Ancestry "Hints" problem

[stevecw]

I've had a quick look but cannot find this problem raised before although I'm sure it's not unique to me, but does anyone else have a problem with Ancestry's "Hints" and other Users of Ancestry ?
For example, I've just spent time researching the Parish records and have added some further Ancestors to my Tree.
Hints linking those newies to other family trees show that one of my relatives father is down in this other person's Tree as her brother, and another Ancestor is shown as having two wives, nothing wrong with that except that the marriage dates for both are the same.
I'm getting the distinct impression that some Users are just adding names because they match, not because they are related.
This is very frustrating because it always raises the doubt in my mind: Am I wrong and does this other User have more reliable family history or are they just "filling up their Tree" because it looks good?

stevecw

[KGarrad]

I think you'll find that the majority of trees on Ancestry are completed by people simply collecting names.

Having made similar mistakes in the past, I now no longer rely on other peoples trees.
I want documentary proof before I add anyone to my tree!

What happens is that someone doesn't do proper (or any!) research, and creates an error on their tree.
Other people suddenly find links to that tree and copy the error without checking.
Then you find the same error in 8 trees!!

It takes so long to undo the errors that others trees have.

[mike175]

I don't think any serious researcher gives more than a passing glance to other people's trees on Ancestry these days. Usually they are worse than useless, often misleading in the extreme, and can result in months of work correcting/deleting data.

Even worse is to import someone's GEDCOM directly into your own tree, as I stupidly did in my early days . . . I still find the odd error from that among my data after several years.

In either case, if there is information that appears to relate to my family, I now create a separate file in my FT software to import the data so I can check it thoroughly before incorporating it in my main tree.

Mike.

[stevecw]

Thanks KGarrad, that's a relief, I'm only just finding this out for myself.
I've even emailed some of those involved to enquire about their sources/data and I think their total lack of response to my enquiry is due to their humiliation that they have been rumbled ! 

Very good point Mike, the problem is sorting out the good researchers from the "Point-Scorers" but as you quite rightly say, some of the errors are BLATANT!, you can even see some who haven't even bothered to check the predictive text before saving so you end up with a family member who died in Plymouth, U.S.A. instead of Plymouth U.K. 

stevecw

[KGarrad]

so you end up with a family member who died in Plymouth, U.S.A. instead of Plymouth U.K. 

I think that's another problem with Ancestry completely!
If the other person doesn't quote a country, when Ancestry provides a hint, it seems to default to some US address/county!

I KNOW where Devon is, but Ancestry thinks it is in New Hampshire!! 

Somebody even had my father married to his mother on their tree!!

[stevecw]

Somebody even had my father married to his mother on their tree!!

...The problem with what I'm finding out about my lot, is that I wouldn't totally dismiss that ! 

stevecw

[Nick29]

Sorry I disgree with most of your points, especially the comment that "the majority of trees on Ancestry are completed by people simply collecting names".  As with ALL data, the onus of checking that the data is correct lies with the person receiving the information, not the one giving it.  Yes, a lot of information posted on Ancestry is wrong, but it is the odd snippet which is correct, that can find a way through a brick wall that makes it all worthwhile.

With regard to people in the US putting in American counties instead of English ones, that is partly the fault of Ancestry themselves, because on the US website there used to be a drop-down box to enter counties, instead of text entry, and it was all too easy for people to select the wrong one.

And lastly.... everyone makes mistakes, including the people who filled in the census forms, and the enumerators who transcribed them.

P.S. If you don't want Ancestry hints, you can exclude a tree in database searches in the preferences section for that tree.

[KGarrad]

Sorry I disgree with most of your points, especially the comment that "the majority of trees on Ancestry are completed by people simply collecting names".  As with ALL data, the onus of checking that the data is correct lies with the person receiving the information, not the one giving it.  Yes, a lot of information posted on Ancestry is wrong, but it is the odd snippet which is correct, that can find a way through a brick wall that makes it all worthwhile.

With regard to people in the US putting in American counties instead of English ones, that is partly the fault of Ancestry themselves, because on the US website there used to be a drop-down box to enter counties, instead of text entry, and it was all too easy for people to select the wrong one.

And lastly.... everyone makes mistakes, including the people who filled in the census forms, and the enumerators who transcribed them.

P.S. If you don't want Ancestry hints, you can exclude a tree in database searches in the preferences section for that tree.

I agree that the onus is on the receiver of the data to make checks.
But that doesn't make my statement any less true! 

And I think you misunderstood what I said about counties.
I have looked at people's trees on Ancestry, and they have (for example) BMD info as "Plymouth, Devon".
The hints received from Ancestry, and the data when I want to incorporate that data into my own tree, will then say something like "Plymouth, Devon, Pennsylvania".

The only problem with the original data is that there is no country mentioned!
Or sometime no county either!!

[mike175]

... the onus of checking that the data is correct lies with the person receiving the information, not the one giving it.  

I couldn't agree more. My intention was not to criticise the tree owners (though I sometimes wonder why they bother at all if they are so careless about their research) but to help save others from learning the hard way as I did when I started out.  

Mike