becoming-a-problem/
ADD
My husband suggests if such a tree is to be developed, it includes individuals like the tooth fairy, St Nick, Old Mother Hubbard, Little Miss Muffat .... etc
JM
-
You might have something there majm! ;D ;D ;D!!
-
Findmypast has an " O M Hubbard"...
-
Findmypast has an " O M Hubbard"...
;D ;D
There is this birth as well :D
Births Sep 1883
COLE King Wortley 9c 225
Plus quite a few Jack Horners.
Probably would be quite easy to construct a nursery rhyme tree.
-
I took a FH class many years ago just at the start of the internet( and trees) and we were talking about the IGI and it being unchecked/donated information. As the person who helped me get started was LDS I already knew about it and was told not to trust it, so I was getting the same information again.
The teacher told a story about sending in 200 names as a tree which were complete fiction at the time to see what happened, these were accepted and added to their collection, which is what it is called now 'CD collections' that so many use as real, checking the 'familysearch' trees there it was in full, so I learned very early on to research real records and not fake ones.......
Coming across the handout from that class a few weeks ago I decided to check and see and with the free wkend offered I did and it is attached to many trees online, so they are already there, already copied/pasted and added to very many the fake online trees
-
I must admit, my Ancestry trees are unsourced, but i do take my research seriously, and do have sources for everyone I add to my tree. It also needs updating as I have added many people to my offline tree since my original upload.
The most unlikely addition to my family that I have seen via Hints is the addition of a daughter to an impoverished Vicar's family in Yorkshire
Somehow this Vicar's wife made the trek up to the wilds of Scotland to give birth to her 6th child before returning to her husband's parish to have a couple more children.
After the death of her husband, the children were apprenticed out as soon as they were old enough -- except for this girl who somehow managed to catch the eye of a minor Scottish baronet and marrying him back up in Scotland.
As there was also another, more understandable mistake (a marriage to the wrong one of two women with the same name in the same area) I contacted one of the tree owners -- who was grateful for the info about the marriage and said he couldn't remember where he got the info about the girl from but agreed it did sound rather unlikely
The same info was also on several other trees but i haven't contacted them all -- life is too short!
-
I have to admit that I find it odd when for example I find someone born in 1700 in Co Durham was said to be baptised in London as a baby, a good 250 miles away. Their so called source is a baptism from the London records. But again, it may have been an Ancestry hint and the tree owner just took it as gospel due to the same name and age group, which is very foolish to do. That is as bad as finding an entry on the IGI/Anc etc, that fits and then deciding it is the right one as it is the only one that fits.
I had to smile at this ;D my Great Great Grandfather married his wife in Co Durham and when looking at the census her birth place was down as London Middlesex........ Oh I thought it must be an error and I continued to look as the two pre marriage census stated her parents where born in country/Co Durham her out of county/London and they all lived in Co Durham with as far as I knew no reason or connection to London, her dad was an Agr Labourer so unlikely he was working in London, no sisters of her mother married a Londoner, so not visiting familu, so I ignored it for years.
10 or 15 yrs after I started I actually found the baptism in St John Hackney London and was still not convinced researching from the bap as I was convinced it was another of the same name with the same parents names living in London.......... and then as the internet began and the trees of unrelated name collections and I have seen my great great grandmothers baptism infilled into other London families, her being given different parents, marrying some man and having children and at first I doubted myself and looked at the trees of unrelated names, none which stood up to research, so early on I realised copy and paste was the new way and out with researched cited and proved
Yes unless someone has some very compelling evidence to say that an ancestor was baptised 250 miles away from their usual place of residence, then they should not add it. If they have census records etc, or handy notes on the baptism, wills, poor law etc then they can fill their boots but firstly I would check local baptisms.
-
I have been researching Gertrude Margaret Lowthian Bell (Quenn of the Desert, spy, archaeologist etc) recently. It is amazing how many trees on ancestry have her marrying T E Lawrence (of Arabia) She never married, neither did he, and although they were friends and colleagues, he was 20 years her junior (not that that would prevent a marriage but hey!)
-
One of the best tips I ever got was 'own your data'. In other words, maintain your own (loca)Ms data quality. Most Ancestry trees are 'work in progress' (mine too) in terms of completeness and validation. I regard my Ancestry tree as an online backup.
