One rotten apple can lead to hundreds more, in other words one mistake is made and others copy it thinking it is gospel so you get many family trees with false info. It is annoying to see such glaring errors but not surprising.
One rotten apple can lead to hundreds more, in other words one mistake is made and others copy it thinking it is gospel so you get many family trees with false info. It is annoying to see such glaring errors but not surprising.
I totally agree but what happens to simple common sense?
"Died in Ireland, buried 5 years later" (in England)
what happens to simple common sense?
Surely Ancestry could add a feature which warns you if you try to enter a baptism date that is AFTER the date of death? Just a few extra lines of code would do it...Of course that would be simple, several programs I'm aware of, including Family Search trees, have checking features for illogical dates.
This family tree has been grown by user @iamanidiot, not by Ancestry. This tree contains 787 names, and appears to feature:
* 4 persons born before their parent(s)
* 3 persons born with parent(s) younger than childbearing age
* 11 persons living to between 125 and 346 years of age
* 3 persons who married aged under 10
* 1 person whose parent is also their child
* 12 families whose children were born on different continents
* 10 families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
Ancestry does not rate private trees for accuracy but the above may guide you when reviewing the contents.
Surely Ancestry could add a feature which warns you if you try to enter a baptism date that is AFTER the date of death? Just a few extra lines of code would do it...Of course that would be simple, several programs I'm aware of, including Family Search trees, have checking features for illogical dates.
But rather than simply warning someone who clearly isn't interested in reliability, what about Ancestry warning visitors to that tree? When you click on a public tree they could put up a screen which says something like.Quote
This family tree has been grown by user @iamanidiot, not by Ancestry. This tree contains 787 names, and appears to feature:
* 4 persons born before their parent(s)
* 3 persons born with parent(s) younger than childbearing age
* 11 persons living to between 125 and 346 years of age
* 3 persons who married aged under 10
* 1 person whose parent is also their child
* 12 families whose children were born on different continents
* 10 families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
Ancestry does not rate private trees for accuracy but the above may guide you when reviewing the contents.
Surely Ancestry could add a feature which warns you if you try to enter a baptism date that is AFTER the date of death? Just a few extra lines of code would do it...FTM does give warnings on some date 'errors', people born after their mother died, being buried before you died, etc.
Of course that would be simple, several programs I'm aware of, including Family Search trees, have checking features for illogical dates.
But rather than simply warning someone who clearly isn't interested in reliability, what about Ancestry warning visitors to that tree? When you click on a public tree they could put up a screen which says something like.Quote
This family tree has been grown by user @iamanidiot, not by Ancestry. This tree contains 787 names, and appears to feature:
* 4 persons born before their parent(s)
* 3 persons born with parent(s) younger than childbearing age
* 11 persons living to between 125 and 346 years of age
* 3 persons who married aged under 10
* 1 person whose parent is also their child
* 12 families whose children were born on different continents
* 10 families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
Ancestry does not rate private trees for accuracy but the above may guide you when reviewing the contents.
Thanks, I really enjoyed this, but if they did warn people of the obvious errors, where would serious researchers get their entertainment?
However you left off the mother being over 100 when a child is born
Edward
Thanks, I really enjoyed this, but if they did warn people of the obvious errors, where would serious researchers get their entertainment?
However you left off the mother being over 100 when a child is born
Edward
Thanks, I really enjoyed this, but if they did warn people of the obvious errors, where would serious researchers get their entertainment?
According to one tree my late father-in-law is a well-known trumpeter.
Martin
Is it really bad that this thread has made me contemplating creating a new tree on ancestry starting with my grandfather, blindly following hints to see what happens. ie see how bizarre a tree it creates.I tried that a few months back. Naturally, in that case, it was pretty accurate.
Is it really bad that this thread has made me contemplating creating a new tree on ancestry starting with my grandfather, blindly following hints to see what happens. ie see how bizarre a tree it creates.
The Ancestry hints which are now tagged to our trees are a joy to behold.
Never in the field of geneaology has so much rubbish been hinted to so few.
. . .
families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
. . .
. . .
families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
. . .
That is not impossible!
My eldest sister was born 10 months 11 days after me.
families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
That is not impossible!
My eldest sister was born 10 months 11 days after me.
families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
That is not impossible!
My eldest sister was born 10 months 11 days after me.
That has to be impossible ???
Surely she must be your younger sister if she was born 'after' you?
Annie
No. I also have another younger sister, therefore the first sister is the eldest sister, but not my elder sister as that would mean she was born before me.families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
That is not impossible!
My eldest sister was born 10 months 11 days after me.
That has to be impossible ???
Surely she must be your younger sister if she was born 'after' you?
Annie
Is it really bad that this thread has made me contemplating creating a new tree on ancestry starting with my grandfather, blindly following hints to see what happens. ie see how bizarre a tree it creates.
That is very naughty, but I like it ;D
On a more "serious" note should a series of new threads be started for the worst rubbish entries on Ancestry trees?
Such as (based on the list started by JohninSussex):-
persons born before their parent(s)
persons born with parent(s) younger than childbearing age
persons living to between 125 and 346 years of age
persons who married aged under 10
person whose parent is also their child
families whose children were born on different continents
families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
people who are baptised after they have been buried
people dying or being buried more than once
Edward
I did once have someone on my tree baptised in 1828 and died in 1880. Only I made a typo when I entered the baptism and had it at 1882, oops.
I admit if the dates and places are OK I may take inspiration from the trees but I always double check for myself to make sure.
On the flip side I have found a few trees which have people marrying on the opposite side of the country to where they usually lived and actually checked for myself and found it was true. For instance a couple from Devon who married in Suffolk, their first child born there according to the census then they went back to Devon.
My 3x grt grandfather was born in Ayrshire. He met my 3x grt grandfather just outside Inverness.
And what about those trees that have someone marrying 3 or 4 times, having huge families with each spouse, and all during the same 30 years - more often than not, at the same address. I cannot believe that the Mormons were alive and well and living in Lancashire in the early 1800s...
My 3x grt grandfather was born in Ayrshire. He met my 3x grt grandfather just outside Inverness.
I think you meant "He met my 3xgrt grandmother..." I trust your FT has him married to your 3xGGM.
:)
families whose children were born on different continentsOne of my ancestors moved to Canada, married twice and had a daughter there before returning and raising more children over here.
Quotefamilies whose children were born on different continentsOne of my ancestors moved to Canada, married twice and had a daughter there before returning and raising more children over here.
