Amusing tree on Ancestry

[Rosinish]

I think possibly beginners (as well as others) take hints as facts?

Fancestry have people believe you literally just type in a name & up pops your family tree but it's only suggestions of who may be your relatives which people don't realise.

However, if being truly interested would they not be doing the arithmetic, geography & sorting out the possible from the impossible 

Annie

[Nanna52]

My grandmother apparently married someone who died when she was ten years old.  Don't know when she married him as that is not in the tree, just the spouses name and his dates of birth and death.  I sent the tree owner a note a couple of weeks ago but have heard nothing and it is still there.

[philipsearching]

Maybe she is having a bit of fun ? Waiting to see if anyone copies her impossible tree? 

janan - you have a devious mind - I love it!   

[mrsruz]

Perhaps Ancestry should take some blame for these ridiculous links.
Why do they give hints of couples who married in (say Norfolk) in the 1600s when you are actually searching for a marriage in Birmingham in the 1870s, just because one of the couple happens to have the same name as the person you are researching.

[Flattybasher9]

I have one branch in my tree, in which there is a well known Kennethmont family. There are several trees on "Fantacestry" which have members of this family included. According to said trees, some members of the said family have reached the (+) side of 120 years of age, and female members are having children at the (+) side of 65 years old. It's all very well documented, in "Fairyland", that is. Mind you, it's interesting to note that "Fairyland" has a U.S.A. location.

Malky

[coombs]

I have got very irrelevant hints before for people with common names. Imagine having a John Smith born 1792 in London but you are unsure of parents, and get a hint for a John Smith born 1792 in Cumberland. Ancestry hints are a waste of time.

[Deirdre784]

I have messaged her to say that i’ve been sent a hint to one of the children in her tree, and was interested to see her other husbands and many children.

I’ll let you know if she responds 😀

[Rosinish]

I'm helping on a request here just now on RC & found a tree on Fancestry which has the couple both dying 1881 but they appear on 1891/1901/1911 census' 

Annie

[StanleysChesterton]

When I build a tree, I might find somebody who "married one of these 3-4 chaps, no idea which one ... so I'll add them and follow the lines down, to see if anything ever makes sense..." because there's no other way to do it and remember what you found... iyswim.  If I find somebody who isn't right, I'll leave them on the tree and I change their surname to include the suffix _DUD - and my notes say why I discounted them.... so I know, in case I stumble across that potential connection again in 10 years' time as it'd save me wasting time.

I guess the issue here might be that: she has no idea others might see what she's working on .... or that anybody might take it as "true".

People will use the framework as fits their purposes... and not how ANC intended it to be used, or how others use it.  Some might be meticulously ONLY be adding "true/proven/must be" people ... others "toss all and sundry at the tree to see what sticks", using it as their "rough notes and finished stuff" ... all their ideas and notes in one online spot for them to use/discard over time.