Author Topic: Terrible Trees On Ancestry  (Read 1852 times)

Offline reynolds_1979

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 20
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Terrible Trees On Ancestry
« on: Saturday 20 April 19 12:36 BST (UK) »
I am sure this has been discussed and talked about till the cows come home. However I need to vent.

I am tidying up some 1st cousins 4 x removed, so not close family. I had the usual 'Ancestry Member Tree' hint. I always click to see how information compares and if I see something that I think may be interesting or correct I'll go away and research it properly and see if it fits. Anyway, this tree had the "William Reynolds' I was working on, same date and place of birth. The same two census I had found 1861 and 1871 and then, which is what surprised me, His 'possible arrival' (that was actually written on the profile) on the 6th Mar 1871 in Australia along with a death in Australia in 1875. That struck me as odd, so I checked the date of the census that year and of course it was on the 2nd April after 'William's arrival'.

Now this tree has over 5000 people on it and it isn't, what I term, a dead profile (someone who hasn't logged on for a year or two. The tree owner was online 2 days ago. 

How difficult is it to just take 5 mins to actually research this stuff properly, even if the person is an extremely distant relative and has been dead for 150 years? This duff research has already been copied once by another half baked tree, so inevitably will be again.

I have seen this so many times before, as I am sure lots of people have, and never done anything about it. However today I had to leave a comment explaining that the profile was information was a confusion or more than one William Reynolds.

It is so frustrating that this happens!

If anyone has gotten this far. Have a lovely day. The sun is out (in the South East of England at least) which always helps.

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 Knight-Sunderland

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
« Reply #1 on: Saturday 20 April 19 12:45 BST (UK) »
I have had this experience 100x over.

I have given up trying to correct the trees that are incorrect, it appears to have no impact.

Ancestry Hints can make things a lot easier for researchers, as long as they are used carefully and treat with extreme caution. However not many people seem to use them in that way and just accept them as fact instantly, no matter how bizarre they might seem.

The other day I was on a tree that had a gentleman born in 1605 with an 1841 Census record attached. Should one laugh or cry at this? I can't tell anymore!

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 hallmark

  • -
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,746
    • View Profile
Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
« Reply #2 on: Saturday 20 April 19 12:47 BST (UK) »



100's of posts on the subject!







Give a man a record and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to research, and you feed him for a lifetime.

Online Marmalady

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,485
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 20 April 19 13:05 BST (UK) »
I had one the other day where one poor lady had her last child at the age of 95!!!
Wainwright - Yorkshire
Whitney - Herefordshire
Watson -  Northamptonshire
Trant - Yorkshire
Helps - all
Needham - Derbyshire
Waterhouse - Derbyshire
Northing - all

Online pharmaT

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 889
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
« Reply #4 on: Saturday 20 April 19 13:22 BST (UK) »
I can't see the point in getting worked up about someone else's tree unless they've posted details about a living person (I'm deceased on an Ancestry tree).  I wouldn't waste my time correcting someone.  I'd consider if they contacted me but otherwise at best pointless, at worst opening yourself up to abuse.
Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others

Offline M.Ann

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
« Reply #5 on: Wednesday 24 April 19 00:00 BST (UK) »
I think its experience and its very easy to get the wrong family embedded into your research and people do make mistakes particularly with names that are common. The census is a good place to start but you have to introduce proof at some point and that may mean buying certificates.
The Ancestry links are just suggestions and should never be accepted as correct.
Another thing..unless you really know and other criteria fits pre 1937 entries in Parish Registers..particularly early ones which are not formic should be taken with a pinch of salt if the name is a common one. Ive got back to 1750 for definite on my paternal line, but before that its less certain and I cant be sure..an American relative has taken the same tree back to the Normans. I couldnt agree that. As for Familysearch.com, again careful consideration is needed.
No point in getting annoyed. The satisfaction in this hobby is that you do your own research. Sometimes other peoples is useful and thats a bonus..and you can add to theirs. Also how far you want to go? Why build trees of 5000 people, whats the point in that? Its like having 5000 friends on facebook. Daft, its a bit ASD. Id rather build a new tree for someone else..and get it right!
Further. Its an absolute no no to put living people into publically viewable family trees posted on to genealogy sites, in many cases they wont know they are on there or even know you if you put them there. Wrong. Its also very easy for people to extend those trees into tracing living relatives by using GRO indexes and free BMD and then People Finding Services and Social Media. My facebook page is locked to people except who I invite as personal friends and family. I am as careful with my tree and the people on it. The problem is that there are very many silver haired people now who have taken up this what can be a time consuming hobby..so they dont do..or do it properly when they are working and they dont take enough care, to get things right and to safeguard living people.
Sussex families around Burwash and Heathfield:   Sands, Upfield, Haffendon, Isted and Langridge

Somerset - Bath: Hooper, Taunton: - Poole, Castle Carey: - Colley

Cardiff: - Hooper, Davies (please no Queries!!)

Surrey - Butler, Hersey- around Normandy, Woking

Offline stevej60

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
« Reply #6 on: Wednesday 24 April 19 12:24 BST (UK) »
My Gtx2 Grandfather William Henry Round b.Dudley around 1854 turns up on a good few Ancestry
trees as well as a few other site's,he must have been married a dozen times lived all over the country
and died a good few time's if they are to be believed,My brother tries to point out to those with any wrong
entries the error but one person got really upset and a bit shirty and told kim outright he was wrong
despite the fact we have cencus record's,certificate's and happen to be walking the earth thank's to him!
Bland(Chester-le-street) Round(Dudley/Durham)Kirton(Gateshead)
Smith(Gateshead)Littleton(Sacriston)
Wayman(Cambs&Newcastle)Green(Lincs)Smith(bucks)
Watson(Gilling west & Gateshead)

Offline ansteynomad

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
« Reply #7 on: Wednesday 24 April 19 12:51 BST (UK) »
Some of the inaccuracies are frightening – and so easy to correct.  My 4 x great grandfather died in Philadelphia in 1857, having emigrated two years previously.  However, almost all the trees on Ancestry (except mine) have him dying in 1858 in Nottingham.  A simple purchase of the Certificate for the Nottingham death would show you that it is his three year old grandson.

The best one however, that I have found anyway, is the second husband of my mother’s friend who emigrated to the US.  he appears on an Ancestry tree, without his middle name, as his own twin brother!


Online Mart 'n' Al

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,443
  • Martin H. Watson Gedmatch DNA Kit H062246
    • View Profile
Re: Terrible Trees On Ancestry
« Reply #8 on: Wednesday 24 April 19 13:48 BST (UK) »
Perhaps we should start a hall of shame and inundate those people with helpful advice.

Martin

Gedmatch DNA Kit H062246.
FT-DNA Kit B388093

Names:
Loughborough and Loughbrough, (London, Hull, Pirton, Durham & Hartlepool);
Watson, (Bedlington, Jarrow & Hartlepool);
Ballard & Glassop (E. London); 
Leggett (Corton, Scarborough, Hartlepool); 
Young, Adamson & Wilson, (Hartlepool). 

I use GRAMPS v5.0 software. 

My ancestors are probably turning in their graves, not that I can actually find any of them.