Came across an Ancestry tree yesterday where someone has helpfully attached the following person into our tree which they've copied (I am not the owner of the original tree) -
James Hunter
born c1806 Scotland
married 1840 Lancashire, England
died 1783 Rye, Sussex, England
Didn't bother looking any further ::)
Came across an Ancestry tree yesterday where someone has helpfully attached the following person into our tree which they've copied (I am not the owner of the original tree) -
James Hunter
born c1806 Scotland
married 1840 Lancashire, England
died 1783 Rye, Sussex, England
Didn't bother looking any further ::)
It probably is a big cock up however it can sometimes be as simple as a mistype. I had a error message come up saying a birth was before the fathers adult age - I'd actually mistyped that he was born in 1908 instead of 1808
I have seen my relies listed as born in Hull, Massachusetts, when they were born in Hull, East Yorkshire ::)
Another had my Father born in St.John's Wood when he was born in St. John's Nfld, Canada.
Carol
I have just found 11 trees, on HWMBO's side, that all have a 7 x ggmother marrying at the age of 14 and having her first child 2 years before the marriage.
All it takes is a little thought allied with common sense.
Edward
I have a strange group of DNA matches who, when they have a tree, have the surname McManus prominent. They seem to be only distantly related to me (circa 6th cousin level). I've tried to find a link but so far I've drawn a blank.
This morning I found that one of my new matches was in this group and had a tree which included Adam, First Man, b. 0001, Garden of Eden and died 1000, Cannan. He has him having 2 sons, Cain and Abel, both born and dying in Eden. I've only got as far as the As but assume that there will be an Eve when I get to the Es. As you can imagine, it's a very large tree (Apple?) comprising 60522 people.
:-X :-X :-X
I have a strange group of DNA matches who, when they have a tree, have the surname McManus prominent. They seem to be only distantly related to me (circa 6th cousin level). I've tried to find a link but so far I've drawn a blank.
This morning I found that one of my new matches was in this group and had a tree which included Adam, First Man, b. 0001, Garden of Eden and died 1000, Cannan. He has him having 2 sons, Cain and Abel, both born and dying in Eden. I've only got as far as the As but assume that there will be an Eve when I get to the Es. As you can imagine, it's a very large tree (Apple?) comprising 60522 people.
:-X :-X :-X
This morning I found that one of my new matches was in this group and had a tree which included Adam, First Man, b. 0001, Garden of Eden and died 1000, Cannan. He has him having 2 sons, Cain and Abel, both born and dying in Eden. I've only got as far as the As but assume that there will be an Eve when I get to the Es. As you can imagine, it's a very large tree (Apple?) comprising 60522 people.
I've found a tree like that had Jesus married to Mary the Virgin. I had to laugh.
Just found this cracker
:)
Edward
I also know from Ancestry trees that my father died several years ago (complete with gravestone picture so it must be true, right?) which is strange since I talk to him about once a week (last time on Saturday) and he's never mentioned it ;D
It's alright for you 3 - the tree owner is a 6th cousin of mine :-\
;D
It's alright for you 3 - the tree owner is a 6th cousin of mine :-\
;D
That's odd - so am I!
So we're all one big happy family then ;D
My bachelor 1st cousin once removed, who was also my godfather, used to greet everyone in the village as 'cus'. He would have sorted out those trees :D
So we're all one big happy family then ;D
My bachelor 1st cousin once removed, who was also my godfather, used to greet everyone in the village as 'cus'. He would have sorted out those trees :D
There are probably some villages where everyone is a 'cus' :)
There is an old maxim 'CICO' put Crap In get Crap Out.
Just as the advert tells you:
"Just type in your name and let us guide you step by step"
No wonder there are so many mistakes from half hearted and misguided fools who don't check
any of the details and accept them as verbatim.
When I type my full name and year of birth in it tells me I don't exist ???
When I type my full name and year of birth in it tells me I don't exist ???
So what supporting evidence have you used to prove that you are a true member of your tree? ;D
PharmaT if nothing else family history leads you to have a sense of humour.
My question is do you type in your birth name or married name? ;D. With regulations in Australia I doubt I would exist either.
So they found someone with the right forename, dates, location, etc and then 'changed' the surname to make it fit?
That is a novel solution, great way to knock over brick walls :)
Edward
So they found someone with the right forename, dates, location, etc and then 'changed' the surname to make it fit?
That is a novel solution, great way to knock over brick walls :)
Edward
So they found someone with the right forename, dates, location, etc and then 'changed' the surname to make it fit?
That is a novel solution, great way to knock over brick walls :)
Edward
I have a situation in my tree. It is a change from Collie to Currie. I found the Collie birth by matching everything else, plus the granddaughter living with the Collie grandparents at one of the censuses. That was the first stage, I now have DNA evidence to prove that I was correct. I did not randomly snatch a person and I did extensive search to make sure that the Collie child wasn't elsewhere.
Evidence is based on several censuses (or are they censii?) where he declares his place of birth and PR's
Edward
Not tree rubbish, just rubbish.
Have they been taken over by a Scandinavian outfit? ???
When I looked at my hints just now, they all look like this.
(William actually came from Stourport, Worcs.)
I've kept my own tree separate until last night when I decided to start putting it on the FamilySearch website. I'm currently regretting doing that, as I made a monumental mistake which I do not know how to correct. As I was entering some ancestors into my tree on the website, it showed me parents and grandparents of that individual and I thought I would confirm the correct information shown. Having done so, the software of FamilySearch took it upon itself to enter all the ancestors it has on any branch from that individual. Unfortunately, some of the information is wrong, and I can't find a way to alter/correct the misinformation. :-[Unfortunately with Family Search it isn't individual trees but hypothetically one main tree with lots of individual branches and when you add somebody to your branch that is already in the system with parents etc then your branch is connected to the other one and all the info and mistakes
Unfortunately with Family Search ...
Also anybody can change or add people to any entry so you could find somebody adds what they think is correct to your carefully researched tree
I refuse to fill out any of them family tree boxes (on any site), or put information on Wiki etc., known to my late Grandparents, because anyone can come along and edit it, or internet companies themselves, or their Programming defaults seem to change information.
I've just had a reply back from Ancestry about their insane invented place names.
They say that it's my fault for having been silly enough to put addresses in the "GPS" fields. There is no such field in their record entry screens, but there IS one labelled Address, which is correctly filled in.
They say that I should edit the individual entries to remove my carefully-researched addresses. That particular database has about 300 addresses, by the way.
I'm assuming that what they are doing is converting the field to a GPS co-ordinate location, which they then look up in their rubbish gazetteer for display. Because they can't figure out where Derby is, they find a house numbered 4 somewhere in Alaska, and so that is what they display.
I pointed out that what I have entered is a perfectly normal postal address, which would enable an item posted anywhere in the world to be delivered correctly.
I have again tried to point them in the direction of the bug, telling them that they convert the well-known address “1600, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, District of Columbia, USA” to “Kimball, Nebraska, USA”.
