RootsChat.Com

General => The Common Room => Topic started by: reynolds_1979 on Saturday 20 April 19 12:36 BST (UK)

Title: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: reynolds_1979 on Saturday 20 April 19 12:36 BST (UK)
I am sure this has been discussed and talked about till the cows come home. However I need to vent.

I am tidying up some 1st cousins 4 x removed, so not close family. I had the usual 'Ancestry Member Tree' hint. I always click to see how information compares and if I see something that I think may be interesting or correct I'll go away and research it properly and see if it fits. Anyway, this tree had the "William Reynolds' I was working on, same date and place of birth. The same two census I had found 1861 and 1871 and then, which is what surprised me, His 'possible arrival' (that was actually written on the profile) on the 6th Mar 1871 in Australia along with a death in Australia in 1875. That struck me as odd, so I checked the date of the census that year and of course it was on the 2nd April after 'William's arrival'.

Now this tree has over 5000 people on it and it isn't, what I term, a dead profile (someone who hasn't logged on for a year or two. The tree owner was online 2 days ago. 

How difficult is it to just take 5 mins to actually research this stuff properly, even if the person is an extremely distant relative and has been dead for 150 years? This duff research has already been copied once by another half baked tree, so inevitably will be again.

I have seen this so many times before, as I am sure lots of people have, and never done anything about it. However today I had to leave a comment explaining that the profile was information was a confusion or more than one William Reynolds.

It is so frustrating that this happens!

If anyone has gotten this far. Have a lovely day. The sun is out (in the South East of England at least) which always helps.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Knight-Sunderland on Saturday 20 April 19 12:45 BST (UK)
I have had this experience 100x over.

I have given up trying to correct the trees that are incorrect, it appears to have no impact.

Ancestry Hints can make things a lot easier for researchers, as long as they are used carefully and treat with extreme caution. However not many people seem to use them in that way and just accept them as fact instantly, no matter how bizarre they might seem.

The other day I was on a tree that had a gentleman born in 1605 with an 1841 Census record attached. Should one laugh or cry at this? I can't tell anymore!
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: hallmark on Saturday 20 April 19 12:47 BST (UK)



100's of posts on the subject!







Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Marmalady on Saturday 20 April 19 13:05 BST (UK)
I had one the other day where one poor lady had her last child at the age of 95!!!
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: pharmaT on Saturday 20 April 19 13:22 BST (UK)
I can't see the point in getting worked up about someone else's tree unless they've posted details about a living person (I'm deceased on an Ancestry tree).  I wouldn't waste my time correcting someone.  I'd consider if they contacted me but otherwise at best pointless, at worst opening yourself up to abuse.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: M.Ann on Wednesday 24 April 19 00:00 BST (UK)
I think its experience and its very easy to get the wrong family embedded into your research and people do make mistakes particularly with names that are common. The census is a good place to start but you have to introduce proof at some point and that may mean buying certificates.
The Ancestry links are just suggestions and should never be accepted as correct.
Another thing..unless you really know and other criteria fits pre 1937 entries in Parish Registers..particularly early ones which are not formic should be taken with a pinch of salt if the name is a common one. Ive got back to 1750 for definite on my paternal line, but before that its less certain and I cant be sure..an American relative has taken the same tree back to the Normans. I couldnt agree that. As for Familysearch.com, again careful consideration is needed.
No point in getting annoyed. The satisfaction in this hobby is that you do your own research. Sometimes other peoples is useful and thats a bonus..and you can add to theirs. Also how far you want to go? Why build trees of 5000 people, whats the point in that? Its like having 5000 friends on facebook. Daft, its a bit ASD. Id rather build a new tree for someone else..and get it right!
Further. Its an absolute no no to put living people into publically viewable family trees posted on to genealogy sites, in many cases they wont know they are on there or even know you if you put them there. Wrong. Its also very easy for people to extend those trees into tracing living relatives by using GRO indexes and free BMD and then People Finding Services and Social Media. My facebook page is locked to people except who I invite as personal friends and family. I am as careful with my tree and the people on it. The problem is that there are very many silver haired people now who have taken up this what can be a time consuming hobby..so they dont do..or do it properly when they are working and they dont take enough care, to get things right and to safeguard living people.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: stevej60 on Wednesday 24 April 19 12:24 BST (UK)
My Gtx2 Grandfather William Henry Round b.Dudley around 1854 turns up on a good few Ancestry
trees as well as a few other site's,he must have been married a dozen times lived all over the country
and died a good few time's if they are to be believed,My brother tries to point out to those with any wrong
entries the error but one person got really upset and a bit shirty and told kim outright he was wrong
despite the fact we have cencus record's,certificate's and happen to be walking the earth thank's to him!
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: ansteynomad on Wednesday 24 April 19 12:51 BST (UK)
Some of the inaccuracies are frightening – and so easy to correct.  My 4 x great grandfather died in Philadelphia in 1857, having emigrated two years previously.  However, almost all the trees on Ancestry (except mine) have him dying in 1858 in Nottingham.  A simple purchase of the Certificate for the Nottingham death would show you that it is his three year old grandson.

