Ancestry family trees full of lazy errors

[Biggles50]

  Good Evening Everyone.  It's that time here in OZ,
Now having just read every post on this thread I am still wondering about this term and what it actually describes and what era it is referring to.  Now or decades ago?

  I have used the term "name collector" for those people who simply copy whole tree sections to their trees without any thought to accuracy or whatever.
 Where dates do not add up , are not able to be substantiated etc etc.. Often names are those for someone else entirely.  and so forth.  Every one of us as seen these whether they have been researching for decades or just several years.
 To me it appears like a race to see just how many names can be acquired.  It's careless and thoughtless as it can become accepted for right or wrong.    As many have pointed out then, they are just adding Names to their Tree.

Recently I received a hint from Ancestry telling me that XYZ was a relative and that they had found 47 people that I could add to my tree.  It was correct in the connection but the 47 extra names were not of value unless I was counting numbers. That's "name collecting" in my view as it stands now in 2023.

Like some or many of you I do the lateral research, often coming from the need to try to establish a link or just to add that extra depth to my tree and research. That's where it is enjoyable.

At present I am researching a DNA match that does not have any obvious connections to me. Those names will not go on my tree probably ever.  However the four generation tree I have complete with siblings in each generation is a different kettle of fish. But it's not going on my tree . And that research, done at least 8 years ago for a specific reason, has recently been very useful with a DNA match.


I hope you all get my drift on this .
Essnell

Completely agree.

I have my main tree on Ancestry but also I have a basic tree on My Heritage which is a pain due to their questionable hints for adding whole branches to my tree.

I have been researching for 15 years and my tree people number is 7,500 and whenever I see a tree with 10,000 plus I immediately put on my “number collector” attitude to their tree.  That said there is nobody in my tree that has not been individually researched, where there is doubt then there is a Fact listed as is their header image which shows a question mark.

[jc26red]

Biggles, I have more than 10k names in my tree and I am definitely not a name collector!  I am also more than willing to reply and engage with anyone that connects with my tree. I am constantly reviewing and updating, even the best of us make errors sometimes and new data can open up all sorts of can of worms!

That said, I have discovered a newer version of a name collector!

a DNA COLLECTOR!

My husband's maternal line is a thorn in my side... dead ends everywhere. DNA isn't really helping much beyond what we already know. I searched my mother in law's name again (as I do regularly) and found that a tree had different maternal grandparents for her, I went to check out the tree (nearly 63K worth of names), the tree owner has done a DNA test and has merrily added DNA match to my MIL's niece... she doesn't match my husband, his sister, or any of the 3 other cousins from this line.!  She has put a nice Irish flag avatar against my MIL's mother which is correct as she was born in Ireland but then the tree owner put her birth place as Lancashire with different parents. I have all the certs baptisms, etc., and a wealth of family knowledge to know she didn't originate from Lancashire!

I messaged the tree owner as I thought the DNA connection was very misleading for anyone without FH experience to understand/recognise the mistake!  Hardly surprising,  no reply and she has been online every day since I messaged her. note, she says she has been researching since 2004! 

I am guessing she is trying to match up her DNA matches to anyone in her tree with a similar name irrespective of where they are in the world or checking facts!

I don't normally comment on name collectors as there are a variety of reasons why it happens,  I just check what they have in the area of my interest, if it's a load of rubbish, I just ignore the tree.

Rant over, but be wary! 

PS... I have also notified the cousin who the tree owner say's she is connected to, hopefully she will check if her name appears in the match list anywhere.

[BushInn1746]

I try not to look at Trees, because I like and have acquired additional archival documents, Wills, Copy Deeds, Tax records, Military, newspaper snippet scans, Quaker burials (not online), etc. Some of my ancestors attended the Manor Court re Copyhold property, that also back-up my line and Certificates etc.

[coombs]

My ancestor James Smith said "not born in county" in 1841, (Oxfordshire). He died 2 years before the 1851 census and he was a tin plate worker in Oxford. No idea where he came from originally as no known trace of him before his 1819 marriage. The witnesses to his marriage was Andrew Carney and Hannah Hawkes who I am working on though. Hannah Hawkes was born 1800, her father was Jonas Hawkes originally of Marsh Gibbon, Bucks. Hannah had an aunty Elizabeth Hawkes who wed a Joseph Smith in 1786 in Marsh Gibbon, Bucks. And I found a Thomas Smith aged 70 (age probably rounded down) in Marsh Gibbon in 1841 "not born in county" as a tin plate worker. But a settlement examination says he was born in Islip, Oxfordshire, and no trace of a brother Joseph Smith. So again, it shows that especially with a name like Smith, it is easy to assume a link. Tin plate workers were quite common I think, and a witness to James Smith's marriage having an aunty who wed a Smith, again likely coincidence.

Nan always said there was Irish descent on that side of the family. And Andrew Carney, the other witness to his wedding sounds like he was of Irish descent due to the names. Andrew was born in London originally and was a gilder. Maybe DNA will be the key.

[farmeroman]

I've just been going through my MyHeritage DNA links before my subscription runs out (I've no intention of renewing) and have just noticed a tree containing 214,294 names.

It must go back to Adam & Eve. Or something in the primordial soup. 

[JAKnighton]

My tree is quite large (15,000+ individuals) but that's because I do a lot of descendancy research. So not just my direct ancestors and their children, but cousins across multiple generations, including their spouses. I've also done research for the in-laws of my aunts and uncles, and a few of my friends, which I have all connected back to my main tree. That causes the tree to grow quite quickly. Despite this my tree doesn't go any further back than 1540 and most ancestral lines fizzle out in the early 1700s.

[Erato]

"I do a lot of descendancy research"

Ditto.  I don't go deep but I go wide.  It's more interesting.

[coombs]

Not sure why but I tend to be more biased towards my direct line ancestors, and use their siblings as a stepping stone to see if I can get back further on the direct line. I never skimp on buying certs for direct line ancestors but also do like buying certs for their siblings as well, and marriages, and occasionally death certs for ancestor siblings but always primarily focus on the direct lines.

[Sandrafamilytree]

My tree is quite large (15,000+ individuals) but that's because I do a lot of descendancy research. So not just my direct ancestors and their children, but cousins across multiple generations, including their spouses. I've also done research for the in-laws of my aunts and uncles, and a few of my friends, which I have all connected back to my main tree. That causes the tree to grow quite quickly. Despite this my tree doesn't go any further back than 1540 and most ancestral lines fizzle out in the early 1700s.

I have the same approach. I find myself curious about anyone with a connection to my family.

I have some horrible brick walls which don't even go very far back, so if I focused solely on direct ancestors, I'd be extremely frustrated.