beyond a joke

[coombs]

Someone finds a James Herbert married in 1775 in Devon, and that is correct, but they get an Ancestry hint for a James Herbert born in 1752 in Cumberland, and think "That fits right, must be mine" and then add it, without checking any Devon James Herbert baptisms c1730-1760.

[SarahU]

Children were ages 3 months or 6 months or 6 or 8 years old -  even in early 19th century surely there had to be an adult or even an older sibling. Who provided the information? I have many census records with “no head” but none with only young children.

[melba_schmelba]

Someone finds a James Herbert married in 1775 in Devon, and that is correct, but they get an Ancestry hint for a James Herbert born in 1752 in Cumberland, and think "That fits right, must be mine" and then add it, without checking any Devon James Herbert baptisms c1730-1760.

Yes it seems the definition of what might be 'close' in the United States is applied to little England in the Ancestry algorithm, I am seeing numerous such examples where people have attached baptisms for the same person in Wiltshire-Lancashire-Essex etc etc., rubbish!!! .

[Jill Eaton]

It's the tree with 14,500 people in it that amazes me! And there are quite a few trees with a ridiculously numerous amount of ancestors that can't be possibly be researched!!