The best one however, that I have found anyway, is the second husband of my mother’s friend who emigrated to the US.  he appears on an Ancestry tree, without his middle name, as his own twin brother!

Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Mart 'n' Al on Wednesday 24 April 19 13:48 BST (UK)
Perhaps we should start a hall of shame and inundate those people with helpful advice.

Martin

Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: pharmaT on Wednesday 24 April 19 14:25 BST (UK)
The satisfaction in this hobby is that you do your own research. Sometimes other peoples is useful and thats a bonus..and you can add to theirs. Also how far you want to go? Why build trees of 5000 people, whats the point in that? Its like having 5000 friends on facebook. Daft, its a bit ASD. Id rather build a new tree for someone else..and get it right!
Further. Its an absolute no no to put living people into publically viewable family trees posted on to genealogy sites, in many cases they wont know they are on there or even know you if you put them there. Wrong. Its also very easy for people to extend those trees into tracing living relatives by using GRO indexes and free BMD and then People Finding Services and Social Media.

I have roughly 6500 people on mine.  I can honestly say that any mistakes in there are not due to me not caring, not try or not applying due diligence.  I am researching both my line and the paternal lines of both my daughters.  I am working through each generation now and finding the siblings in each generation.  I am doing this as, to me, how many children and siblings my ancestors had are part of their life and this hobby to me is finding out about their lives as well as their names.  I have also sought deaths, marriages and children for each of them where appropriate.  This is very much a work in progress and I have never claimed it to be anything but.  I am also fascinated by how diverse the descendants of one couple can be.


I have also found that researching siblings can help solve mysteries for my direct ancestors.  For example, my 4x grt grandmother was widowed and left struggling as they had lived in a tied house.  Then next census she is living in a nice cottage as an annuitant.  Mystery solved in researching my 4x grt uncle.  She was awarded his army pension when he was killed in Afghanistan and awarded a posthumous medal.  Then there was my 3x Grt Grandfather Pratt, on all census returns born in England, no specifics.  One of my 3x grt uncles (his son) was born in 1855 which meant his birth certificate gave his parents' places of birth.  I am confident he was my 3x grt uncle and not someone else with the same surname because his name and age fitted with the census, I had births for 3 other siblings matching the census and their parents' place and date of marriage matched.  My grt grt grandfather was born pre 1855 but the parents names (including middle names) match those listed on my grt grt grandfather's marriage and death certificates.  Additionally the address on the census closest to the marriage matched the address from which he got married.

A good number of these 6500 people are the in-laws of my aunts and uncles (and great, great great and so on).  The majority of my family lived in Scotland so all the post 1855 marriage records have both parents of the bride and groom named where known.  I always record all the details on the marriage certificates and record on my tree that these are the parents according to the marriage.   I do not research them any further as they are not my blood relatives and I am well aware that people did lie or had wrong information themselves.  I don't see and issue with this as I record that these are the parents according to the marriage certificate.  For me it helps identify for example which John Smith Great Auntie Mary married.

Here's an illustration of how the numbers add up.  I have myself, children and 1st and 2nd husbands on my tree making 5 people, parents for the 3 adults making 11, 6 siblings my generation making 17, 5 of them married making 32 (because parents were noted). Then 35 siblings in parents generation making 67, 32 marriages between them 124, 84 children between them making 208.  I'm sure you get the picture.  I have either the birth record or a photocopy of the birth for all of them and marriage and death certificates where relevant.