I bet they blame the US Presidents for living in the wrong place all this time.
;D ;D
That's pretty bad customer service if you ask me. Telling you you're wrong (especially when you're clearly not) and blaming you for your mistakes.... pretty rude actually.
On that evidence, I won't bother trying to tell them that Yaxley, Suffolk is not the same place as Yaxley, Huntingdonshire. Not too far apart, but definitely two different places - Ancestry thinks otherwise. See also: Steeple, Essex and Steeple Bumpstead, Essex. ::)
On that evidence, I won't bother trying to tell them that Yaxley, Suffolk is not the same place as Yaxley, Huntingdonshire. Not too far apart, but definitely two different places - Ancestry thinks otherwise. See also: Steeple, Essex and Steeple Bumpstead, Essex. ::)
No, I wouldn't bother. They can't grasp that Dalry, Dumfries and Galloway is different from Dalry Edinburgh so I think the concept of 2 places relatively close together with the same name would blow their minds.
I'm still furious that they told ME to brush up on my geography over my attempts to explain that Birmingham, England is no where near Yorkshire and that there is more than one place in Scotland called Dalry (they've attributed all Dalry records to Edinburgh) whether the person is from Dumfries or Ayrshire
Ask them which US state Springfield is in.
Carol
There are probably about 3 places called "Springfield" or "Springfields" in the majority of US states. I think it is the US equivalent of "Newton" / "Newtown".
Murkans are notoriously bad at geography.
When the Olympics were in Atlanta, they had two phone numbers for tickets - one for USA and the other for everywhere else. People from the state of New Mexico were told that they had to redial and use the international number.
When George Bush senior started the first Gulf War, tourism to Florida suffered, because many resorts are on the Gulf of Mexico.
I think that many of the people involved were actively recruited to handle geography at Ancestry.
It's easy to poke fun at the Americans and their lack of geographical knowledge, but sometimes the British get it wrong too.
I remember reading an article in the Daily Telegraph which confused Eastbourne, East Sussex with Easebourne, West Sussex. Subtle differences, but not the same place!
There are probably about 3 places called "Springfield" or "Springfields" in the majority of US states. I think it is the US equivalent of "Newton" / "Newtown".Right, so when American users of Ancestry try to enter 'Springfield' as a location, which state does Ancestry decide is correct? Do Americans have the same issue with Ancestry overriding their choices?
I have been confused by 1 county having at least 2 places with the same name. Suffolk has 2 Clopton's. One in West Suffolk and one near Woodbridge. It has 2 Hopton's as well. One near Thetford and one near Gorleston.There's been at least one case of an emergency ambulance being sent to the wrong village, despite being given the right postcode. Two places, one name, two counties, ambulance control in a third.
How about California in Falkirk, Ireland in Bedfordshire and Wales in Yorkshire?
Jane :-)
If John Hurt took his family myth as gospel and put that his 2xgreat grandad was the Marquis of Sligo in his tree and it was uploaded to Ancestry, I am sure it would be copied. He was quite hurt, no pun intended, to find his ancestor Walter Lord Browne was a storyteller, and the Irish ancestry link to the Marquis of Sligo is a myth. John always felt Irish, and seemed proud of his alleged Irish ancestry until his lovely thesis was blown apart by brutal facts.
John's ancestry is mainly Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Lancashire with some Surrey and London. No known Irish ancestry has been found.
Another my GGG GF married 3 times with a total of 15 kids (no wonder his wives didn't last!) Large families & multiple sequential marriages were not uncommon in those times.I think he did quite well to last :)
Another my GGG GF married 3 times with a total of 15 kids (no wonder his wives didn't last!) Large families & multiple sequential marriages were not uncommon in those times.I think he did quite well to last :)
Another my GGG GF married 3 times with a total of 15 kids (no wonder his wives didn't last!) Large families & multiple sequential marriages were not uncommon in those times.I think he did quite well to last :)
Just think, three mothers in law :o :o :o
... I spend longer rejecting people than adding them. I tend to make out a sort of spreadsheet of possibles, with parentage / dates / events across the top, and names down the side, get all the possibles listed, then spend months tracking them through time and location, to eliminate them....
but it doesn't mean that I accept blindly if there's only one candidate left after all that -
THEN I start trying to prove / disprove he's the right one, all over again ( sighs)
... I spend longer rejecting people than adding them. I tend to make out a sort of spreadsheet of possibles, with parentage / dates / events across the top, and names down the side, get all the possibles listed, then spend months tracking them through time and location, to eliminate them....
but it doesn't mean that I accept blindly if there's only one candidate left after all that -
THEN I start trying to prove / disprove he's the right one, all over again ( sighs)
Hello
Yes, when you get back two hundred years, it is impossible for us to make confirmed links backward from my current 200 year old Tree lineage (a Wedding with Bond/Allegation of 1815 with age stated, that matches his death age) and most of our time is spent looking at possibles, looking for paperwork in Archives and:- either rejecting them; leaving them and the acquired documentary paperwork filed and in abeyance; or coming to another dead end.
I even have two spare middle surnames (Cook and Pearson) and a spare middle name (Alfred, which can be both a forename and surname). All the other middle surnames match up to linked certified ancestry.
So I fall off my seat with disbelief (and laughter) when people claim a Tree with links to 30,000 individuals!
To me, those in my Family Tree are those my Dad and I actually know as our family back to 1905 and then those our relatives and I have verified paperwork, Census and official Copies for, newspaper Notices, Wills and Yorkshire property Registrations, before 1905.
Mark
If the claimants of the following John Hood 2 December 1860 Death read this
Death John Hood Death 02/12/1860 Selby Walworth South Dakota USA
Residence 1851 Selby Yorkshire England
If the claimants of the following John Hood 2 December 1860 Death read this
Death John Hood Death 02/12/1860 Selby Walworth South Dakota USA
Residence 1851 Selby Yorkshire England
Have a look at this thread, it is an Ancestry undocumented feature.
Briefly the owner has probably just put Selby, on upload the place names are checked against the Ancestry database and the first one selected. 'W' comes before 'Y'
Edward
I recall that several months ago I stopped helping on a thread... I had questioned if they had validated some comment
Basically :-X short version .... ::) the OP then sent me a terse PM informing me that their Ancestry tree was spot on, and that I must be a newbee and I had failed to understand that their 4xg grandmother was 200 when her eldest son was born and they have proof because other trees have same info.
We cannot help those who do not want to do their own quality research....
Add confirm, 200 ...born 1650, first child born 1850 ... I kept that PM..
JM
What I find amusing is the number of people who get annoyed at such "trees" as they all claim they do not use other peoples research.
If that is the case why do they bother to look at them in the first place?
Most of us even check their research at intervals as new sources become available and even when old sources come available in a different format (for instance as parish registers come available in digital format and can be manipulated to make them easier to read).