-
The tree owner made me an "Editor" and I found I was dealing with a tree of 100,000 people including my hi-jacked 4XGreat Granny!
Blimey! There's been discussion of huge trees before but 100,000+ takes the biscuit. Does this person have a life outside of building this tree?
Maybe I exaggerated a tad. I just checked and it's upwards of 90,000.
It wasn't my granny I was trying to help with but another name of interest. I just happened to find 4 X great granny had been incorporated when I was browsing. There are several children, some with the wrong details and no spouses or descendants, but their father is unknown.
The tree owner joined A in 2007 and researches every day. They also offer to help others by giving advice about research.
Ven.
-
I've just found a ghost on the 1841 Census - via an Ancestry tree which has been slavishly copied by at least four other people.
This woman died in 1815, they all say. The next entry gives her residence and occupation in 1841.
The authority for these 'facts' = Ancestry Trees.
Surprise surprise!
Melbell
-
Many of us have made the odd mistake in our trees, when we found out that the person we thought was our ancestor was a namesake cousin, which actually may have helped in the long run with the wider aspect, or not a relative at all, just a namesake person. Due to this, a potential relative stays out of my tree until I find all the evidence I need.
-
I once set up a close friend with a very basic Ancestry tree on my Account. Just 3 generations to start her off, and had a couple of sessions showing her how it all worked! Fortunately, I made it private! She came back 3 weeks later, and said, "I've beaten you, those hints are great! I've got loads more in my tree than you have, I've finished it"! ??? ???" I don't need to do any more now, that's enough for me"
Puzzled, after she went home, I quickly went on line, and yes, she had loads of people in her tree, but everything except the initial part I had started, had been taken from the hints, and there were plenty of them!
She was no longer interested, but very proud of what she had "achieved" 😜😜😜🤗 Thank goodness for that' bless her! 😂
-
my crazy Levertons have all gone in the bin.. :( and I am starting them totally again.. but it may mean an actual visit to Cornwall... as the Ancestry stuff is all mixed up...
xin
-
Well my Wilson's of Co Durham have given me a huge headache. Co Durham has a high instance of the same surnames. I am sure on Heir Hunters they said that Scotland has a high occurrence of the same surnames which can make genealogy harder. And Co Durham is just 1 county apart from Southern Scotland.
-
Is there a.n. other hobby out there I could try ... ::) ::) ::) Kept Leaving the Hellyars , now I know why ;D
xin
-
I find that it's so easy to be tripped up by Ancestry though. I think it happens when they change the algorithms that manage the data and hints, but I sometimes get some very aggressive hints suggesting information about my relatives that is totally wrong.
Sometimes it's very easy to spot, such as my impoverished ag-lab relatives fathering a child in Barbados 20 years before they were born.
Other times it's easy to be tripped up however. I've had to go through my hints with a fine toothed comb because the information seems like it might fit. Particularly if other people have added that information to their own trees.
-
I've just found a ghost on the 1841 Census - via an Ancestry tree which has been slavishly copied by at least four other people.
This woman died in 1815, they all say. The next entry gives her residence and occupation in 1841.
I accidently created a ghost on an Ancestry tree. It was the ghost of a man's 1st wife. He married 2 women with the same forename. I had all facts for both wives and entered them correctly on the tree. Every fact was sourced. Each source was added to each woman under her maiden name. Later I read the "Life Story" section. According to this, 1st wife was on a census 3 years after her death. The woman on the census was actually the recently married 2nd wife. I was sure I'd attached sources to the correct person. I know who was who even if Ancestry didn't. Coincidently, the women were born a few days apart in different countries. I then checked every "Life Story" to ensure there were no other anomalies. I've since added another man whose 2 wives had only 1 forename between them. I was extra careful with those women; didn't want another haunting.
-
The Ancestry hints must explain why the wrong couple are listed on the census when closer inspection it gives totally different birthplaces and children's names. Namesake couples. Ie George Jarvis and Mary. The users get a "hint" of a George and Mary Jarvis and just accept it when in fact it is a totally different couple to the right one.
-
The only hints with the right people have been those sources which I already knew about by doing my own research. The only fresh information is from other trees, which I note as being of interest, and photographs.