I cannot tell you how many sources I have as I had never counted.  I started making a comprehansive list of all my sources a couple of days ago and it will take some time I am only up to source 92.  What I can categorically say is not one of my references is a tree from Ancestry, family search or similar.  I do have a couple of entries in published pedigrees for people in my tree who were awarded titles but none of those is the sole source for the data they evidence.  I work on the premise that there is no such thing as too much evidence while keeping in mind that there may be very limited surviving evidence for some people.  My sources include:  birth, death and marriage certificates; 1939 register, census returns (1841-1911), parish records of baptism, marriage and burial, newspaper obituaries, birth, engagement and marriage annoucements, Indian medical service employee records, wills, probate callander entries, funeral invitation cards, historic undertaker itemised receipts, university admissions records, university graduation records, family letters (from as far back as 1790s), monumetal inscriptions, CWGC entries, service returns, land registry entries, newspaper stories about events my ancestors were involved in, invitations that had been maintained by family family bible (completely cross referenced with BDM records), court transcripts.  This is not exhaustive this is just what I can remember off the top of my head.




Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: CarolA3 on Wednesday 24 April 19 15:41 BST (UK)
The problem is that there are very many silver haired people now who have taken up this what can be a time consuming hobby..so they dont do..or do it properly when they are working and they dont take enough care, to get things right and to safeguard living people.

Errrrrrrrr, ok.  Thanks for sharing your views on the obvious incompetence of most members of this site.  As part of the alleged 'problem' myself, could I ask you please to cite your sources in support of this breathtaking generalisation?

Or are you just trying to wind people up ::)

Carol
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: pharmaT on Wednesday 24 April 19 15:48 BST (UK)
Thought I'd better add my tree is both private and non-searchable meaning that none of my entries will show up as either hints or on a search.  I do have a small public, skeleton tree of direct line with names and only rough dates that I have attached to my DNA results.  That does not contain any details of any collateral lines, or details of any living people.  other than connecting to my screen name for people to contact me if they wish. 

I am also not silver haired btw, well a couple of greys starting to show, I am perfectly capable of using a computer.  I will get back to everyone when I have finished cataloguing my sources but as I said in my previous post it will take some time.

Oh and I do know that you can edit posts but adding extra info to my earlier post would have taken me over the character limit. 
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Finley 1 on Wednesday 24 April 19 17:06 BST (UK)
Vesuvius is calm again

:)

xin
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: CarolA3 on Wednesday 24 April 19 17:19 BST (UK)
Hi Xin :)

Let's see if the poster can offer any justification; I've asked for the evidence.

Or maybe it's just an attempt at humour :-\

Carol
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Finley 1 on Wednesday 24 April 19 17:29 BST (UK)
You are a much better person than I xxxx bless you 

I do tend to Erupt these days.. must be an age thing..


So yes lets go with your calmness ......... and breathe...... i
t is good to do so after all :) :)

xin
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: oldohiohome on Wednesday 24 April 19 19:14 BST (UK)
The problem is that there are very many silver haired people now who have taken up this what can be a time consuming hobby..so they dont do..or do it properly when they are working and they dont take enough care, to get things right and to safeguard living people.
and here I was blaming all the younger people :)
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Top-of-the-hill on Wednesday 24 April 19 19:35 BST (UK)
   I wasn't silver haired when I started, quite young, in fact!
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Kimbrey on Thursday 25 April 19 09:22 BST (UK)
On reading the sweeping comment on "silver haired people" my reaction was the same as CarolA3 and I promptely typed out a caustic reply, but decided to delete it and  remember the 30 years ago,  less "silver haired" me chasing around Record Offices,before so much was available on-line ;D

Kim
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Finley 1 on Thursday 25 April 19 13:21 BST (UK)
 ;D

ditto Kim

 :D
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: coombs on Thursday 25 April 19 13:48 BST (UK)
It may be no use venting as it will not change peoples trees on Ancestry but it is still good to let of steam anyway. I have found someone born in 1490 baptised in 1846.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Gadget on Thursday 25 April 19 13:53 BST (UK)
I note that the member who complained about silver haired people has had considerable help from such members.

(I get my roots done about once every 5-6 weeks   ;D )
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Finley 1 on Thursday 25 April 19 14:03 BST (UK)
sorry did respond and then thought wtp

xin
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Sloe Gin on Thursday 25 April 19 15:02 BST (UK)
The problem is that there are very many silver haired people now who have taken up this what can be a time consuming hobby..so they dont do..or do it properly when they are working and they dont take enough care, to get things right and to safeguard living people.

