RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Davedrave on Saturday 26 January 19 15:54 GMT (UK)
-
I have been looking at a few public family trees on Ancestry and am amazed by some of the glaring inaccuracies I’ve found. Several different trees show the same wrong ancestor, presumably a case of uncritical copying? In another instance, what seemed to be a more reliable tree (I found the original PR images and it made sense) has a woman who was 24 on marriage giving birth to 9 children over 37 years. The last real birth was in 1815. A final child was then born in 1834! In fact that child was baptised in a different county to parents with entirely different Christian names. I haven’t tried tree construction myself, preferring a narrative approach. Can errors like those I’ve encountered be introduced somehow accidentally?
-
There have been umpteen threads started on this topic!
Here’s a currently running example https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=800691.0
-
If you search these pages :) you will find so many more posts regarding 'haplass' ancestry trees......
they really should be ignored..
I know it can be helpful and I too have a quick peep... but when you see the copy - copy - copy syndrome.. stay away..
there are so many errors being made and then copied.... over and over.. i will put a link for you in a mo..
WELL DONE JEN you beat me to the link ;) ;D ;D
xin
-
Thanks. I just can’t see the point in putting nonsense in a tree. Any ancestors I’ve claimed are either well supported with documentation or I make it very clear when something is merely likely. I would imagine that this is the approach of people who use Rootschat, but what earthly point is there in doing otherwise? Any other approach seems a waste of time to all concerned.
Dave :)
-
its a game.. for some
xin
-
These people are usually "Name Collectors", who never check anything and just assume every tree they find is accurate!
They just want to maximise the number of ancestors, so they can boast of a tree containing 20,000 names!
-
Thanks for the warnings. I now know to steer well clear.
Dave :)
-
Thanks. I just can’t see the point in putting nonsense in a tree. Any ancestors I’ve claimed are either well supported with documentation or I make it very clear when something is merely likely. I would imagine that this is the approach of people who use Rootschat, but what earthly point is there in doing otherwise? Any other approach seems a waste of time to all concerned.
Dave :)
This type of thing used to bother me until I realized that most people use their online trees as their only genealogy database. Instead of having their full database on their computer at home, and putting only their proven, notated and sourced entries online, everything (except for the mandated cut-offs for privacy) goes online. This includes speculation, stuff they've copied, info they plan on double-checking some day, and so on. They're not putting it online as a means of publishing their research, or because they understand and want to adhere to genealogical standards, but because this is their only family tree software/vehicle and doing it this way works for them.
As for me, a great deal of my research was put online without my permission, and has now been copy/pasted a gazillion times, but I personally do not have any online trees because I like to prove everything before making it available to even one other person.
Different (keyboard) strokes for different folks. :)
Regards,
Josephine
-
I take the point about a work in progress but would it not be better then to keep it private? Just my thought.
Dave :)
-
I sometimes start extra private trees for branches which are work in progress
But prefer to.keep my main tree public so any dna matches can find connections even if their tree not open
I copy pictures and facts from cousins and distant relatives who ive been in contact with and give permission for them to copy mine .
At the moment i am adding Lithuanian records on a speculative basis because they are so difficult to find ...but i have put ' ?' And warnings in life story section ....using might /may/ probaby but dont know how many people read this
Many times speculations have lead to discoveries for example.not sure of parents but putting potentials in.leads to finding grandparents or uncles aunts which show definite or probable links to parents ....but i like to confirm with as many records as possible .
While searching for grandmothers birth father 10 years ago had 2 men with the appropriate surname i put the surname on my tree til found who the real.man was but it turned out the other man was her grandfather !
-
It's in part to blame because of these useless Ancestry 'hints' that suggest parents in different centuries or countries ::), or born after the child was born ??? ???.
-
Yes Melba why do they do that !
I put in a clear search with dates of birth and death and they auto suggest someone born 50 years after his death
May turn out to be a grandson tho !
When i started using the site and found someone in same family i used to share to my tree not realising that that persons details would then be used for their mother or brother or whoever
For example found Georges sister whilst searching for George shared to my tree but it came up as being his date and place of birth not hers uurgh
-
It's a constant problem.... I had one person who seemed to sit and wait for me to put some further info on to someone in my tree and then just copy it, photos, documents the lot.... had to make the tree private to stop them.
