beyond a joke

[Finley 1]

the amount of totally unsourced / acclaimed accounts within trees on Ancestry are ridiculous

It is NOT now for the REAL researcher.. it is just another GAME for the lazy researcher to have an enormous tree full of dukes and duchesses out of the gutter...


I have all I need for a full tree and more than 6 gens on all sides.. sufficient and allllllllll if not allllll then 99.99% verified in some way...

I am going through them to (for my sanity) verify I have not made too many errors.. I know there will be errors... I am getting quite forgetful... these days.. so add things and forget and then add to the wrong one so one of the reasons I am check check ching..   before I hand over to my daughter.

ANYWAY   today I looked at John Macdonald.... he is a something or other removed from me so not close and I hadnt given him an Avatar which shows me he is sorted..

Well... a hint from them regarding this bloke came up and suddenly he is a duke of timbuctoo or somewhere being re born after 1866 to show in the 1871  and has 3 wives and possible 20 children and even an OBit  in the irish paper when I am sure he died in Scotland but I MAY be wrong... oooooooooooooooooooooo  dark room time.. by the way 3 of his children happen to be the same child with varying bd...

I have turned off HINTs so many times but these stupid green leaves.... and other stuff in the search engine can lead you up the alley and round the corner..

TWO nights ago I found a census....return on one of the sites.. maybe FindMyPast and then ANCESTRY would not show it... I could not find it anywhere on there..   eventually having to copy over...

ready to close the book... so close now..

xin

ps pm me if you want to peep at that tree

[hurworth]

Are you talking about Thrulines?

I can't see any rhyme nor reason why Ancestry has chosen the information in one tree over another.  I was well aware of the multitude of incorrect trees out there, but they didn't affect me.  However, now they sort of do.

I've started contacting people with incorrect details for fairly close relatives.  For example several trees have a gt-grandmother's brother incorrectly recorded as her first cousin.  He had the same four names (John, two middle names and surname) as his only uncle.  He has different name on his baptism record but his birth wasn't registered (fairly early times in a remote part of Australia that barely had roads then)

But his marriage is in newspapers on both sides of the Tasman and clearly state who his father was.  Hopefully people will change it.

[clayton bradley]

Yes, it's very annoying.For some reason James Clough shows as a Potential Ancestor on my Thrulines, from someone else's tree, yet he is in my tree along with censuses, marriage to wife, etc. All the matches on Thrulines therefore show up as half cousins just through his wife, cb

[hurworth]

Clayton - click on the first ancestor up the line to see which tree this incorrect relationship has come from and give them the correct details.  Hopefully they will change it. 

If they don't and it's a public tree put add a comment to the person in their tree.  I added a transcription of the marriage announcement I'd found (including which newspaper and date, so they can easily find it themselves if they wish).  Hopefully it will also stop people adding this to other trees incorrectly, except that would involved actually READING the details on a person and not just clicking a couple of boxes.

[BillyF]

On my maternal side there is a gt grandmother who I originally thought was the eldest child of Margaret M.

There are many trees on Ancestry showing Margaret`s subsequent 3 daughters, but no mention of my gt grandmother " or " the 2 half- brothers born previously.

All 6 of these children were born illegitimately, but my gt grandmother is the only one with a father. When she was 4 he married someone completely different and 3 years later she is listed on his 1871 census, with her mother`s surname, 2 years later she`s on a school register with " his " name.

On her father`s obituary she is shown clearly as his daughter, so I know it`s right.My Mum could remember him although she got his name wrong, but I eventually found him.

So, do people just have interest in what they think is their own, or do they just not bother to complete research into the people on their tree.

[Essnell]

  Hi   

simply two things 

1. They are convinced they are right and /or the info they got from else where is right .

2. They just do not bother to check that info.    And even double check any of their own.

   It is not ignorance in that they do not know they are just plain ignorant/ arrogant.

One cannot change them and they will not change information even if you are able to let them know.  I don't bother any more.

Essnell

[Nanna52]

BillyF my great grandfather, the eldest child, does not appear on many trees that I find.  He was born about 1830, appears on the 1841 census with them.  In the 1851 census he is a lodger next door.  In 1852 he marries and comes out to Australia.  Out of Sight, out of mind I guess.  From what I can work out the rest stayed in the UK.

[BillyF]

Alice, my gt grandmother born in 1864; her father married a Susannah in 1868. In the same year Margaret had another daughter, I`ve no idea of the father, followed by 2 others. Margaret kept the 3 girls.
 I`ve always wondered why Alice lived with her father and stepmother, one of many thngs I`ll never know the answer to, maybe he was just the " better" man.

[Steve G]

the amount of totally unsourced / acclaimed accounts within trees on Ancestry are ridiculous

It is NOT now for the REAL researcher.

Probably about right.

 But, we have this figured. Let them play. Who takes notice of that stuff?