 >:(
Watch it, dear, I still have two dragons. 
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/dragon-chase-smiley-emoticon.gif) (http://www.sherv.net/)
Regards
Daenerys Targaryen


PS You'll be pleased to know that there aren't too many people in my tree.  Although most of them appear many times over.   ;)
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: rayard on Thursday 25 April 19 15:03 BST (UK)
I missed the bit about being silver-haired.  Must be getting old and slapdash then!!
My relative had her tree "done" by a friend, she was so thrilled with it until I proved it was all totally wrong and no certificates had been used. She didn't know 3x gt grandmother was bigamous and 2x gt grandfather had married three times!
I don't put my tree online but I have given proven information to the relatives who asked for it.
rayard.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Nic. on Thursday 25 April 19 16:47 BST (UK)
Some of us were young when we started getting ‘silver hair’ I much prefer it to being told I’m growing grey.  My grandads full head of hair turned a snowy white while in his 40’s.  I’m still hoping to get that look.

I recently found a distant relative aged 2 on 1911 census with WW1 medal cards attached.

I also recently came across my great grandad on a tree supposedly a one name study.  He had the correct wife and children.  But the wrong parents and a mix of his siblings and others.

It’s not worth the energy correcting them.  Just smile and move on.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Gadget on Friday 26 April 19 11:39 BST (UK)
Give me strength!

I've just been looking (quickly) through a 22,000+ tree of a DNA match.  Early in the listing there is 'a Greek nun' who married Yaropolk I Kiev Knyaz of Russia (950-980). No dates for her but she had a son in 980.

I'm not sure that that is part of my line  ::)

Gadget
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Chilternbirder on Friday 26 April 19 12:03 BST (UK)
Some of us were young when we started getting ‘silver hair’ I much prefer it to being told I’m growing grey.  My grandads full head of hair turned a snowy white while in his 40’s.  I’m still hoping to get that look.

I recently found a distant relative aged 2 on 1911 census with WW1 medal cards attached.

I also recently came across my great grandad on a tree supposedly a one name study.  He had the correct wife and children.  But the wrong parents and a mix of his siblings and others.

It’s not worth the energy correcting them.  Just smile and move on.
Well I found my first grey hair at 19.

I found one tree that gave my grandmother a bigamous second marriage and set of half brothers and sisters for my mother.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: coombs on Friday 26 April 19 14:27 BST (UK)
The terrible trees on Ancestry are worsened by the "Was this helpful" pop-up thing at the bottom right hand corner when looking at name results in the Ancestry trees list. Same with the "need help" pop-up on FindMyPast that keeps reappearing even when I click the x button. They are teaching me to suck eggs. Maybe I can change my setting to stop these annoying pop ups which also can obscure links and text.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: munchies on Thursday 09 May 19 00:34 BST (UK)
I remember when I started doing family history research it involved actually travelling to a records office often for a full day to get the most out of it. searching through microfiches or church record books, cross referencing with census details checking dates, names, addresses parents names on marriage certificates. Especially when a relative called Thomas born in say 1790 had 13 children all of whom then called their eldest son Thomas  :o There was a lot of effort and cost getting all those marriage and birth certificates

Now you can lie in bed, click a button and add in something that looks like it fits possibly meaning to go back and verify it later it’s all got quite lazy.

I still need to have it on paper in front of me and visualise it for it to make sense. Once I have made sense though I love being able to add the detail to an ancestry tree with minimal effort.

Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: suedonym on Wednesday 29 May 19 18:02 BST (UK)
I have "Trees" on Ancestry.  There are a lot of erroneous entries, and it has caused me to pursue ancestors, that although they are correct, actually were the result of a marriage between a family ancestor that was incorrect.  It was his brother, whose tree went through to the Tyrrells, de Nevilles, Thomas Cramner, and right through to the 13th century.  There were even some Plantaganet kings, George Washington, and the Spencer branch of Sir Winston Spencer Churchill's family.  I put a lot of hours into this, until a birth certificate came up showing the wrong marriage, much earlier in the tree!  Thus causing everything to "move over" somewhat."  The air around me was a trifle blue for a while!  That's life - or should I be saying that on this site?
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: coombs on Wednesday 29 May 19 20:39 BST (UK)
I have "Trees" on Ancestry.  There are a lot of erroneous entries, and it has caused me to pursue ancestors, that although they are correct, actually were the result of a marriage between a family ancestor that was incorrect.  It was his brother, whose tree went through to the Tyrrells, de Nevilles, Thomas Cramner, and right through to the 13th century.  There were even some Plantaganet kings, George Washington, and the Spencer branch of Sir Winston Spencer Churchill's family.  I put a lot of hours into this, until a birth certificate came up showing the wrong marriage, much earlier in the tree!  Thus causing everything to "move over" somewhat."  The air around me was a trifle blue for a while!  That's life - or should I be saying that on this site?