The information I have about the wives with the same name is all my own work! The husband seemed confused on 1911 census, or he was telling fibs. Luckily I already knew the truth. I have sources not on Ancestry! Btw someone has added this family to their tree and given them several more children in another part of the county. I worked out how they made the mistake.
I've got another man whose 2nd wife was his 1st wife's cousin; children of both mothers have same maiden surname. Then there are women marrying cousins of some degree who had same forename and surname as their fathers. I have a few sets like that and I got mixed up with one lot :-[ but it was on a private tree and I quickly noticed the error.
-
My Ancestry tree looks completely unsourced - but that's because it's the export of a bare gedcom from GR. I think I'll keep it that way.
My Ancestry tree is similarly apparently unsourced because uploading from FTM removed all images and my notes with GRO references to BMD certs.
My tree is a combination of mine and my husbands and is the product of over thirty years research, so has a lot of people on it and so it isn't feasible to go back and re-add all the sources to it.
-
I've just found a ghost on the 1841 Census - via an Ancestry tree which has been slavishly copied by at least four other people.
This woman died in 1815, they all say. The next entry gives her residence and occupation in 1841.
I have too but with extras...
I've just discovered my 2 x g g/mother b c1844 in Ireland and who according to her SP Death Cert. died 1898 in Scotland, miraculously appears in 1901 in Ireland with a husband & son who was born 1896 when gg g/mother was 52 yrs old (not impossible)...
She'd married under a different surname in 1861 to a chap who was born in 1861
Meanwhile by my research she had (at last count) 7 children (all illegitimate) between 1864 & 1881 (have all those BCs) some with father attending registry i.e. his surname on certs. the rest have her maiden surname...
Not sure where this hubby was in that period of 17 yrs of her having those 7 children but somehow reunited to have their son born 1896 a whopping 35 yrs after marrying in 1861 & that's only the tip of the iceberg as there's a multitude of wrong info. which I'm still wading through in disbelief ;D
Annie
-
Well my Wilson's of Co Durham have given me a huge headache. Co Durham has a high instance of the same surnames. I am sure on Heir Hunters they said that Scotland has a high occurrence of the same surnames which can make genealogy harder. And Co Durham is just 1 county apart from Southern Scotland.
Off the subject but my hubby has Wilson's from Durham. Where abouts were yours based?
-
Well my Wilson's of Co Durham have given me a huge headache. Co Durham has a high instance of the same surnames. I am sure on Heir Hunters they said that Scotland has a high occurrence of the same surnames which can make genealogy harder. And Co Durham is just 1 county apart from Southern Scotland.
Off the subject but my hubby has Wilson's from Durham. Where abouts were yours based?
Lanchester, St Helen Auckland and Bishop Auckland.
-
Aah, 'mine' are a bit further South, Stockton area, so probably no link. Worth asking though :)
-
Aah, 'mine' are a bit further South, Stockton area, so probably no link. Worth asking though :)
Yes, worth asking. It is a small world after all. I found out a lifelong friend was a distant relative as she asked me to do her family tree and I found we were related.
I always add notes underneath as to where I found the info, or where I found a possible lead. I always add witness names to marriages in my tree. I do source a lot from their census, parish records etc but also add notes.
-
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=619657
-
My Wilsons are from Hartlepool, mostly East.
Martin
-
I had to smile at this ;D my Great Great Grandfather married his wife in Co Durham and when looking at the census her birth place was down as London Middlesex........ Oh I thought it must be an error and I continued to look as the two pre marriage census stated her parents where born in country/Co Durham her out of county/London and they all lived in Co Durham with as far as I knew no reason or connection to London, her dad was an Agr Labourer so unlikely he was working in London, no sisters of her mother married a Londoner, so not visiting family, so I ignored it for years.
Interesting one, this. My wife's gg-grandfather was a Ralph Burn, who married Elizabeth Andrews in Newcastle in 1849, according to the marriage record. Later censuses always showed her as born in Middlesex, but tracing this took some time because there had been a clerical error. Their first child was Robert Anderson Burn, which proved her actual surname. Unfortunately her marriage was at St.Andrew's, which may have triggered the clerical error.
Her family were shoemakers from Bishop Auckland, where three children were baptised together at Christmas 1827. Elizabeth was born in Aldersgate in 1825. I still don't know what the family was doing darn sarf.