Author Topic: Nonsense in Ancestry trees  (Read 864 times)

Offline Davedrave

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« on: Saturday 26 January 19 15:54 GMT (UK) »
I have been looking at a few public family trees on Ancestry and am amazed by some of the glaring inaccuracies Iíve found. Several different trees show the same wrong ancestor, presumably a case of uncritical copying? In another instance, what seemed to be a more reliable tree (I found the original PR images and it made sense) has a woman who was 24 on marriage giving birth to 9 children over 37 years. The last real birth was in 1815. A final child was then born in 1834! In fact that child was baptised in a different county to parents with entirely different Christian names. I havenít tried tree construction myself, preferring a narrative approach. Can errors like those Iíve encountered be introduced somehow accidentally?

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 JenB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,315
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #1 on: Saturday 26 January 19 15:59 GMT (UK) »
There have been umpteen threads started on this topic!
Hereís a currently running example https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=800691.0
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

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 Xinia :)

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,083
  • STATIC AVATAR
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #2 on: Saturday 26 January 19 16:00 GMT (UK) »
If you search these pages :)   you will find so many more posts regarding 'haplass' ancestry  trees......

they really should be ignored..

I know it can be helpful and I too have a quick peep... but when you see the copy - copy - copy syndrome.. stay away..

there are so many errors being made and then copied.... over and over..  i will put a link for you in a mo..

WELL DONE JEN  you beat me to the link    ;) ;D ;D


xin

Offline Davedrave

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 26 January 19 16:17 GMT (UK) »
Thanks. I just canít see the point in putting nonsense in a tree. Any ancestors Iíve claimed are either well supported with documentation or I make it very clear when something is merely likely. I would imagine that this is the approach of people who use Rootschat, but what earthly point is there in doing otherwise? Any other approach seems a waste of time to all concerned.

Dave :)

Offline Xinia :)

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,083
  • STATIC AVATAR
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #4 on: Saturday 26 January 19 16:21 GMT (UK) »
its a game.. for some

xin

Offline KGarrad

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 22,272
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #5 on: Saturday 26 January 19 16:25 GMT (UK) »
These people are usually "Name Collectors", who never check anything and just assume every tree they find is accurate!

They just want to maximise the number of ancestors, so they can boast of a tree containing 20,000 names!
Garrad (Suffolk, Essex, Somerset), Crocker (Somerset), Vanstone (Devon, Jersey), Sims (Wiltshire), Bridger (Kent)

Offline Davedrave

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #6 on: Saturday 26 January 19 16:53 GMT (UK) »
Thanks for the warnings. I now know to steer well clear.

Dave :)

Offline Josephine

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,825
  • Photog'r: J. Thomas, 47 Everton Rd., Liverpool
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #7 on: Saturday 26 January 19 17:41 GMT (UK) »
Thanks. I just canít see the point in putting nonsense in a tree. Any ancestors Iíve claimed are either well supported with documentation or I make it very clear when something is merely likely. I would imagine that this is the approach of people who use Rootschat, but what earthly point is there in doing otherwise? Any other approach seems a waste of time to all concerned.

Dave :)

This type of thing used to bother me until I realized that most people use their online trees as their only genealogy database. Instead of having their full database on their computer at home, and putting only their proven, notated and sourced entries online, everything (except for the mandated cut-offs for privacy) goes online. This includes speculation, stuff they've copied, info they plan on double-checking some day, and so on. They're not putting it online as a means of publishing their research, or because they understand and want to adhere to genealogical standards, but because this is their only family tree software/vehicle and doing it this way works for them.

As for me, a great deal of my research was put online without my permission, and has now been copy/pasted a gazillion times, but I personally do not have any online trees because I like to prove everything before making it available to even one other person.

Different (keyboard) strokes for different folks.  :)

Regards,
Josephine
England: Barnett; Beaumont; Christy; George; Holland; Parker; Pope; Salisbury
Scotland: Currie; Curror; Dobson; Muir; Oliver; Pryde; Turnbull; Wilson
Ireland: Carson; Colbert; Coy; Craig; McGlinchey; Riley; Rooney; Trotter; Waters/Watters

Offline Davedrave

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #8 on: Saturday 26 January 19 20:42 GMT (UK) »
I take the point about a work in progress but would it not be better then to keep it private? Just my thought.

Dave :)