So do you mean that the link back to royalty has been disproven, and there is still a connection but only through marriage?

Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: sarah on Thursday 30 May 19 10:54 BST (UK)
Message from Suedonyn who sent the message to me in error. The blue reply button is at the end of the topic Sue ;)


Yes.  My information came from now deceased relatives, which was misleading and sent me down the wrong path.  My funndings regarding family links to James Tyrrell. Thomas Cramner, etc. are correct, but the marriage of a Squires relative was wrong.  The marriage that started the tree to the Tyrrells was a marriage of the brother my my great grandfather.  It could be argued that his tree is in the family, but ouf course, the further down the line of descent one goes, the further away that branch of the family goes.  Interesting research that took me back to the 13th century.  Ancestry data goes back to the early part of the 16th century and no further unless the tree is of particular interest, as in the case of the Tyrrell family. and their relatives.  Hope this clarifies what I had said previously. 

I wish Ancestry monitored members' input more closely as their are so many very obviously inaccurate and unreailistic entries, such as the ssame marriages being repeatedly entered several times and women bearing children at age nine, etc.  The faked up coats of arms are annoying as they are so very obvious.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Mike in Cumbria on Thursday 30 May 19 13:17 BST (UK)
I wish Ancestry monitored members' input more closely as their are so many very obviously inaccurate and unreailistic entries, such as the ssame marriages being repeatedly entered several times and women bearing children at age nine, etc.  The faked up coats of arms are annoying as they are so very obvious.[/i]

Hi Sue, and welcome to Rootschat. If you think about it, it would be completely unrealistic for Ancestry staff to check people's trees for accuracy. They provide the resource, but it is up to individuals to do their own research and fact-checking. They could improve their algorithms, though, to prevent some of the more ridiculous hints being offered.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: pharmaT on Thursday 30 May 19 14:32 BST (UK)
Completely agree on the algorithms. Whilst we cannot expect the hints to definitely be the person we are looking for I really would like to see a major reduction in impossible hints.  Yesterday I had a hint for my gran. The hint is an entry in he 1895 electoral register under her married name.  She was born in 1896.  Then there was a 1961 electoral register hint for my grt grt grandfather who died in 1920. Both dates are on my tree.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Stanwix England on Saturday 01 June 19 12:35 BST (UK)
I do think that some of the blame for this, as others have said, lies at the feet of Ancestry. Impossible hints that don't make any sense come up all the time. The 'potential mother/father' new feature isn't great either.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Euphonium23 on Tuesday 02 July 19 07:24 BST (UK)
I'm glad to have found this subject. I was tracing my family and had obtained all the details of my grandmother's 12 siblings, including copies of each of their birth certificates, newspaper cuttings and WW1 records. But then I discovered other family trees with just some of the siblings and other people with the same surname registered in the same district who were nothing to do with my gran's immediate family. I messaged the two individuals with the correct details, but they neither acknowledged my messages or corrected their trees. I merely use other people's information as a guide that needs verifying.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: stitchwitch on Tuesday 02 July 19 20:10 BST (UK)
Yep, after my latest experience of trying to help someone sort out what he's done to his family tree, that's it, I'm done.

Like most of you, I followed one of those "other trees" hints out of curiosity. Up popped a section of my immediate paternal tree. Well, ish. First thing that caught my eye was that my mother had been deceased for over 20 years. This seemed particularly odd since we speak regularly and I visit every few weeks. Right name wrong woman. I emailed him.

Then I noticed that of my fathers four brothers, one was in twice and another three times. OK. Another email.

Then I spotted that Grandad's elder brother was also there twice. This was getting silly. I had a wander round his tree, climbed up and down it for a bit, and emailed asking what his connection was, saying where I fit in (he hadn't swiped me from anywhere because , clearly, I too am still extant), and suggesting he check his tree against mine and adjust accordingly. After all, apart from Great-Uncle Fred, all the ones he had a problem with were people I know/ knew personally.

