Copy-Cat "Genealogists" My greatest irritation!!! Do you agree???

[fairygrandma1]

  >


I am getting more and more disappointed in the people who call themselves genealogists when the majority of them these days are simply copy-cats who do NO actual research if it requires them leaving their comfy home study!

My main research was done between 1991-2003 and I have just returned to my research to find that the internet and genealogy have come ahead to form an incredible database. The records are absolutely amazing and, the fact that most are free to anyone who owns a computer, laptop or even a mobile phone is incredible!!

Unfortunately it has also created today's version of research...all you have to do is copy what you find on the web!!! Easy Peasey!!! No need to drive to the local LDS or Family History Centre and order any Parish Records, which costs a few measley dollars, and wait the usual 6 weeks for it to come in. Then having to book a film reader and, for a few hours, studiously scan each page for the particular record you are after...then repeat the process once again until you confirm or deny your findings, and add the rest of the clan at the same time!

No! Today you just cut straight to Ancestry family Trees and copy someone else's findings, then put them on-line as your own, taking full credit of course, because you did type it yourself! You might even check the Ancestry Search database to see if one or two of those records can be copied.

The fact that the majority of those original records have not been verified and may well be incorrect is of no importance! The fact that you found it on-line means it HAS to be true!

I have just checked 147 family trees, all for the same entry, and wouldn't you know it... all have EXACTLY the SAME records so I guess some-one might have been right! The ONLY sources that were quoted were Ancestry Family Tree!

Four tree submitters did their homework and checked Ancestry search and then quoted a Probate excerpt which made a minor mention that a man, in 1730, with the same name as our ancestor, Emanuel Old was involved in some vague Probate record.

So, they took the first of three generations of that name and for some reason decided that it had to be the eldest..he was 105 at the time! There was no mention of anything to confirm an identity, nor was this a record of HIS death, only a mention in some else's Probate who possibly did die in 1750...or their probate was still being disputed, they may have died in 1740, who is to know unless you check the original Probate record!

We have three Emanuel Olds in our family...'Grandad' b.c1625, his son 'Dad' b.c1658 and  his son, 'Grandson' b.1700.

There is a burial recorded on the Cornwall OPS database for an Emanuel Old, on 11 Nov 1702, being the son of Emanuel Old. But HOW do we verify which Emanuel died then???

There are NO records of any deaths, burials or Probates to be found on Ancestry Search database!

The Family Tree fanatics ALL have the date of 16 April 1702 for 'Dad'...I cannot locate THAT particular death date anywhere! Where did they come across this death and how do they know it was 'Dad' and not 'Grandson'...or the 'Grandad' for that matter???

So! Now we have three dates, two in 1702 and one mention in 1730! There is NOTHING on the internet records to give a clue as to which Emanuel died when!

HOW have these “genealogists” verified ANY of these details?? Yet they ALL claim the facts as their work....and we ALL know that if it is on the NET it is fact and open for copying!

I, myself, will NOT be adding my records to the Ancestry Family Tree Bible until I have been to the LDS, hired the film, studied the contents, and decided upon the facts as I have found them. And 'if' there is conflicting details I will contact people who have perfected their particular field of research and who might be able to sort out the mess! If I can't verify it...it does NOT go on my tree!

It might mean travelling an hour each way to my local Family History Centre and 'wasting' a whole day studying one film which may, or may not, have the details I am after but I am sure to find other details which ARE connected and which are not online!

That, my friends, is what we OLD genealogists do...then we share it with other like-minded researchers in return for a copy of their work...free of charge!

Not all records are on-line, and those that are, are only as accurate as the transcriber copied on the day, and are open for correction.

To blindly copy records simply because they are available for free and with the convenience of not leaving home....that just 'Ain't Genealogy'!!!!! That just means you can copy records, which any monkey can do!!! Real genealogists STUDY genealogy!!!! It's not called family RESEARCH for nothing!!!


Ah! The internet...the possibilities are endless and amazing!!!!!

OKAY! Rant OVER!!! My apologies to those who follow the unwritten laws of genealogy, this is not meant for you! But I think that we ALL understand where I am coming from!!! Don't you agree???

[lizdb]

I wholeheartedly agree.   