I have a tree branch as work in progress but that's private too.
I've taken Ancestry DNA test and as my tree is private probably won't get any contacts...
-
Caw you can put in a mini open tree with about 8 people on so that potential DNA matches can see which branch you are likely to connect to and of course you can contact them !
-
Caw you can put in a mini open tree with about 8 people on so that potential DNA matches can see which branch you are likely to connect to and of course you can contact them !
So are you saying I can create another tree to link to on ancestry even though it's already linked to my main tree?
-
You can create as many trees as you like .
I used to have one for mothers sides and one for fathers and took turns which to attach dna test.to .
Also i have copied pics from a relatve thinking she was the 1 who had given.me permission ..it did.occur to me that this could upset someone
But there is a privacy button for pics too. Like most things on internet once posted its public domain .
I do think pics liven up a tree .+ help show that relative is the right 1 ...unless people copy the wrong john smiths photo !!
By the way your profile pic is lovely ..who is that glamorous lady ?
-
How do you go about switching ancestry DNA tests from one tree to another... didn't realise you could do that!
My profile pic is my mother... she was a real stunner!
-
I cant quite remember how to switch dna to different trees and ancestry site keeps shutting down on me before i can try .
I think you go to create and manage trees option in the trees section top left corner button
Ive been on site all day and half afternoon updating tree with mums dna on it ...Ive added 80 people so hope we will get some matches ...Ive sent messages to some who match to lithuania and rhink im getting closer to finding our links on Russian grandfathers maternal side .
Also i think if i put in a surname on shared matches search they will come up as havinf that surname on their tree even if tree is closed. I.m looking for Landsman and Bloch names
-
These people are usually "Name Collectors", who never check anything and just assume every tree they find is accurate!
They just want to maximise the number of ancestors, so they can boast of a tree containing 20,000 names!
"Name Collectors" the archivists words for family historians and their excuse for making family historians wait at the end of the queue for records and not supplying records.
We used to have an archivist here in West Yorkshire who if he knew you were a genealogist you were not allowed in the archive.
There is no place for such insults in family history some of us have endured many years of discrimination at the hands of people with that mindset.
Cheers
Guy
-
FamilySearch has some glaring inconsistencies as well. I have several ancestors and relatives on my watchlist and I receive a weekly e-mail from FamilySearch informing me of any changes.
Recently I deleted a son that had been added. It had no sources and the son's name was John. They'd attached him as the son of my ancestor Robert and Robert's first wife. We descend from Robert's second wife and to the best of my knowledge Robert and his second wife didn't have a son named John and I very much doubt the first wife gave birth a decade and a half after her death.
I also detached a record of an event 150 years after Robert's death and in quite a different part of England.
-
FamilySearch has some glaring inconsistencies as well. I have several ancestors and relatives on my watchlist and I receive a weekly e-mail from FamilySearch informing me of any changes.
Recently I deleted a son that had been added. It had no sources and the son's name was John. They'd attached him as the son of my ancestor Robert and Robert's first wife. We descend from Robert's second wife and to the best of my knowledge Robert and his second wife didn't have a son named John and I very much doubt the first wife gave birth a decade and a half after her death.
I also detached a record of an event 150 years after Robert's death and in quite a different part of England.
Some years ago now, I was at our local LDS Family History Centre and a lady was uploading her family tree to Family Search. She said "I'm not very sure that I've got the correct wife/mother." Answer from LDS staff "It doesn't matter." :o :-X
-
These people are usually "Name Collectors", who never check anything and just assume every tree they find is accurate!
They just want to maximise the number of ancestors, so they can boast of a tree containing 20,000 names!
"Name Collectors" the archivists words for family historians and their excuse for making family historians wait at the end of the queue for records and not supplying records.
We used to have an archivist here in West Yorkshire who if he knew you were a genealogist you were not allowed in the archive.
There is no place for such insults in family history some of us have endured many years of discrimination at the hands of people with that mindset.
Cheers
Guy
When I visited my local record office I always put “social history” in the “purpose of research” section. I thought it less likely to attract the attention of one of the “overseers” who might have found a reason not to fish out an original C16th land document for a “mere” genealogy researcher. (Most of the staff at the archive were really helpful, just the odd one made me feel like a naughty schoolboy).
Dave :)