Author Topic: Most wildly inappropriate Ancestry Hint  (Read 2911 times)

Offline Colin Lamb

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Most wildly inappropriate Ancestry Hint
« Reply #18 on: Monday 27 August 18 15:13 BST (UK) »
I shall be very interested to hear of any success or otherwise that you have with the DNA results.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline LizzieW

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,403
  • Has anyone an ancestor who looks similar to this?
    • View Profile
Re: Most wildly inappropriate Ancestry Hint
« Reply #19 on: Monday 27 August 18 15:28 BST (UK) »
I'll let you know when I get the results, I guess about 6-8 weeks from when I post my DNA which will be tomorrow.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Ayashi

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • William Wood, who was your mother??
    • View Profile
Re: Most wildly inappropriate Ancestry Hint
« Reply #20 on: Monday 27 August 18 20:28 BST (UK) »
With the DNA, I think you get out of it what you put into it. If you only look at your nationality estimate, then you will find the experience wholly unsatisfying. If you look at how many people haven't connected their trees then you might not see the point. If you do all the work yourself, rummaging through the profiles and contacting people, you might get something out of it. Ancestry doesn't make it easy for you to make use of the DNA section, you have to get deeply involved.

I am the researcher behind my mother's DNA results on Ancestry. I process them and see if I can work out how they are related. I have currently identified the link of 47 profiles- the more I can identify, the more I can work out using "Shared Matches". For a lot of those profiles they are connected to me around a few central hubs, such as my UGLOW line, TREWARTHA line or my WOOD line- this just about confirms the paperwork of those lines as correct, which is good to know because of the potential for incorrect research, non-paternal events etc. Others have helped in other ways- for example, my 2xgt grandmother was illegitimate and we had a theory about who the father was. After receiving multiple different DNA matches from the supposed father's family we can only conclude that the father himself was one of four, perhaps five, different men from that family. We might never know which one, but his ancestry is right there to see.

While I wasn't the one who spent the money on it, I certainly intend of making use of every penny of it.

Ayashi

Online Xinia :)

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,263
  • STATIC AVATAR
    • View Profile
Re: Most wildly inappropriate Ancestry Hint
« Reply #21 on: Tuesday 28 August 18 15:58 BST (UK) »
'Uglow' 

 the name of an Artist I admired very much.. gone too soon.


Euan Uglow. 

I loved his work..

xin

Offline JaneyH_104

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • My great-grandmother, Alice
    • View Profile
Re: Most wildly inappropriate Ancestry Hint
« Reply #22 on: Thursday 06 September 18 13:37 BST (UK) »
I'm glad I found this thread as it's the perfect place to share the hint I received this morning.

It's a photo of the gravestone for my GG Grandfather and GG Grandmother ... taken by ME! Clearly a few people copied the photo from my tree to their trees, and now Ancestry has regurgitated it as a hint back to me. More than a bit ironic, but if nothing else it gives me a lead of someone else's tree to have a nose around.
BOWDLER - Forest of Dean & Devon, DYSON, ENTWISTLE & TOWNEND - Huddersfield, CLARKE - Dorset, SCOBLE - Devon, HOUGH, COPE & WHITTAKER - Cheshire, BRACHER - Wiltshire, DENNISS - Herts/Hunts, SQUIRE - Hunts/Beds, BROWN - Herts/Beds

Online Xinia :)

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,263
  • STATIC AVATAR
    • View Profile
Re: Most wildly inappropriate Ancestry Hint
« Reply #23 on: Saturday 08 September 18 16:23 BST (UK) »
It does make you laugh tho ..   I edited a photograph, the way ONLY I could edit it of my GG x3 gran and it is all over Ancestry -- I just giggle.. bless em.. let em enjoy - it does bear a resemblance to her and so - gives them that, if not an actual copy.


xin

Offline JaneyH_104

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • My great-grandmother, Alice
    • View Profile
Re: Most wildly inappropriate Ancestry Hint
« Reply #24 on: Saturday 08 September 18 16:38 BST (UK) »
Obviously I was proud of myself for having found the gravestone and initially a bit miffed when others first copied it to their trees.  However, it's taken in a public place so ultimately anyone could go and take the same picture.  Since then I've chosen to make most photos on my tree - especially old photos of actual people - private.  Sure, people can ask to see them (they come up in search results) but I can then control where they go.
BOWDLER - Forest of Dean & Devon, DYSON, ENTWISTLE & TOWNEND - Huddersfield, CLARKE - Dorset, SCOBLE - Devon, HOUGH, COPE & WHITTAKER - Cheshire, BRACHER - Wiltshire, DENNISS - Herts/Hunts, SQUIRE - Hunts/Beds, BROWN - Herts/Beds

Online lydiaann

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Most wildly inappropriate Ancestry Hint
« Reply #25 on: Saturday 08 September 18 17:00 BST (UK) »
It's the indiscriminate copying of trees that annoys me...just because one member of the family happened to have the same name.  Because part of my family has Kemble as a family name (not surname) one person has assumed the earliest possible direct line is a member of the (acting) Siddons family, even though I have finally proved through official documentation/records that it is the husband of that person who bears the name.  Consequently, about 20 other people are claiming to be members of the Siddons family by copying in this one fact - I guess they are all looking for their little bit of fame.  The person they are attaching to the Siddons tree has a totally different surname and is born several hundred miles from where the Siddons were living at the time.  I've even provided links to the Siddons family tree, which is quite exhaustively researched and fully detailed.  I've thought about getting the DNA of Himself, but a couple of people have put me off and it would not give me the result I am looking for (I am convinced he is Viking!).  Still, we carry on, eh?  It's too fascinating not to!
Cravens of Wakefield, Alnwick, Banchory-Ternan
Houghtons and Harrises of Melbourne, Derbyshire
Taylors of Chadderton/Oldham, Lancashire
MacGillivrays of Mull
Macdonalds of Dundee

Offline JAKnighton

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 398
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Most wildly inappropriate Ancestry Hint
« Reply #26 on: Thursday 13 September 18 19:30 BST (UK) »
The worst Ancestry 'hint' I received wasn't actually incorrect at all, just inconvenient.

Somebody who I assume is a user of Family Tree Maker had somehow managed to upload the images of the birth, marriages and death index of an individual to their profile over a hundred times each. Each individual one comes up as a hint for that person, and you have to reject them one by one.

I like to get rid of the shaky leafs as much as possible, so that was a few minutes of unnecessary clicking.
Knighton in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire
Tweedie in Lanarkshire and Co. Down
Rodgers in Durham and Co. Monaghan
McMillan in Lanarkshire and Argyllshire