Ancestry tree rubbish

[pinefamily]

The only way I have found to get around it is to go back one page to the correct version and then refresh the  page.

[Treetotal]

Yes that's what I do.
Carol

[clairec666]

I partly disagree.  Whilst any algorithm to generate hints will throw up hints that are wrong I think there should be something programmed into the algorithm to discard hints that are completely impossible such as someone marrying at ag greater than 150, buried before they die, having children before they are born etc.  I'm not trying to suggest that researchers shouldn't double check and verify because absolutely they should but the number of absurd hints is ridiculous

I'm with you. I have some experience in computer programming, and when I'm designing a piece of code I think about how my brain would approach a problem, then translate it into code that a computer would understand. There are clearly some things which are hard to translate, like facial recognition, but comparing dated events should be fairly simple to programme.

For example, if "death year" - "birth year" > 120, show warning.
Or something like that. One line of code!

Obviously there needs to be some leeway, allowing for late baptisms for example, and dealing with locations may be difficult because people did move around sometimes more than we realise.

[andrewalston]

The worst part is that they refuse to believe that their gazetteer is not comprehensive and correct. When you point out problems, their attitude is straight denial.

They do not provide any means of getting their gazetteer database corrected. It has serious errors and omissions, but Ancestry refuse to believe this.

This, coupled with the website's failure to parse perfectly valid addresses correctly, causes a LARGE proportion of the place name stupidities we see.

[pharmaT]

The worst part is that they refuse to believe that their gazetteer is not comprehensive and correct. When you point out problems, their attitude is straight denial.

They do not provide any means of getting their gazetteer database corrected. It has serious errors and omissions, but Ancestry refuse to believe this.

This, coupled with the website's failure to parse perfectly valid addresses correctly, causes a LARGE proportion of the place name stupidities we see.

Absilutely, they have completely misattributed a whole batch of Scottish death records to the completely wrong part of the country.  They have stated the correct post code for the records as per the location held by the General Records office of Scotland. I e-mailed them and attached evidence.  When they hadn't got back to me after 6 weeks I called them.  They told me I "just didn't understand Scottish geography".  When I pointed out I was calling from that postcode area, knew exactly where I was and had sent them proof my point they said "well you knew the correct location so it didn't harm your research so it's OK".  argh!!

[Finley 1]

I am going through all my research to ensure I have fished them out of the pond by putting ENGLAND ----- on all addresses.. so many I had left as just Hinckley Leicester and they were swimming..

xin

[Edward Scott]

I am going through all my research to ensure I have fished them out of the pond by putting ENGLAND ----- on all addresses.. so many I had left as just Hinckley Leicester and they were swimming..

xin

You can do a global change if you are using FTM, not sure if the facility exists for online trees.

[Finley 1]

excellent   thank you   

will check that out.


xin

[Edward Scott]

It's easy on FTM

Back up first 

Find someone with an event in Hinckley and amend the current place in the 'live' field to Hinckley, Leicestershire, England.

Press enter or tab, you will then have the option to just change the place on this one or all of them.

Edward