Ancestry hints - I despair!

[Jomot]

I know there have been many comments on this subject, but I finally decided to look at/whittle down the hundreds of ‘shaky leaves’ on my tree and just had to share this (ahem) ‘helpful’ first hint:

My tree: ‘Joe Bloggs’ born 1925 Durham
Hint:  ‘Joe Bloggs’ baptised 1640 Northamptonshire 

Baptised 285 years before birth – is this a record? 

[majm]

Well if not, it is certainly impossible, and it ought to be a record.

Surely these commercial websites have some way of automatically stopping such foolishness.

JM

[pinefamily]

Perhaps they have a way to stop the ridiculous hints, but do they care enough to is the question.

[CarolA3]

As a comparison, I attached a baptism date to John whose brother was my direct ancestor Joseph.  Sadly that date belonged to their father whose name was also John.  Immediately a message popped up pointing out that if I did that, John the son would be older than his own mother.  Disaster averted.

If Family Historian can do that, why can't Ancestry?  And if Ancestry can't, why do so many people have their trees on there?

Carol

[Pheno]

Well Family Historian isn't online and lots of people want their trees online.

Also, my understanding of the Ancestry tree algorithm is that if Ancestry find the same person in two different trees A and B, they offer up to A the events that B has added to their tree and vice versa.  A may be completely confident about all events and sources in their tree but B could be one of those people who has just added all offered Ancestry hints.  This then triggers Ancestry to offer to A all the hints that B has accepted.  I don't think they look at the actual people really at all.

So generally the fault lies not with Ancestry but with the person who has accepted all the dud hints!

Pheno

[davidft]

Perhaps they have a way to stop the ridiculous hints, but do they care enough to is the question.

Optimistic viewpoint. 

On a slight tangent. When you are building your tree and they give "potential father\mother" hints I never accept them if I have not done the work to verify them separately. However when I do reject them and it gives the option to give feedback I always do explaining why the hint was wrong. OK I am assuming that they actually read the feedback but if they did the more people who gave feedback perhaps, just perhaps, they might improve their system.

[Erato]

Whine, whine, whine.  I just don't get it.  If you don't want hints, then don't put your tree on Ancestry.  It's just that simple.  It is possible to use Ancestry [or any of the others] as a repository of data and nothing more.  You have nothing to lose but your sense of grievance and righteous indignation.

[Finley 1]

It is like the cake on the back shelf that you know you musnt have but it is there and oooo must try it... attitude..

a flashing leaf is similar.. just have a peep -- it may be of use..

then  the result of peeping is.. a 'way off' totally not credible result! 

so the person peeping becomes exasperated and 'whines'  --- I love the terminology  'whine'  it is of my era...

Yesterday.. the hints for me turned up trumps     WOWOW  dont all shout at once 

but if some one had not added a 'suggestion' to a particular search - via the hints and their hardwork..  I would not have completed that family...

brilliant.. sometimes they work and so the peep can be worthwhile.. COMMON sense..

but they can also be a giggle

xin

[coombs]

I never take any notice of hints anyway on Ancestry as they are a waste of time. I just ignore them and just concentrate on my tree and when I find new stuff out I simply add it. They can throw as many hints as they like and I will still just ignore them.