Amusing tree on Ancestry

[Gadget]

Since doing my DNA on Ancestry, I'm even more annoyed with many of my 'matches' putting up really dire trees. It's worse than the No Trees ones. 

And even worse, these are supposed to be my relations   

Gadget

[Chilternbirder]

Thinking about the tree described at the beginning, I did once create a fantasy tree in Ancestry based purely on hints just out of curioisity. It wasn't too bad but I got bored with it before trying to fill out personal details too see if my parents acquired any of the additional siblings that I have seen in other trees. I did ensure that it wasn't pubic though.

With regard to attribution of "facts" this can be difficult when data has been acquired off line. There are a number on my Ancestry trees derived from documents in my possession which I haven't bothered to scan or otherwise refer too. I know that they are right.

[davidft]

Had a reply from the tree owner.....

‘Oh do ill have to fix that thankyou’

A positive outcome. That's good to see.

[pharmaT]

Ancestry hints can be infuriating.  Last year I finally found a marriage I had been looking for, it was in 1790.  Really quickly new hints were generated, including an entry in the 1851 census for couple.  I don't think so! Also I entered a DEATH in 1870 in England and got a hint for the gentleman in the 1930 US census.  I would love to know how the Ancestry algorithms work to generate such impossible hints. 


I don't often look at the trees, I find it pointless but my favourite was from a hint on my great grandfather's name.  It went back to God, they were 'descended from' Jesus' marriage to Mary the Virgin  and came down to the present day via a gentleman who died inn France in 1620 before having a son in the US in 1790.

On a side note, at one point my tree showed my Grandfather as dying in 1795  oops.

[Chilternbirder]

Just been trying to verify a "suggested parent" hint from Ancestry. I kept getting a christening from the wrong end of Lancashire after they had both died.

[JAKnighton]

There is a concept known as the Pareto Principle, otherwise known as the 80/20 rule, where in any given group the number of participants that actually do any meaningful work trends towards 20% with the remaining 80% providing hardly any value at all.

In other words, the top 20% do almost all the work and the remaining 80% do almost nothing.

If you've ever worked in a large organisation you have probably noticed this.

This applies to trees in a big way, if you ever look at the tree matches you will see approximately two well-researched, sourced trees at the top of the list and then about eight other trees that are obviously copied, unsourced, or only contain a fraction of the information.

The trees that are completely out of control, with people dying before they are born and having over a hundred children, represent the very bottom of the 80%, where not only are they providing no value, but are actually a detriment to the larger whole.

Without sounding arrogant, if you post on a forum like RootsChat you are likely in the top 20% of users on Ancestry. The level of literacy required alone brings you to the top.

[andrewalston]

Just been trying to verify a "suggested parent" hint from Ancestry. I kept getting a christening from the wrong end of Lancashire after they had both died.

Today I looked at a hint for someone born in Staffordshire in 1856 and died in Staffordshire in 1923 (both dates recorded in the tree on Ancestry).

Why would it suggest I examine a birth in Massachusetts in 1723?

[Rena]

I go online to extend my family tree and most often don't bother to include ref nos of certificates - gotta leave them something to look for 

I think one American am. researcher must have been dancing with joy when she came across the death particulars of my OH's 4 x gt.grandfather, who she could see was born 1786 in Morayshire, Scotland and died in Aberdeen (I omitted to add "Scotland, UK") so according to her he must have migrated and died in Aberdeen, Maryland U.S.A.   She's meticulously given him a middle name and added several children born in the USA. 

[JAKnighton]

I go online to extend my family tree and most often don't bother to include ref nos of certificates - gotta leave them something to look for 

I think one American am. researcher must have been dancing with joy when she came across the death particulars of my OH's 4 x gt.grandfather, who she could see was born 1786 in Morayshire, Scotland and died in Aberdeen (I omitted to add "Scotland, UK") so according to her he must have migrated and died in Aberdeen, Maryland U.S.A.   She's meticulously given him a middle name and added several children born in the USA.

That's why I use Ancestry's gazetteer to standardise all my place names. If you don't include the country Ancestry will often default to the American equivalent, and it is displayed as such in search results. The researcher in your case still should have noticed, though.