What I find amusing is the number of people who get annoyed at such "trees" as they all claim they do not use other peoples research.I also sometimes look at the hint trees and as Xin said, they can offer clues and even be of real help. One example was of a burial in Sicily that I would never have found myself but having someone check the register proved the burial was the right person.
If that is the case why do they bother to look at them in the first place?
I often have a peep -
at other peoples trees.. because it is a.n.other avenue.. and if your careful you can disregard the rubbish and collect the snippets that are useful..
the odd photograph may well turn up
or as in the case of MRS WILSON the odd true 3rd husband..
I search as many avenues.. as there are within reach of my chair.. as that is the only way I can do research these days..
And yes I moan, about Ancestry trees --- when they blatantly are stupid.... as I say Agnes GAY will always be a ... arrrrgh fgs.. etc.. 9yrs old married and etc not worth knowing..
anyhow..
we do it cos we love it and we want it RIGHT that is why I blast WRONG trees and tell em... sometimes..
ignore them loads of times.
last night if I had not have looked at a.n.other tree.. I would not have expanded the lifestory of one of mine and added an anecdote that only a close close rellie could have known..
Cheers Xin
I've only contacted / been contacted a few times, and only one, a chap on OH's side, was really a "Grab it and Run" merchant. I went to a lot of trouble after contact was made, actually drawing out his entire tree for him, to clarify, and posted it to Australia, at some expense ... and never ever even got a "thank you"! (Mind you, I did it that way so at least he couldn't get into my tree. )
Others have been very pleasant, and helpful, and even met up with one or two, really nice people, and feel to be friends as well now.
Makes you very wary of making / allowing contact, though.
I've only contacted / been contacted a few times, and only one, a chap on OH's side, was really a "Grab it and Run" merchant. I went to a lot of trouble after contact was made, actually drawing out his entire tree for him, to clarify, and posted it to Australia, at some expense ... and never ever even got a "thank you"! (Mind you, I did it that way so at least he couldn't get into my tree. )
Others have been very pleasant, and helpful, and even met up with one or two, really nice people, and feel to be friends as well now.
Makes you very wary of making / allowing contact, though.
Yes, I have met up with my dad's cousin. Their paternal grandfathers were first cousins. I keep in contact with them. No matter how far removed it is, they are still a relative, even if they are not into genealogy as much as you are.
I once helped someone prove a distant link to nobility and I never ever got a thank you for it.
I am not stupid or Naive enough to think there is no such thing as a 9 yr old marrying.. but if and when I rediscover the tree -- you will agree it is an impossible situation.. here is a snipI believe that it is an criminal offence to be married after death and that abusers can be given a custodial sentence. :) :) :)
xin
But sometimes you meet a like-minded researcher with shared ancestry and can have - like I only did last evening with Top-of-the-Hill - a spate of emails to and fro whilst we are both researching our (very widespread) tree on the net.
Worth its weight in gold that is. ;D
And so reassuring to find that there are people who are equally family, history interested (other than all of the wonderful Rootchatters)
JM, if I'd had a message like that I'd have framed it and hung it on the wall! But which room to hang it in :-\
Carol
I am not stupid or Naive enough to think there is no such thing as a 9 yr old marrying.. but if and when I rediscover the tree -- you will agree it is an impossible situation.. here is a snipI believe that it is an criminal offence to be married after death and that abusers can be given a custodial sentence. :) :) :)
xin
JM, if I'd had a message like that I'd have framed it and hung it on the wall! But which room to hang it in :-\
Carol
What room? I think down the Outside Toilet ;D ;D ;D but not good enough to hang next to the Thomas Crapper & Co toilet cistern adorning the wall ;D ;D ;D
Hello All
On a serious note I messaged an Ancestry Tree researcher Sally-ann Jardine last week, whom I really hope will get in touch.
Ms Jardine lists GEORGE HOOD born Yorkshire 1786.
Also CLARK Scotland 1700 - 1900.
----------
My George Hood of Selby Yorkshire, born about 1786, purchased 4/5ths (Four Fifths) of the former premises of the late John Clark, Tanner of Selby, Yorkshire, England (offered For Sale in 1830).
Had a scan of John Clark's Will bundle (1764) specially scanned from the Borthwick some time ago and his five Daughters were all Co-heiresses (I now have about 100 non online Wills, scanned or copied).
Four of the descendants from the John Clark of Selby, Yorks Co-Heiresses have each sold their 1/5th shares to my George Hood of Selby and the 1831 property Registration even gives their Clark lineage from the late John Clark, through several Generations to each of the four sellers. Great if you are a Clark researcher!
-----------
But words like "oil painting of Burns" etc., in a known HOOD Will (Proved 1942), don't mean too much yet.
-----------
The Jardine researcher has an interest in Dumfriesshire.
I have been looking at the 1820s - 1840s HOODs of Drypool, Yorkshire, some of whom originated from Dumfries and who also had links to the Quakers as Non-Quakers at Drypool and Somercotes (near Hull), like my George Hood (a non-Quaker) who was buried by the Quakers at Selby, Yorkshire in 1845.
I am really hoping Ms Jardine gets in touch!
----------
Regarding Coombs earlier comment, the surviving Selby Poor Law records were found on a Selby rubbish tip in the 20th Century, once in Selby Abbey Library (seen them at the Borthwick, also available at the LDS Centre), mainly about collecting the Selby Poor Rate and a book of payments.
John Hood the Master Mariner (who paid a Mariners Pension, confirmed in the Trinity House Mariners 1780s records at Hull, not online) did not pay the Selby Poor Rate, nor did John Hood, Master Mariner, or my George Hood receive the Selby Church Dole.
----------
The only link I can make between John Hood, the Mariner (buried Selby April 1819 aged 82) and my George Hood (buried Selby September 1845, aged 60, who looks to be in his 60th year), is that the descendants of both those HOODs married into the same GRUBB descendants, from a common GRUBB ancestor.
Thread I'd Be Most Interested in Family Historian Comments re Tree Diagram?
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=804155.0
Make sure you open the whole line diagram please, if interested in taking a peek.
Mark
... edited
John Hood the Master Mariner (who paid a Mariners Pension, confirmed in the Trinity House Mariners 1780s records at Hull, not online) did not pay the Selby Poor Rate, nor did John Hood, Master Mariner, or my George Hood receive the Selby Church Dole.
----------
The only link I can make between John Hood, the Mariner (buried Selby April 1819 aged 82) and my George Hood (buried Selby September 1845, aged 60, who looks to be in his 60th year), is that the descendants of both those HOODs married into the same GRUBB descendants, from a common GRUBB ancestor.
Thread I'd Be Most Interested in Family Historian Comments re Tree Diagram?
