Unsourced Ancestry Trees

[Pheno]

I fail to understand how people expect to be taken seriously when I see examples such as the one below.

There are 11 Ancestry trees which include Richard Lanning of Dorset, all of which indicate his date of burial as 24 September 1763 at All Saints, Kington Magna, Dorset.  None of these 11 trees have a source for this piece of information.

One or two of them have attached, to this man, a copy of Richard Lanning's will which is signed as being written by him, of sound mind, on 28 March 1766.

I believe his burial to be on 28 Feb 1769 at Kington Magna.

How can they expect to be taken seriously having stated his burial as 1763 and including a copy of a will written by him in 1766.

It makes my blood boil!

Pheno

[groom]

That’s why I never take any notice of other peoples’ trees on sites such as Ancestry, especially if they are unsourced or have as a source, Ancestry Trees. I expect what has happened is that one person has put it on their tree and others have just copied without checking. Happens all the time.

[Finley 1]

yep I get this completely -- theres so many not checking - just copying and then the next one copies.. how ridiculous...

I am working my Jarrom 's  at the moment  and kept getting '''' Hints''''

which I checked and they were just so wrong..

but one had copied -- so had the next --- which eventually will make people think its correct.

I check and triple check and still make errors..
this new possible match... is a bit of a   terror..

I will stick with what I find.. with a bit of paper.. to prove it otherwise .. NOPE


xin

[casram]

The trouble is people see the same wrong information on several trees and assume because so many people have it that it must be true. I spent many years confirming my 5x great grandmother's name as Isabel, with the help of several wonderful people on RootsChat and much help from Gloucestershire records office, BUT there are lots of trees on Ancestry that have her name as Elizabeth and some have traced Elizabeth's line back into the 1500s. I contacted someone about their tree and was told "how dare I be so arrogant as to assume I am correct and all those other people wrong " despite the fact not one of those other trees has any source for her name being Elizabeth and I have copies of several documents from the Record Office which prove she was Isabel.
Carolyn

[Knight-Sunderland]

It's astonishing the number of times I have seen trees that are completely wrong.

Not just that but so obviously wrong. For example having a mother born 1750 and a child born 1760. One person being so careless I can understand, but 12? Madness.

[Mike Morrell (NL)]

I'm not sure whether it's ever been done but I often think that 'How people use Ancestry' would be a great research project!

The continual stream of Ancestry 'Hints' make it very tempting for people (beginners?) to accept those that seem to 'fit'. Especially if multiple trees show the same data and few sources are attached. It's only later that you start to realise that any erroneous/questionable data just get propagated willy-nilly to other trees (which is why multiple trees often show the same data  .

The 'hints' implicitly encourage beginners to grow and fill their trees quickly. This is how I started out too. It was only (much) later - largely through Rootschat - that I started to take 'research' more seriously and learn more about standards, good practices and pitfalls.

'Better' research (based on primary positive and alternative/conflicting evidence) is painstaking, time-consuming work! I still use Ancestry - though I'm becoming more and more dissatisfied with it - and I still look up the occasional 'hint'. But for every 'hint' I try to find the evidence for and against.

My guess is that a relatively small percentage of Ancestry members are really willing and able to do the 'hard work' of evidence-based research. And critically evaluate any 'hints' they get.

Mike

[venelow]

Looks like Ancestry gave them the probate record as a hint and they added it without actually reading it. Or one person did and everyone else copied them. 

I am seeing more of this type of thing. Census records added but it's the wrong person, baptisms records added that belong to the children but attached to the parent. Unfortunately you can't make people read the records when they are intent on getting as many names as possible into their tree.

Before I try and help someone I always check how many people they have in their tree as that sort of gives you an idea of what you are dealing with. I learnt my lesson when I tried to help someone. The tree owner made me an "Editor" and I found I was dealing with a tree of 100,000 people including my hi-jacked 4XGreat Granny!

There is nothing to be done about this as no matter how carefully a tree service is monitored and pledges to an Honor Code are made human nature is such that some people will copy without checking. I have seen this on Wiki Tree as well as every other genealogical tree building site.

Just Carry On applying the Genealogical Standards of Proof and if something is a theory but not nailed down don't put it online. Or if you do make it super clear that the person is the most likely candidate but more proof is needed. Someone might provide that proof in the future.

Venelow
Canada

[chris_49]

The tree owner made me an "Editor" and I found I was dealing with a tree of 100,000 people including my hi-jacked 4XGreat Granny!

Blimey! There's been discussion of huge trees before but 100,000+ takes the biscuit. Does this person have a life outside of building this tree?

My Ancestry tree looks completely unsourced - but that's because it's the export of a bare gedcom from GR. I think I'll keep it that way.

 

[Melbell]

Here we go again with this old complaint (with which I entirely agree, by the way).

If you don't want your stuff used and abused, don't give it to Ancestry or anyone else online.  They 'own' it if you give it to them and the whole world.

Simples!

Melbell