Author Topic: Nonsense in Ancestry trees  (Read 865 times)

Offline Guy Etchells

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,713
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #18 on: Sunday 27 January 19 07:11 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!

"Name Collectors" the archivists words for family historians and their excuse for making family historians wait at the end of the queue for records and not supplying records.

We used to have an archivist here in West Yorkshire who if he knew you were a genealogist you were not allowed in the archive.
There is no place for such insults in family history some of us have endured many years of discrimination at the hands of people with that mindset.

Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

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 hurworth

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,138
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #19 on: Sunday 27 January 19 07:39 GMT (UK) »
FamilySearch has some glaring inconsistencies as well.  I have several ancestors and relatives on my watchlist and I receive a weekly e-mail from FamilySearch informing me of any changes.

Recently I deleted a son that had been added.  It had no sources and the son's name was John.  They'd attached him as the son of my ancestor Robert and Robert's first wife.  We descend from Robert's second wife and to the best of my knowledge Robert and his second wife didn't have a son named John and I very much doubt the first wife gave birth a decade and a half after her death.

I also detached a record of an event 150 years after Robert's death and in quite a different part of England.


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 BumbleB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,952
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #20 on: Sunday 27 January 19 08:12 GMT (UK) »
FamilySearch has some glaring inconsistencies as well.  I have several ancestors and relatives on my watchlist and I receive a weekly e-mail from FamilySearch informing me of any changes.

Recently I deleted a son that had been added.  It had no sources and the son's name was John.  They'd attached him as the son of my ancestor Robert and Robert's first wife.  We descend from Robert's second wife and to the best of my knowledge Robert and his second wife didn't have a son named John and I very much doubt the first wife gave birth a decade and a half after her death.

I also detached a record of an event 150 years after Robert's death and in quite a different part of England.

Some years ago now, I was at our local LDS Family History Centre and a lady was uploading her family tree to Family Search.  She said "I'm not very sure that I've got the correct wife/mother."  Answer from LDS staff "It doesn't matter."  :o  :-X

Transcriptions and NBI are merely finding aids.  They are NOT a substitute for original record entries.
Remember - "They'll be found when they want to be found" !!!
Archbell - anywhere, any date
Kendall - WRY
Milner - WRY
Appleyard - WRY

Offline Davedrave

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Nonsense in Ancestry trees
« Reply #21 on: Sunday 27 January 19 08:15 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!

"Name Collectors" the archivists words for family historians and their excuse for making family historians wait at the end of the queue for records and not supplying records.

We used to have an archivist here in West Yorkshire who if he knew you were a genealogist you were not allowed in the archive.
There is no place for such insults in family history some of us have endured many years of discrimination at the hands of people with that mindset.

Cheers
Guy

When I visited my local record office I always put “social history” in the “purpose of research” section. I thought it less likely to attract the attention of one of the “overseers” who might have found a reason not to fish out an original C16th land document for a “mere” genealogy researcher. (Most of the staff at the archive were really helpful, just the odd one made me feel like a naughty schoolboy).

Dave :)