What I got back were two emails with lists clearly generated by Ancestry, with few or no line breaks in. TLDNR but after a bit I fathomed out that the link was said Great-Uncle Fred's wife. Her side's not really interesting to me so I kicked it into the long grass. My decision was helped by his implication that I'd got them all wrong, since he does all his "research" on Ancestry alone, without recourse to other sources or (clearly) obtaining certificates. He appeared to doubt that I know whether my mother is interred down South or alive and kicking up in the Pennines. Really?

[potters off shaking head]

Stitch
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: pharmaT on Tuesday 02 July 19 23:26 BST (UK)
Doesn't surprise me since I couldn't even convince someone that I'm alive.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: stitchwitch on Tuesday 02 July 19 23:52 BST (UK)
Doesn't surprise me since I couldn't even convince someone that I'm alive.

ROTFL  ;D ??? ;D ;D
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: pinefamily on Wednesday 03 July 19 01:44 BST (UK)
Rootschat beyond the grave, pharmaT?
Any chance you could speak to some of my problem ancestors? ::)
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Nifty1 on Sunday 18 August 19 20:59 BST (UK)
I note that the member who complained about silver haired people has had considerable help from such members.

(I get my roots done about once every 5-6 weeks   ;D )


Ok. What else does one write about on roots chat?
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Rosinish on Monday 19 August 19 01:16 BST (UK)
I note that the member who complained about silver haired people has had considerable help from such members.

(I get my roots done about once every 5-6 weeks   ;D )

Ok. What else does one write about on roots chat?

It will be a Wig for me as I'm pulling my hair out with the errors I'm finding on trees which can easily be verified on SP!

Annie
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Gadget on Monday 19 August 19 11:20 BST (UK)
I've just found another one today (well more than one as the info has been copied by others).

I was looking for a cousin who we lost touch with and I had heard that she moved to Canada and died there about 10 years ago.  I did some searches on Ancestry and found her parents on various trees. This led me to the grandmother, my mother's sister.

Lo and behold other trees popped up in a listing; giving all my mother's siblings. Their detail seemed to correspond to more or less what I know. However, my mother was supposed to have married my father in the Isle of Man. She is recorded as dying in Cheshire in 2003 and Texas in 2005. Neither the dates nor places are correct.  My father's dates and locations are also wrong. 

These errors are then repeated in various combinations in 5 other trees.

I don't usually check Ancestry trees for my parents as I know about them and I  have all their registration certificates and baptism/marriage records.

I wonder where/when I will be registered as born, married and died in future trees  ???

Gadget
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Mart 'n' Al on Monday 19 August 19 11:56 BST (UK)
Firstly I am not expressing a view in this following comment, just pointing out a few things. Sometimes when I find a tree that has tens of thousands of people in it, I think is that person obsessed, or just copying other records, or possibly committed and well-organized. In another thread, I was saying that I recently realised that to make sense of some of the bizarre names I find amongst my 8000 matches on my heritage, I realised that I need to know all of the 5th generation descendants of my ancestors. At my age, a mere 62 I might add, I realise that it is impractical to discover all of these fifth descendants of my 5th great-grandparents. If I find somebody who has done a lot of research into the descendents of one of my ancestors, there is a strong argument for accepting their research.

I'm not trying to put the cat among the pigeons, just expressing two sides of a discussion.

Martin
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: RJ_Paton on Monday 19 August 19 12:37 BST (UK)
Firstly I am not expressing a view in this following comment, just pointing out a few things. Sometimes when I find a tree that has tens of thousands of people in it, I think is that person obsessed, or just copying other records, or possibly committed and well-organized. In another thread, I was saying that I recently realised that to make sense of some of the bizarre names I find amongst my 8000 matches on my heritage, I realised that I need to know all of the 5th generation descendants of my ancestors. At my age, a mere 62 I might add, I realise that it is impractical to discover all of these fifth descendants of my 5th great-grandparents. If I find somebody who has done a lot of research into the descendents of one of my ancestors, there is a strong argument for accepting their research.

I'm not trying to put the cat among the pigeons, just expressing two sides of a discussion.

