Unsourced Ancestry Trees

[iluleah]

I took a FH class many years ago just at the start of the internet( and trees) and we were talking about the IGI and it being unchecked/donated information. As the person who helped me get started was LDS I already knew about it and was told not to trust it, so I was getting the same information again.
The teacher told a story about sending in 200 names as a tree which were complete fiction at the time to see what happened, these were accepted and  added to their collection, which is what it is called now 'CD collections' that so many use as real, checking the 'familysearch' trees there it was in full, so I learned very early on to research real records and not fake ones.......

Coming across the handout from that class a few weeks ago I decided to check and see and with the free wkend offered I did and it is attached to many trees online, so they are already there, already copied/pasted and added to very many the fake online trees

[Marmalady]

 I must admit, my Ancestry trees are unsourced, but i do take my research seriously, and do have sources for everyone I add to my tree. It also needs updating as I have added many people to my offline tree since my original upload.

The most unlikely addition to my family that I have seen via Hints is the addition of a daughter to an impoverished Vicar's family in Yorkshire
Somehow this Vicar's wife made the trek up to the wilds of Scotland to give birth to her 6th child  before returning to her husband's parish to have a couple more children.
After the death of her husband, the children were apprenticed out as soon as they were old enough -- except for this girl who somehow managed to catch the eye of a minor Scottish baronet and marrying him back up in Scotland.

As there was also another, more understandable mistake (a marriage to the wrong one of two women with the same name in the same area) I contacted one of the tree owners -- who was grateful for the info about the marriage and said he couldn't remember where he got the info about the girl from but agreed it did sound rather unlikely

The same info was also on several other trees but i haven't contacted them all -- life is too short!

[coombs]

I have to admit that I find it odd when for example I find someone born in 1700 in Co Durham was said to be baptised in London as a baby, a good 250 miles away. Their so called source is a baptism from the London records. But again, it may have been an Ancestry hint and the tree owner just took it as gospel due to the same name and age group, which is very foolish to do. That is as bad as finding an entry on the IGI/Anc etc, that fits and then deciding it is the right one as it is the only one that fits.

I had to smile at this  my Great Great Grandfather married his wife in Co Durham and when looking at the census her birth place was down as London Middlesex........ Oh I thought it must be an error and I continued to look as the two pre marriage census stated her parents where born in country/Co Durham her out of county/London and  they all lived in Co Durham with as far as I knew no reason or connection to London, her dad was an Agr Labourer so unlikely he was working in London, no sisters of her mother married a Londoner, so not visiting familu, so I ignored it for years.
10 or 15 yrs after I started I actually found the baptism in St John Hackney London and was still not convinced researching from the bap as I was convinced it was another of the same name with the same parents names living in London.......... and then as the internet began and the trees of unrelated name collections and I have seen my great great grandmothers baptism  infilled into other London families, her being given different parents, marrying some man and having children and at first I doubted myself and looked at the trees of unrelated names, none which stood up to research, so early on I realised copy and paste was the new way and out with  researched cited and proved

Yes unless someone has some very compelling evidence to say that an ancestor was baptised 250 miles away from their usual place of residence, then they should not add it. If they have census records etc, or handy notes on the baptism, wills, poor law etc then they can fill their boots but firstly I would check local baptisms.

[cristeen]

I have been researching Gertrude Margaret Lowthian Bell (Quenn of the Desert, spy, archaeologist etc) recently. It is amazing how many trees on ancestry have her marrying T E Lawrence (of Arabia) She never married, neither did he, and although they were friends and colleagues, he was 20 years her junior (not that that would prevent a marriage but hey!)

[Mike Morrell (NL)]

One of the best tips I ever got was 'own your data'. In other words, maintain your own (loca)Ms data quality. Most Ancestry trees are 'work in progress' (mine too) in terms of completeness and validation.  I regard my Ancestry tree as an online backup.

[venelow]

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?

Maybe I exaggerated a tad. I just checked and it's upwards of 90,000. 

It wasn't my granny I was trying to help with but another name of interest.  I just happened to find 4 X great granny had been incorporated when I was browsing. There are several children, some with the wrong details and no spouses or descendants, but their father is unknown.

The tree owner joined A in 2007 and researches every day. They also offer to help others by giving advice about research.

Ven.         

[Melbell]

I've just found a ghost on the 1841 Census - via an Ancestry tree which has been slavishly copied by at least four other people.

This woman died in 1815, they all say.  The next entry gives her residence and occupation in 1841.

The authority for these 'facts' = Ancestry Trees.

Surprise surprise!

Melbell

[coombs]

Many of us have made the odd mistake in our trees, when we found out that the person we thought was our ancestor was a namesake cousin, which actually may have helped in the long run with the wider aspect, or not a relative at all, just a namesake person. Due to this, a potential relative stays out of my tree until I find all the evidence I need.

[jaybelnz]

I once set up a close friend with a very basic Ancestry tree on my Account.  Just 3 generations to start her off, and had a couple of sessions showing her how it all worked!  Fortunately, I made it private!  She came back 3 weeks later, and said, "I've beaten you, those hints are great! I've got loads more in my tree than you have, I've finished it"! "  I don't need to do any more now, that's enough for me"

Puzzled, after she went home, I quickly went on line, and yes, she had loads of people in her tree, but everything except the initial part I had started, had been taken from the hints, and there were plenty of them! 

She was no longer interested, but very proud of what she had "achieved" 😜😜😜🤗 Thank goodness for that' bless her! 😂