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=804155.0
Make sure you open the whole line diagram please, if interested in taking a peek.
Mark
I have had a look at the tree, and it is interesting about how descendants of the Hood families married into the Grubb 2nd/3rd cousins. If John Hood was 82 when he died in 1819 he was born c1737. So he was about 50 when George was born. But you say you cannot find any link between John and George.
Did your George who died in 1845 leave a will? If so was it just wife and children listed?
Ah, but the Tongs came from Dunkirk - now that was a lawless place in the 19th century. Think of The Battle of Bossenden Wood!
Hello All
On a serious note I messaged an Ancestry Tree researcher Sally-ann Jardine last week, whom I really hope will get in touch.
Ms Jardine lists GEORGE HOOD born Yorkshire 1786.
Also CLARK Scotland 1700 - 1900.
This sort of problem with unresearched links is certainly not just restricted to family history. Last week I went to sea a theatre production of Hedda Gabler. I read a summary of the plot on Wikipedia, and at the end there was a supposed link to the actress playing the title role but unfortunately the link was to an American anthropologist with the same name.
Martin
Mark, yes, and those who blindly follow the talking map lady off the end of the pier!
Martin
Didn't all the runners in a Venice marathon a few years back, go the wrong way?2017 & they should really have a swimathon ;)
- Hope it wasn't that Dyer chap, was it, coombs?
Let's not get all worked up about it, there's a lot of rubbish on Ancestry trees
Not just that the warnings don't happen but that Ancestry actively gives you these entries as suggestions.Let's not get all worked up about it, there's a lot of rubbish on Ancestry trees
I don't get 'worked up', I just feel it is disappointing that simple common sense tells you that something is wrong when eg people having babies at 3 or 4 years old, being married at the same age, getting married and having children after being buried.
I use FTP off line and that makes various noises if you enter data that mathematically doesn't make sense (as above examples), I guess that many people just use the online tree creation and that the date warnings don't happen.
Edwrad
Not just that the warnings don't happen but that Ancestry actively gives you these entries as suggestions.Aha, that was raised on another thread https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=806441.msg6666265#msg6666265
... trees should come with a warning.
Ancestry trees should come with a warning.
In my tree one the branches is the Hamer family all connected by my g.mother.
Awhile ago I found some info on the Hamers and proceeded to Anc. to update. All the Hamers are connected up with this one and that one and have over 7 generations. Oh! what a lovely surprise I got. When I went to update that part of Hamers I found that it had been seperated including branches, was on its own and not connected to the existing. No idea how it happened or how to link up again to my Hamers on the Bowler/Hamer tree. Completley lost now. Reply from Anc. "You must have deleted someone or some people". Now why would I do that? All that research now gone up in flames thank you very much.
Steve62
In my tree one the branches is the Hamer family all connected by my g.mother.
Awhile ago I found some info on the Hamers and proceeded to Anc. to update. All the Hamers are connected up with this one and that one and have over 7 generations. Oh! what a lovely surprise I got. When I went to update that part of Hamers I found that it had been seperated including branches, was on its own and not connected to the existing. No idea how it happened or how to link up again to my Hamers on the Bowler/Hamer tree. Completley lost now. Reply from Anc. "You must have deleted someone or some people". Now why would I do that? All that research now gone up in flames thank you very much.
Steve62
I know there are loads of 'iffy' trees but this one is worthy of a mention
:)
Edward
I use the public trees as a guide, or sometimes as what not to do, but the other day I found a doozy. A potential ancestor who lived in Devon, will dated 1653, apparently married in Cheshire and had his first two children in Cumberland, before settling back in Devon. Has to be right, doesn't it?Did he have shares in Stagecoach? Or even, a share of a stagecoach.
I use the public trees as a guide, or sometimes as what not to do, but the other day I found a doozy. A potential ancestor who lived in Devon, will dated 1653, apparently married in Cheshire and had his first two children in Cumberland, before settling back in Devon. Has to be right, doesn't it?
I use the public trees as a guide, or sometimes as what not to do, but the other day I found a doozy. A potential ancestor who lived in Devon, will dated 1653, apparently married in Cheshire and had his first two children in Cumberland, before settling back in Devon. Has to be right, doesn't it?
No, but on the other hand it may very easily be right, what was his occupation, did he work for Landed Gentry who had a house in Devon and perhaps Cumberland? The Landed Gentry often took servants/workers with them on their "travels or when they visited others.
As has been mentioned on other threads always look for reasons for moves, even short ones may be due to change of employer, meeting at markets, hiring or mop fairs etc.
Cheers
Guy
There is a difference between a well researched, documented and sourced tree and the obvious rubbish that some people include on their Ancestry trees.
One of my 2 x ggfathers was elusive for quite a while, surname Roberts and one census had him born in Penteg. After a lot of head scratching he was born a Rabbits in Pentridge in 1838, 1841 census at home so still a Rabbits. 1851 census he appears as a Roberts and stayed as one for the rest of his life.
So anyone looking at my tree (if they could) would probably think 'what a load of rubbish'.
This gentleman married 4 times and the daughter of his first marriage married the father of his fourth wife. Again who would believe this.
So his daughter became his mother-in-law and her own grandmother. :)
Edward
In the 1700s I have seen some of my Durham ancestors mention children and nephews living in London, and one who even had a nephew living in Suffolk. Never underestimate how people travelled in our ancestors days, and this can explain why at times you may not find a baptism locally. Gentry often hired servants from a long way from where they were from.
NO, NO, NO, NO! They married in Barry, Wales near Cardiff!
....I have a question. Someone told me of a tree that had a death cited for a relative I have found no trace of after birth of her last child. It has been an ongoping search for a good few years and 2 genealogists have failed to find anything either. Excuse my ignorance but in this context does cited mean she has proof?
So which of these hints would you use? This is a rhetorical question :)
Edward
And before Ancestry, we had similar problems with trees on the IGI. If the record fits it must be the right one. ::)
I agree about wills. While not everyone left one, they can be a fantastic source for confirming relationships and finding extended family members you might not otherwise have found. There are local wills as well, so people who might have been less well off may still have left a will. Unless of course like me you need the Devonshire wills that were destroyed in 1942.....
It is probably natural to discard a marriage 100 miles from where the couple lived, and it does look iffy in a Ancestry tree but you may find that the marriage is the correct one, and the tree owner has a will or other record saying so.I had one of these, a couple from Berwick-on-Tweed and Newcastle-upon-Tyne married at St James Picadilly in 1788. Originally I had a FHS transcription only but it did match the unusually spelled surnames so I had it as a possibility. I also knew the couple were from relatively wealthy families & ST James was a fashionable place to get married, it still seemed like an awful long way to travel. Then I researched the grooms older brother & found he was an established & wealthy business owner in Soho & the final clincher was finding a copy of the marriage licence.
