Ancestry tree rubbish

[Maiden Stone]

I found a cracker yesterday.
The person I was looking at was a granddaughter of an English baron. She was born c 1534. She married a grandson of a famous person. Her husband was the only son of the only son and a Member of Parliament. The woman's brother sat in Parliament at the same time.
The woman's father was a son of the baron and his wife. However her father on the tree is not a son of the baron but a man with totally different names who must have strayed from another tree. 
The tree seems to have 2 husbands for her or possibly alternative versions of his name.
The woman had children 1550s-1570s. The tree has credited her with a score of them. Granted, it's possible that she may have had 20. However it's unlikely that she gave birth twice in the same year on different continents, Europe (England) and North America.    I can accept that she may have had 2 children in the same year in different English counties. If she was responsible for all the children on the tree she must have spent a lot of time travelling on roads the length & breadth of England, depositing babies in counties along the way, as well as the long sea voyage to the New World and back.
I'll blame gremlins.
Tellingly there are no sources cited, although there are a lot of pictures.
Another tree with this woman on has her producing several children before she was 12.
Geography is a problem. Birthplace of grandfather the baron and his son has been assigned to the wrong county. The name of their family seat is also the name of a large town in the adjacent county. Should descendants from overseas turn up in that town expecting to find their ancestors' castle, they'll be disappointed and local people won't be able to help, never having heard of the family.     " Not from round 'ere, luv."
If mistakes can be made with well-known people, what hope for lesser beings.

[majm]

I recall that several months ago I stopped helping on a thread... I had questioned if they had validated some comment

Basically  short version ....   the OP then sent me a terse PM informing me that their Ancestry tree was spot on,  and that I must be a newbee and I had failed to understand that their 4xg grandmother was 200 when her eldest son was born and they have proof because other trees have same info.

We cannot help those who do not want to do their own quality research....

Add confirm,  200 ...born 1650,  first child born 1850 ... I kept that PM..

JM

[CarolA3]

JM, if I'd had a message like that I'd have framed it and hung it on the wall!  But which room to hang it in

Carol

[majm]

 

I have just checked ... they have been online this month ....

JM

[Guy Etchells]

I recall that several months ago I stopped helping on a thread... I had questioned if they had validated some comment

Basically  short version ....   the OP then sent me a terse PM informing me that their Ancestry tree was spot on,  and that I must be a newbee and I had failed to understand that their 4xg grandmother was 200 when her eldest son was born and they have proof because other trees have same info.

We cannot help those who do not want to do their own quality research....

Add confirm,  200 ...born 1650,  first child born 1850 ... I kept that PM..

JM

The problem is in 100 years it will be quite possible for that to be correct (frozen embryos/sperm, etc).

What I find amusing is the number of people who get annoyed at such "trees" as they all claim they do not use other peoples research.
If that is the case why do they bother to look at them in the first place?

I am far more concerned with official records being wrong.

Take the GRO they have been producing an index since 1837 but even now almost 182 years later they still cannot produce (as required by law) an accurate index of the registers entries they hold.
The feeble attempts they make not only omit many register entries but contain many errors and they are supposed to be professionals.

Most experienced family historians understand that all groups of records contain errors for example the first family trees drawn up (Heralds Visitations) not only contain errors but some contain fraudulent entries.
Every other type of record contain errors and omissions which is why family historians gather as many different sources as possible to verify their assumptions rather than grab the first name that seems correct.
Most of us even check their research at intervals as new sources become available and even when old sources come available in a different format (for instance as parish registers come available in digital format and can be manipulated to make them easier to read).

Cheers
Guy

[iluleah]

What I find amusing is the number of people who get annoyed at such "trees" as they all claim they do not use other peoples research.
If that is the case why do they bother to look at them in the first place?

Completely agree 

[tillypeg]

Most of us even check their research at intervals as new sources become available and even when old sources come available in a different format (for instance as parish registers come available in digital format and can be manipulated to make them easier to read).

Very sound advice as usual, Guy.

[Finley 1]

I often have a peep -

at other peoples trees.. because it is a.n.other avenue..  and if your  careful you can disregard the rubbish and collect the snippets that are useful..

the odd photograph may well turn up   

or as in the case of MRS WILSON the odd true 3rd husband.. 

I search as many avenues.. as there are within reach of my chair.. as that is the only way I can do research these days..

And yes I moan, about Ancestry trees --- when they blatently are stupid.... as I say Agnes GAY will always  be a ... arrrrgh fgs.. etc.. 9yrs old married and etc not worth knowing..

anyhow..

we do it cos we love it and we want it RIGHT   that is why I blast WRONG trees and tell em... sometimes..
ignore them loads of times.

last night if I had not have looked at a.n.other tree.. I would not have expanded the lifestory of one of mine and added an anecdote that only a close close rellie could have known..


Cheers Xin

[Edward Scott]

What I find amusing is the number of people who get annoyed at such "trees" as they all claim they do not use other peoples research.
If that is the case why do they bother to look at them in the first place?

I also sometimes look at the hint trees and as Xin said, they can offer clues and even be of real help. One example was of a burial in Sicily that I would never have found myself but having someone check the register proved the burial was the right person.

However I would not accept information from another tree without validating it myself.

I do use Heralds Visitations, along with many other documents, as a starting or guidance point but I still need another piece of information from an 'original' source that says it is right.

The thread was started simply because of my frustration at trees with obvious errors that good old fashioned common sense would say are wrong.

Edward