Martin

There is nothing wrong in accepting the research done by another person PROVIDED you are confident that the research has been done well and can be verified although even then I would be double checking the sources.
For example one tree I have seen has one of my main lines back roughly 400 years more than I have managed to get and each individual appears well researched but when examined closely it breaks down when you see children born to parents in their 70's & 80's in 15th century Scotland and marriages where the bride was only weeks old. It then becomes simply a collection of named individuals with the same surname.
Another tree has that same line connected to a Mr & Mrs Odin of Valhalla with what appears numerous sources attached to every single individual - the majority of which I find very dubious. (either that or the God of Thunder is really  my great x50 uncle  ;D )
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: coombs on Monday 19 August 19 15:24 BST (UK)
Firstly I am not expressing a view in this following comment, just pointing out a few things. Sometimes when I find a tree that has tens of thousands of people in it, I think is that person obsessed, or just copying other records, or possibly committed and well-organized. In another thread, I was saying that I recently realised that to make sense of some of the bizarre names I find amongst my 8000 matches on my heritage, I realised that I need to know all of the 5th generation descendants of my ancestors. At my age, a mere 62 I might add, I realise that it is impractical to discover all of these fifth descendants of my 5th great-grandparents. If I find somebody who has done a lot of research into the descendents of one of my ancestors, there is a strong argument for accepting their research.

I'm not trying to put the cat among the pigeons, just expressing two sides of a discussion.

Martin

I always carefully examine timelines and any sources. As said, some of them just blatantly accept hints without checking them, a dangerous game. It starts people copying the trees and it leads to a vicious circle of erroneous trees. For example your ancestor was baptised in rural Cornwall as Joseph Bloggs, son of James and Elizabeth Bloggs in 1780, and an Ancestry hint has a James Bloggs wedding in 1790 (after the children's baptisms) to Elizabeth Smith, 300 miles away in Newcastle, and the tree user says "that is the best fit so it must be true.". And then a thorough researcher finds a marriage in 1775 in Cornwall in a nearby parish to where James' had his baptism in 1780.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: pinefamily on Tuesday 20 August 19 00:24 BST (UK)
That's a good point you have made, Martin. However, even a tree with sources needs at least some checking, as has been suggested. Otherwise, all of those trees linking the Dowdeswell family of Guiting Power to that of Temple Guiting would be correct. Most of them give the baptism as a source, they just haven't looked any further to find a corresponding burial, which rules out that child as their ancestor.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Andrew65 on Wednesday 21 August 19 07:49 BST (UK)
Some of the gross errors in trees (plenty of examples from previous posts) really are quite inexcusable.
Over the years I have become far more discerning about the information I put in my tree. I used to get quite frustrated with the errors, but then considered that it shows interest in maintaining and knowing ones history (even if it is wrong!) - and that cannot be all bad.
However I agree with Martins view that looking at trees with huge numbers of entries can sometimes be quite useful.
I have found that when reviewing and comparing trees on Ancestry, one little element of fact, or potential link I did not know, can send me down rabbit holes that ultimately lead me to changing details in my own tree that I had been convinced were correct, or to whole branches I was not aware of.
That is part of the joy and experience of this hobby.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Jill Eaton on Wednesday 21 August 19 12:51 BST (UK)

I have found that when reviewing and comparing trees on Ancestry, one little element of fact, or potential link I did not know, can send me down rabbit holes that ultimately lead me to changing details in my own tree that I had been convinced were correct, or to whole branches I was not aware of.
That is part of the joy and experience of this hobby.

This has happened to me and I pleased that I'd followed up on what originally looked like an error on someone else's tree.

This however, can be a two-edged sword. There is a tree on Ancestry that has a potential ancestor which we share. They have been thorough and added their sources. But one troubles me. It's a link to the 1861 census. The name of our ancestor is correct as is his wife and the ages are pretty close. However, there are two and potentially three, children that should also be there. They aren't.
The 1861 entry has his town of birth in Ireland and his occupation as a soldier-pensioner living in St Pancras, London. All this information would be a gift but I don't feel confident to follow it up. It's
possible that the children were left behind in Ireland but the youngest would be 2 years old at most. With no 1861 Ireland census to check, whilst there is a definite possibility that this might be my ancestor, spending time checking Kinsale parish registers and military records could lead me seriously astray.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: coombs on Thursday 22 August 19 14:23 BST (UK)
When there is an "alternative Birth" in a tree, that sets alarm bells ringing. I always check for myself anyway, especially when someone has a tree going back to kings and queens or links to famous people. It can still be peeving when you find the tree is erroneous and you are not related to your fave historical figure etc. It is natural to be excited when you think there is a link to historical figures but get miffed when it is disproven.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Rosinish on Friday 23 August 19 05:45 BST (UK)
I've come to the conclusion in the last few days...people don't only copy from others' trees but they don't know where to put the people they copy...

I found a tree y/day with a chap in my line who apparently had 3 wives...