In 1729 my ancestor living in Gt Bentley, Essex seemed to be from Chiswick, Middlesex originally. Her will linked her to the Masters family of Chiswick. She wed her husband in Merton, Surrey, about 60 miles from NE Essex. Proves how people did move around more than we give them credit for.
Wills are a godsend. I always trace the witnesses to the wills as well. Often they were the parish clerk or a local pillar of the community but they could be relatives as well, in laws etc to the testator or cousins.........
I do use Ancestry trees as inspiration, like many of us do.
Wills are a godsend. I always trace the witnesses to the wills as well. Often they were the parish clerk or a local pillar of the community but they could be relatives as well, in laws etc to the testator or cousins.........
I do use Ancestry trees as inspiration, like many of us do.
I have found witness to marriages a great help too. With a couple of my older marriages in 2 or 3 generations the same name appeared with same surname as the female which was a great help. Land records helped too discovering 3 x step grandmothers relatives, as when she and family emigrated 1820 the land in her husbands possession which came from his first wife's family was taken over by a man with same surname as her maiden name. This opened a lot of doors. Would have been even better with a 1821/1831 census ??? but 1841 did help a bit.
just before civil reg begun which at least collected more info[/i]) witnesses to wedding are the best help if tracing elusive ancestors but you then get a kick in the teeth when you find the witnesses also witnessed the other 6 or 8 weddings on the same page and realise they were regular witnesses. I suppose we do expect too much with genealogy at times. The more records that are online, the better. Some may say that it may not be the same as actually being in a record office looking at film/fiche but at least you can do it without being told "one fiche at a time please" or "you have to put that bottle of water in the locker", or handling microfilm/fiche machines that are stiff, or the film has been rewound upside down, I have had plenty of those. Genealogy is a big hobby now and many people live hundreds or thousands of miles from where their ancestors lived.I'm hearing you with this. Try genealogical research from Australia. Gone are the days of going to the local LDS family history centre to look at microfilms ordered in, only to not find what you'd hoped. I do miss the camaraderie with fellow researchers, but not the narrow opening hours.
Aha, the good old post burial baptism :)
One of mine was able to vote in West Yorkshire 200 years after death ::)
Proxy votes are allowed.One of mine was able to vote in West Yorkshire 200 years after death ::)
In person or with a postal vote? :)
One of mine was able to vote in West Yorkshire 200 years after death ::)
In person or with a postal vote? :)
Who would know?One of mine was able to vote in West Yorkshire 200 years after death ::)
In person or with a postal vote? :)
Reminds me of a thought that had crossed my mind in the past. What happens if some one dies between posting their postal vote off and the actual election day.
Is marrying the same person 3 times bigamy?I calculate it as trigamy. ;D
Is marrying the same person 3 times bigamy?I calculate it as trigamy. ;D
Reminds me of a story of impersonation of a deceased voter at an election. Culprit's defence was that he knew which candidate the elector would have voted for if he'd survived so he was only carrying out the deceased person's wishes.
Mine may have been from an Irish election too. (Allegedly)Reminds me of a story of impersonation of a deceased voter at an election. Culprit's defence was that he knew which candidate the elector would have voted for if he'd survived so he was only carrying out the deceased person's wishes.
Which reminds me of the (alleged) Irish election motto: Vote Early, Vote Often ..... :o
Born in Suffolk, England in 1701, baptised in Essex, Massachusetts USA a mere 3 days later, married in Suffolk, England in 1725. A widower by 1780. Married again in 1820 aged 119 in Suffolk, England, and died in 1837 in Salem, USA aged 136. Many Anc trees with such people.It's even better when they have sources.
Born in Suffolk, England in 1701, baptised in Essex, Massachusetts USA a mere 3 days later, married in Suffolk, England in 1725. A widower by 1780. Married again in 1820 aged 119 in Suffolk, England, and died in 1837 in Salem, USA aged 136. Many Anc trees with such people.The thing is I don't think people can be that stupid - but Ancestry's 'hints' algorithm can be >:( ::) ???.
I agree, it is the lack of thinking “is this possible?”. The place name issue is partially down to the way Ancestry completes what it sees as incomplete locations entered by users. However once done people perhaps just move on to the free person for their tree, again lack of look and think.Born in Suffolk, England in 1701, baptised in Essex, Massachusetts USA a mere 3 days later, married in Suffolk, England in 1725. A widower by 1780. Married again in 1820 aged 119 in Suffolk, England, and died in 1837 in Salem, USA aged 136. Many Anc trees with such people.The thing is I don't think people can be that stupid - but Ancestry's 'hints' algorithm can be >:( ::) ???.
The place name issue is partially down to the way Ancestry completes what it sees as incomplete locations entered by users.
for Hinckley Leicester/ Warwicks read America -- why not
xin
for Hinckley Leicester/ Warwicks read America -- why not
xin
Which we all know should be Hinckley, Leicestershire, England
The probability is that someone just typed Hinckley
Ancestry are not at blame, they needed a standard. Perhaps making their expectations a little more obvious would have helped, however as I said a few posts back "it is the lack of thinking “is this possible?”"for Hinckley Leicester/ Warwicks read America -- why not
xin
Which we all know should be Hinckley, Leicestershire, England
The probability is that someone just typed Hinckley
Yes!!! And if you type Cowes - you might get Cowes, Isle of Wight, or Cowes, Phillip Island (Australia). Howick = Northumberland, Kwa-Zulu Natal, or New Zealand? Melbourne, Derbyshire, or Australia. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
We all know what WE mean, but how do we ensure that the internet knows? :-\
Unfortunately not everyone is a mind-reader, and we shouldn't blindly blame Ancestry or any other on-line facility :-X
Ancestry are not at blame, they needed a standard. Perhaps making their expectations a little more obvious would have helped, however as I said a few posts back "it is the lack of thinking “is this possible?”"for Hinckley Leicester/ Warwicks read America -- why not
xin
Which we all know should be Hinckley, Leicestershire, England
The probability is that someone just typed Hinckley
Yes!!! And if you type Cowes - you might get Cowes, Isle of Wight, or Cowes, Phillip Island (Australia). Howick = Northumberland, Kwa-Zulu Natal, or New Zealand? Melbourne, Derbyshire, or Australia. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
We all know what WE mean, but how do we ensure that the internet knows? :-\
Unfortunately not everyone is a mind-reader, and we shouldn't blindly blame Ancestry or any other on-line facility :-X
Offline in FTM everything looks fine, it was only when I looked at my tree online that the place name issue became apparent. It is quite likely that other FTM users never look at their trree online and wouldn't see the odd results.
