Ancestry tree rubbish

[Edward Scott]

So which of these hints would you use? This is a rhetorical question 

Edward

[IgorStrav]

So which of these hints would you use? This is a rhetorical question 

Edward

Sadly none from Australia. 

[pinefamily]

You may have to do some more research to rule some of them out. 

[coombs]

It is probably natural to discard a marriage 100 miles from where the couple lived, and it does look iffy in a Ancestry tree but you may find that the marriage is the correct one, and the tree owner has a will or other record saying so.

In 1729 my ancestor living in Gt Bentley, Essex seemed to be from Chiswick, Middlesex originally. Her will linked her to the Masters family of Chiswick. She wed her husband in Merton, Surrey, about 60 miles from NE Essex. Proves how people did move around more than we give them credit for.

[Edward Scott]

Adding a record from 100 miles away as 'it is the only one that fits' is different from adding one that has supporting evidence.

The former is is what started this thread.

Edward

[coombs]

I think a lot of sloppy researchers go for the former, "the only one that fits". And I think they get them from the Ancestry hints, and just take them as gospel.

[Edward Scott]

Exactly and that is the basis of this thread

[coombs]

I know it is the basis of this thread. I am just using examples of supporting evidence against best fits.

[Edward Scott]

IgorStrav made a comment a few posts back that he trusts one researchers tree despite the fact that sources / evidence are not declared.

Sometimes I  will have a look at hints but tend to ignore any that have nothing to support their ideas. However I have frequently seen trees and a person with 5 or more sources and they all other ancestry trees, follw the lopp and it is amazing how one can end up where one started. 

Edward