I know the 2nd (supposed wife) was a wife of a son of said couple but I haven't had time to work out who the 3rd (supposed) wife was but I know for sure there was only 1 wife & I have all the certs.

Why on this earth if they don't have the interest needed, do they bother at all then wonder why they have 'brick walls'  ???

Annie
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Gadget on Saturday 24 August 19 16:58 BST (UK)
Not sure if this is the correct thread, but I've just done a tree search for a possible sister of a 3 x grt grandmother.

I entered

Sinah Tannat  - match slider to middle for surname
Born 1759 in Montgomeryshire, Wales - exact to place and +5 for birth date
I also included her husbands name  (Peter Foulks)

They gave me:

Pierre Antoine Dhondt
Born 1758 in Hem
Spouse - Amelie Joseph Bayart
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: RJ_Paton on Saturday 24 August 19 18:06 BST (UK)
Not sure if this is the correct thread, but I've just done a tree search for a possible sister of a 3 x grt grandmother.

I entered

Sinah Tannat  - match slider to middle for surname
Born 1759 in Montgomeryshire, Wales - exact to place and +5 for birth date
I also included her husbands name  (Peter Foulks)

They gave me:

Pierre Antoine Dhondt
Born 1758 in Hem
Spouse - Amelie Joseph Bayart

That would be close enough for some of them  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: pinefamily on Sunday 25 August 19 19:01 BST (UK)
So it would seem it's not just the trees that are terrible.
Interestingly, every time I check the "exact" box I get zero responses, even when I know there is one there.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Gadget on Monday 26 August 19 00:18 BST (UK)
I apologise.

I've just been updating my tree and Sinah is the possible sister of my 4th great grandmother, not my 3rd  :-X ;D
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Rosinish on Monday 26 August 19 02:09 BST (UK)
even a tree with sources needs at least some checking, as has been suggested.

My latest discovery has an attached 'marriage' which is an ancestry index i.e. no parent info.

Further rooting around & there's an actual SP marriage cert. (saved from another tree) not attached to the ancestor but in the 'Gallery' which provides both parents names as well as mothers maiden names...

All the info. needed yet she's attached generations of my family to her ancestor...

Her ancestor has same forename, circa same birth date/place with parents William & Catherine but the parents of my chap who are added to her tree are Dougald & Mary (only a slight difference)  ;D

All the info. there yet copying from elsewhere without checking the 'facts' in front of her  ???

Annie



Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: chris_49 on Monday 26 August 19 09:41 BST (UK)

Sinah Tannat  - match slider to middle for surname
Born 1759 in Montgomeryshire, Wales - exact to place and +5 for birth date



Hi Gadget

I'm astonished that there is a surname Tannat in Montgomeryshire, not just because my paternal grandfather's family are all from the Tanat valley but because location surnames from Wales are almost unheard of (you do find Cardiff but most of the other candidates have other origins - Newport, Knighton, Buckley etc come from places in England, Anglesea is Anglo-Saxon, Montgomery is Norman-French.)

FreeBMD finds a lot in England  as Tannatt that seems to be a variant of the commoner Dannatt/Dannett: itself derived from Daniel, Google tells me. But there is this isolated cluster around Oswestry and Mont (where Dannatt is unknown) and Tanat, Tannat and Tanatt are almost uniquely found. Do you know anything about this?

I also have a Sinah hereabouts - unusual name.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Gadget on Monday 26 August 19 10:45 BST (UK)
Obviously from the Tanat valley!  I've found various spellings of the surname - Tanat, Tanant, Tannat, Tannet, etc  Most of the ones I'm interested in are from Llansanffraid ym Mechain, Llanfechan and Guilsfield circa 1720-1800.

I've got a few Sinahs in my tree, Sinah Sandland from Orseddwen is my favourite :)



PS - my 4 x GM was 'of Oswestry' when she married by license in Shrewsbury.
Title: Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
Post by: Tasman1 on Friday 30 August 19 14:50 BST (UK)
Hi. Happens all the time. You post a new individual and it is  immediately copied to "COPIER X". I know who she is and removed my tree to Private, but not before she copied my picture of my GG'father's burial lair in Greenock Cemetry to Greenock America. I have long asked Ancestry why a simple algorithim would stop children born at 'x' year could have children born 'x'+10 years. Copying is just a lazy way of making a tree to impress who??????? Like others, I have given up worrying about nonsense purporting to be a family tree. All my stats have a valid SP BMD cert.