I partly disagree. Whilst any algorithm to generate hints will throw up hints that are wrong I think there should be something programmed into the algorithm to discard hints that are completely impossible such as someone marrying at ag greater than 150, buried before they die, having children before they are born etc. I'm not trying to suggest that researchers shouldn't double check and verify because absolutely they should but the number of absurd hints is ridiculous
The worst part is that they refuse to believe that their gazetteer is not comprehensive and correct. When you point out problems, their attitude is straight denial.
They do not provide any means of getting their gazetteer database corrected. It has serious errors and omissions, but Ancestry refuse to believe this.
This, coupled with the website's failure to parse perfectly valid addresses correctly, causes a LARGE proportion of the place name stupidities we see.
I am going through all my research to ensure I have fished them out of the pond by putting ENGLAND ----- on all addresses.. so many I had left as just Hinckley Leicester and they were swimming..You can do a global change if you are using FTM, not sure if the facility exists for online trees.
xin
It's not just Ancestry that has outdated geographical locations, familysearch doescas well. If you use their catalog to locate digital images, sometimes you need to know older names for places, or alternative spellings.The local government reorganisation in 1974 did not move places to different counties, it just placed them in different organisational units.
The local government reorganisation in 1974 did not move places to different counties, it just placed them in different organisational units.
I complained that they had assigned Birmingham to Yorkshire, West Riding. They told me that I had to understand that boundaries move over time.;D
I complained that they had assigned Birmingham to Yorkshire, West Riding. They told me that I had to understand that boundaries move over time.Yep, those tectonic plates were really moving that day! ;D
I complained that they had assigned Birmingham to Yorkshire, West Riding. They told me that I had to understand that boundaries move over time.Does that mean a Brummagen accent can now be re-classified as Yorkshire dialect?
The local government reorganisation in 1974 did not move places to different counties, it just placed them in different organisational units.
Not quite true. In my part of the world, Warrington is an ancient town, always on the north bank of the Mersey and therefore originally in Lancashire. Authority decided that it really belongs in Cheshire, a daft decision because that county has been largely non-industrial while southern Lancs became a mess of mining and industry long ago - including Warrington, which just avoided becoming part of Greater Manchester.
In any case a main river is a natural boundary, so why mess about? Runcorn + Widnes = Halton (or Widcorn); Halton, the unitary authority, took its name from a Norman castle on the south side of the river.
When I drive along the A420 I leave Wiltshire and enter Oxfordshire. It used to be Berkshire, so how is this just administrative ?Sorry but which village / town are you referring to?
The local government reorganisation in 1974 did not move places to different counties, it just placed them in different organisational units.
Not quite true. In my part of the world, Warrington is an ancient town, always on the north bank of the Mersey and therefore originally in Lancashire. Authority decided that it really belongs in Cheshire, a daft decision because that county has been largely non-industrial while southern Lancs became a mess of mining and industry long ago - including Warrington, which just avoided becoming part of Greater Manchester.
In any case a main river is a natural boundary, so why mess about? Runcorn + Widnes = Halton (or Widcorn); Halton, the unitary authority, took its name from a Norman castle on the south side of the river.
County boundaries had barely changed for centuries until the Local Government Act 1972 which came into effect in 1974. The changes were, in theory, partially designed to reduce administrative costs.
Not sure about the Thames being at Shrivenham, wasn't when I grew up.I didn't say it was, the comment was "The historical northern boundary for Berkshire had been the River Thames but for the new efficient administrative reasons it changed hands."
I have been trying to find an pre 1970 map that clearly shows country boundaries and so far have failed.
Some people can be a bit confused by dates before 1751 or 1752 when the New Year changed from 25th March (or 26th March) to 1st January.
26th March 1722 to 25th March 1722 was the start and end dates of 1722. So January 1722 was the 10th month of the year. So October 1722 was the 7th month of the year.
I have even come across parish registers which used this format, showing that the confusion is not a new thing.
Presumably, part of that year was known as 1733, but perhaps not ;D.I have even come across parish registers which used this format, showing that the confusion is not a new thing.
I have transcribed a few. Sometimes one comes across something like 21 November 1733/34, which makes little sense as November will always be in the same 'logical' year. So what does it mean?
Too much holy winecwhile filling out the register? ::)I have even come across parish registers which used this format, showing that the confusion is not a new thing.
I have transcribed a few. Sometimes one comes across something like 21 November 1733/34, which makes little sense as November will always be in the same 'logical' year. So what does it mean?
Words almost fail me2 sources!
Edward
There are some parishes that have changed counties. Along the Devon/Dorset border, and along the Gloucestershire/Wiltshire border are two that I am aware of. And wasn't Bournemouth in Hampshire at one point?
I use Google Earth a lot, (the free to download version for PC's). I find it very helpful to track distances between places.I wouldn't put too much store in Google Earth for accuracy. There have been many complaints here in Australia from tourists using it. Both in terms of distance and actual accuracy on their maps.
I looked for an alternate route recently using Google maps and ended up on a dirt track to nowhere. Yet the map said it was a road right through.
Dirt tracks aren't really a problem just Google Maps telling me it went right through instead ending up in a paddock.I looked for an alternate route recently using Google maps and ended up on a dirt track to nowhere. Yet the map said it was a road right through.
Try the Great Central Road, Geraldton to Townsville. The middle section makes dirt tracks look luxurious, and it certainly feels like it's going nowhere :D
Carol
Re Edward's reply #384, baptism 420 years after birth. I'll raise you 200 years. ;D A tree I saw this week - woman born shortly before 1300; baptism 1934. The baptism was LDS (Mormon) so there is no suggestion that the person was present at the ceremony.
Curious that the man in Edward's post remained in Suffolk all his life and only went to Cambridge for his post-mortem baptism. I wonder what was happening in Manea, Cambridge in 1830?
I`m trying to focus in on my two parents` families first, and would be interested to know more about how you got hold of Wills etc.I suggest you post a general enquiry about wills on either Family History Beginner's board or The Common Room. As snowqueen said, advice depends on when and where and whether a testator had property in more than one jurisdiction.
Oh dear.
When I see someone baptised a year before they were born and impossible differences, I wonder why.
When I see someone baptised a year before they were born and impossible differences, I wonder why.
Family tree on another site - not Anc. A woman buried the day before she died. :o A quick look at parish register showed 2 women with same name buried in the parish a few days apart - 1st a spinster, 2nd, (correct one) a widow. Same tree - woman's grandson buried a month after death. ??? Again the parish register revealed burials of 2 individuals with same name within a few weeks, 1st was a child or minor, so the person in question was obviously the 2nd burial.Those examples are a too common fault unfortunately. Too many inexperienced (lazy?) researchers look at an online record without looking at the original image.