The amount of rubbish that is put on "trees" online is substantial.  Unfortunately the sites where you can publish your tree in this way present the info from them alongside actual records - censuses, bmds etc. And these days the only way to access lots of these records is via such a subscription site.

But the result is that fact (i.e surviving records that you need to study in order to research ) and fantasy (someones guess based often on clicking on a name and seeing what comes up on a search, or as you say copying someone else who has done that) are slowly blurring into one.

I have had numerous rants on here about it over the years - and no doubt will have several more in my day!

[youngtug]

But the result is that fact  and fantasy are slowly blurring into one.

These few words are the most worrying aspect of this problem

[Guy Etchells]

 

Sorry but it really made me smile when I saw fairygrandma1 who started researching in 1991 describe herself as an "OLD genealogist"

Being an ancient fossil who started research in the early 1950s I can remember virtually the same rant doing the rounds aimed at newbies who simply go to one of those new fangled Family History Center or Family History Society and look up transcripts to compile their tree.

When I started there were very few family history societies or research centers, few transcripts, research was done by visiting a church or an archive and search an often dank, filthy original register in very poor light and copying the entry by hand.
Research often meant travelling hundreds of miles to view a register or census return.

Do I moan at the new generation who avail themselves of modern technology no.

Why?

Because I know the thrills and experiences they miss out on by using that technology.
I count myself lucky to have been born into an age where research meant accessing original documents with all the drawbacks that entailed.

I would not trade those times for all the ease of access we enjoy now, even if it means some simply copy other people's trees it is them who are missing out not me.
Cheers
Guy

[gaffy]

For all the scourge of the internet in aiding those who choose to selfishly exploit it, it has opened so many doors for others.

On balance, I welcome a future (well beyond my lifetime) when everything has been digitised and placed online.

[alanmack]

Whilst I would agree with fairygrandma1, it's not all the fault of the tree owners. Ancestry/Mundia make it very easy to add individuals, data and even whole trees (other peoples' via that dreaded button), it is very difficult and laborious to correct any errors or delete incorrect entries.

 I get the impression that so bad can it get that some people simply abandon their tree and start again. Then of course you find two wrong trees

Alan

[Westmoreland]

Hi
After just spending six hours in an archive working thro the real documents I feel great
for I know none of the info is out the on the web and thats a fact, but as I work thro I can always use the web for a little more, not never other peoples trees,
keep researching its fun
regards
westmorland

[lizdb]

For all the scourge of the internet in aiding those who choose to selfishly exploit it, it has opened so many doors for others.

On balance, I welcome a future (well beyond my lifetime) when everything has been digitised and placed online.

Yes the internet has made many records so much more easily available, and that is very welcome.

But the whole mind set of "Its the only John Bloggs born around 1810 on Family search therefore it must be the right one" is leading to some much erroneous information then being publicised in online trees, which are then presented in the same way as legitimate records.
It happens on here too -How many times have I cringed when someone on here is looking for some ancestor or other and someone has replied with "there is a tree on ..... that has his father as Joe" (without any indication of whether that info has been backed up from a reliable source)  in just the same way as someone would say " I have access to the parish registers and have seen his christening and his father was Fred" . Yes, it is up to the original person to check out info he is given, but there is still this subtlety of how fact and fantasy are blurring together. The original poster has the answer to his/her question in both instances, the name of the father , and if he/she is new and inexperienced they may not realise the vast difference.

This is a different issue to that of records being online. Yes, we welcome legitimate records going online making them more accessible. We accept that will result in some people, through ignorance or laziness,  making incorrect and hasty judgements and ending up with an incorrect tree. What I have "issues" with is how those incorrect judgements are paraded online as if they are legitimate records, and to the new researcher, the inexperienced, the naive, etc it must be difficult to sort out what is what, and of course to the lazy it is just fuelling their practice of getting a tree from a couple of clicks of a mouse, thus perpetuating the problem. Which is what fairygrandma1 was talking about in the first place, I believe.

Sorry - ranting again!!!!!!!!

[chrish53]

My favourite moment webwise, was following the advice of a Rootschater and using my Schoolboy French traced and looked at a copy of my Late Grandmother's birth certificate. She was born in Le Dixseptieme arrondissment de Paris and I did not fancy the expense and the time hauling my butt across/under the channel to La Belle France to see the original!