A**y has become our worst enemy

[warncoort]

It is not the pay sites that are our enemy,it is those who believe their advertising and seek to assemble a tree back to Adam within a week.
Check any forum and you will find posters seeking help with "THE JONES FAMILY OF SYDNEY",obviously without making any effort themselves,assuming that all forums are just waiting to hand out the information.I have a public tree on Ancestry and i have made every endeavour to ensure its accuracy (some entries unsourced) but if others choose to cut and paste, there is nothing i can do.
I consider myself a serious researcher and would not use data from a public tree unless i could confirm information at the source.

[judb]

I have made wonderful contacts and have extended my family tree to a much greater extent than I would have done just using my own resources.

I do not put anything up on my own tree which I have not personally checked at source.  There is space on Ancestry trees for alternate information to be added which is what I have had to do for a John MASON, with father also John MASON b abt 1826 because there are two baptisms at St Leonard Shoreditch within 8 months of each other and I cannot find a way to decide which one of these children is my 2g grandfather. (Two  different mothers,cannot specifically identify John in 1841, only his father mentioned on his death certificate!)

I view other trees with scepticism, treating them as clues rather than as fact - but sometimes such wonderful clues that can help unlock a brick wall or two.  I have also found photos on other trees which I would otherwise not have seen. 

I believe that I get very good value from my subscription but I do use it a lot.  There are more and more sources becoming available through both paid and free sites.

However, when I see that woman on the advertisement who just whips in the name and up comes all the info........................      It's somewhat reminiscent of the WDYTYA where the subject of the program rolls into a record office an lo - they just happen to have the very thing being looked for.   

Judith

[lydiaann]

I, too, have 'suffered' from someone stealing from my site.  One person (not in Australia and not in the UK either) lifted whole rafts of information that I had struggled to find over 4 years of research.  It got to the point where photos of my late father-in-law - mostly taken by me or my husband - were placed into their tree, yet this man was a million and one twigs away from their family.  The same happened with a personal story that I had uploaded of my own mother; when challenged, they said 'I thought it was a historical document', which just goes to show that they took anything without reading it.  I have now privatized all 5 of my trees.  If I get a 'hint' of something allied to my antecedents, I check it out thoroughly and, even if I find it as a public document on one of the other free sites, I still check in with the person who uploaded it in the first place.  If I ask for a piece of information and receive permission to use it, I always  attribute the source.  It's only good manners to acknowledge someone else's effort and generosity. 

[DavidG02]

I have previously made comment that I don't treat online family trees (OFT) as gospel but as a pathway.

I understand the concerns of privacy that majm has and quite agree that it has never been easier to utilise identity theft.

BUT

I will take the opposite argument, and highlight the  one reason we are here on Rootschat... TO SHARE OUR KNOWLEDGE and to help others, so when I see a posted OFT I am glad because it gives me a signpost , it is someone sharing their knowledge , it is then up to me whether I follow that path with or without a light.

And if someone wishes to contact me and point me in the right direction, I will check and re-check , and then  amend if needed.

 

[Ringrose]

I do not have my tree on Ancestry or anywhere but have contacted possible connections.In some cases the tree on line has gone terribly wrong and when Ive pointed it out some have changed it but so many ignore it.
How's this for a reply on Ancestry.Enquiring how my ggrandfather fitted into her tree

He was the third cousin3times removeds wife's aunts husbands greatgrandnephews wife's granddaughters husbands father......
Therefore no real relation
I don't even know how she worked out the confusing relationship
Ringrose

[Neil Todd]

 
"He was the third cousin3times removeds wife's aunts husbands greatgrandnephews wife's granddaughters husbands father......
Therefore no real relation"

Love it...

Why do people do a tree with all the branches back to time in the mist, gees why do people use Ancestry anyway? Waste of money unless you have a pile of rellies in the States. Even then still a waste of dough. I no longer share my tree on Genes Reunited as all my mistakes are on my public tree. I have my own (no mistakes) and researched fully line with the first branch on it. I was very lucky though, as all the church records back to first one's of one county are online for free.

Neil

[majm]

Some things at Ancestry do get me annoyed.   It is the poor transcribing skills (or lack of skill) demonstrated on some of their indexes for public records. 

As I am NSW centric, I have a fair idea of some of the spellings of various locations in NSW..... and of course how the spelling has changed over the decades. 

But, I am quite quite sure that " Neutral" in the attached example was NOT written as "NEWTRAL' which is the spelling offered by Ancestry.   Yes, of course I have informed them, and yes of course I believe I have given them more than sufficient time to correct their error  (about six weeks ago)

Name and Shame ?  why not   

Of course, this spelling error is caused by a mis-read of the flourish, but as they were able to decipher "Harbour" then to me, it stands to reason they ought to have been able to decipher "Neutral" and  NOT read it as NEWTRAL....

Of course, anyone (particularly me) can get spelling muddled/confuddled and mismashed.  But surely any commercial website can afford to at least MEND the error, PROMPTLY, when it is politely pointed out.

Voluntary groups with websites strive to mend their spelling mistakes, even fixing them at meetings of their volunteer exec.       

(It is from a NSW State Records Office reel that Ancestry has uploaded)

Cheers,  JM

[DavidG02]

Of course, this spelling error is caused by a mis-read of the flourish, but as they were able to decipher "Harbour" then to me, it stands to reason they ought to have been able to decipher "Neutral" and  NOT read it as NEWTRAL....

What scares me is that it may well be a literacy issue and not a transcribing issue 

It is clearly NOT Newtral , I wonder if one person read it to another who entered it as they heard/understood it

[majm]

 

Yes, got it in one !


Comprehension issue too 

ADD
the index is attached now