Yes very plausible:- an approximate Birth year intially taken from a Census or Burial record (before obtaining the actual Birth Certificate) and leaving both year dates on a Tree.It also can depend on what happened when registered. For example with my grandmother, the informant for her birth was the attending midwife/nurse and she didn't like the name her mother gave her so registered her as Henrietta. Her mother had to get it changed when she saw it like that.
My Irish grandmother's date of birth is different in baptism register to civil birth registration. D.o.b. in baptism register was a few days before baptism so I consider that is more likely to be correct than the birth registration several weeks later. Her father probably registered her birth when he was in town for the market and was likely more concerned about the price of pigs than the particular date his daughter was born. One of her younger sisters doesn't seem to have been registered. He also neglected to buy a dog licence and was fined.I was looking at baptism and birth registration of the only one of her sisters whose birth was registered. Different dates of birth in baptism register and civil register. Birth of youngest sister wasn't registered.
Cumberland and Westmorland no longer exist except as historical entities.True.
Cumberland and Westmorland no longer exist except as historical entities.True.
But as almost all the records you need for family history were made before the abolition in 1975, you need to use the historic counties, not the trendy new boundaries.
Banff is in Banffshire. Not in Aberdeenshire. End of.
I believe that technically the new boundaries define administrative areas rather than 'real' counties.
But as almost all the records you need for family history were made before the abolition in 1975, you need to use the historic counties, not the trendy new boundaries.
I believe that technically the new boundaries define administrative areas rather than 'real' counties.
But as almost all the records you need for family history were made before the abolition in 1975, you need to use the historic counties, not the trendy new boundaries.
Edward
I am so fed up with so many of Ancestry Trees being nothing more than wishful thinking that I very rarely delve into them.
Last straw was a relatives who were born, raised, married and died in the same Town, do many Ancestry Trees reflect this? No, they have the husband as being born in a town 40 miles away from where the wife was born despite the census returns showing them both born in the same town.
I just do not get how people grab at the first search results instead of having multiple verifications.
Calgary in MullHow about California in Falkirk, Ireland in Bedfordshire and Wales in Yorkshire?
Jane :-)
Moscow in Ayrshire
I am so fed up with so many of Ancestry Trees being nothing more than wishful thinking that I very rarely delve into them.
Last straw was a relatives who were born, raised, married and died in the same Town, do many Ancestry Trees reflect this? No, they have the husband as being born in a town 40 miles away from where the wife was born despite the census returns showing them both born in the same town.
I just do not get how people grab at the first search results instead of having multiple verifications.
In the past there have been people on here who openly admitted to putting "rubbish" on their trees so that anyone copying it would get just that, rubbish!
And these are people who are meant to have an interest in genealogy, or at least you would have thought so if they visit a site like this.
A******y defaults to Kilsyth, Stirlingshire, Scotland. I am sure that there were some comments on this a few pages back but they do seem to go with the proper Counties rather than the modern administrative ones.
I have several ancestors born in Kilsyth in Scotland. I record it as Kilsyth, Stirlingshire although today Kilsyth is controlled by North Lanarkshire Council. I have kept it as Stirlingshire because that is what it was considered to be under at the time they lived there.Perfectly correct. I also use the historic counties, ignoring completely the current local authority boundaries which have been changed several times in the last 45 years.
But I think that these places do actually exist.Yes, all of the ones I listed do exist.
The owner of the tree that the recent snip came from has so much right and I admit to using their thoughts as a basis for further excavations. Much is correct but they never add sources, so I wonder where they acquired the data or copied it from. No circular A******y sources.
Well in the interests of accuracy I think if I were to record an even happening in Kilsyth today I'd put North Lanarkshire as that is what it comes under today.The historic counties have been neither abolished nor altered. They still exist exactly as they did before the introduction of the first lot of new local authority boundaries in 1975. The only difference is that they are now also called ceremonial counties, and the counties and local authorities no longer have matching boundaries.
Maybe a good idea to have an entry for a fictional ancestor on your tree with impossible B M & D information. Then you'll know if somebody copies it.
n the past there have been people on here who openly admitted to putting "rubbish" on their trees so that anyone copying it would get just that, rubbish!
And these are people who are meant to have an interest in genealogy, or at least you would have thought so if they visit a site like this.
Easier to make it private.Happy to provide information if I am asked.
I see my (public) Ancestry tree as a kind of net, fishing for possible connections.I also have a 'fishing' tree online at FamilySearch, which includes basic data only for my direct ancestors.
I also have a 'fishing' tree online at FamilySearch, which includes basic data only for my direct ancestors.My concern with Family Search, is the total lack of control over the tree - at least on Ancestry I can control those with editing permission, currently only me.
I sometimes use Scotland's people for me research but don't know how to transfer and show source on an entry so it probably looks unresearched and I have copied records from others which I have seen but these are people who I'm in contact with and we have agreed to share information
I also have a problem with computers and when have option of attaching to a person on my tree it sometimes goes to a cousin or parent with same name which.makes tree impossible .I have to remember to double check and cancel
I am very grateful if anyone points out errors
I free type the info from the SP Certificates, I guess that makes it look like I've made it up but I haven't. The majority of people in my tree are Scottish so I have a lot of data from SP.I also type the details, including the reference (District/year/RD/No - so any future researcher can easily follow it up) directly into my notes.
I free type the info from the SP Certificates, I guess that makes it look like I've made it up but I haven't. The majority of people in my tree are Scottish so I have a lot of data from SP.I also type the details, including the reference (District/year/RD/No - so any future researcher can easily follow it up) directly into my notes.
When I started out with this 36 years ago, this was the only way to get information. There were no digital images or computerised indexes, so you just had to find the certificate or census and copy out the details.
You still have to transcribe information from births less than 100 years ago, marriages less than 75 years ago and deaths less than 50 years ago, so it is not possible to get either digital images or print-outs of all certificates and censuses anyway, so I didn't see the point in collecting them. (Couldn't have stored tens of thousands of sheets of paper anyway!)
And if I did decide to go back to SP and download images of all the post-1855 certificates available for people in my tree (7521 births, 5163 deaths, 2484 marriages) that I have already seen it would cost me well over £22,000. And that is only for Scotland, and doesn't include pre-1855 baptisms and banns, or any of the census.
I don't think that reluctance to shell out that sort of money for information I already have to hand is 'stingy'. I'd rather say 'prudent' or 'thrifty' :)
It didn't cost me anything like that, of course, because not only did I collect much of it in New Register House/Scotland's People Centre, but in the good old days it used to be possible to make an appointment with a Registrar, and be let loose in their strong room where all the books were stored, and just leaf through the book and make notes (in pencil, of course). That is no longer allowed. You have to be supervised at £20 per hour now, so it's much cheaper to use an SP centre at £15 per day.