What a mess, Family Search family tree.

[Biggles50]

I am unsure why I looked but I did.

I do not have my own tree there but I keyed in my Maternal Grandfather and found him, then I started to look around and his tree had error after error.  I then came forward and added his wife, she was not there so I created a new entry for her, then I entered he Father’s detail and up with a duplicate so I compared them and the info was correct, his wife was not, a completely different female.

I have his actual obituary and our family records so we know the maiden name of his Wife.  After correcting and adding why I zoomed out to tree view, and yet more errors, I corrected some then moved on.

I then looked at my Paternal side and there was my Great Grandmother with her Grandfather showing as her Father, he was listed as such on her marriage but whoever created the entries had been lax, I have her birth cert and no Father is listed.  The more I looked the more errors I found, I am always suspicious of a tree if a married female has her married name showing.

Anyone, everywhere I looked there was error after error.

Do take care if you have a tree on FS that others can amend.

[Girl Guide]

This is one reason why I never put any of my family trees online.  Open to anyone who decides you have the wrong person and does a correction. 

Regrettably so many trees are not researched with due care and diligence.  One gets the impression at times that some researchers add names regardless of whether they are correct.  I believe quite often no sources are given so no means of checking the information provided.

[BumbleB]

This is one reason why I never put any of my family trees online.  Open to anyone who decides you have the wrong person and does a correction. 

Regrettably so many trees are not researched with due care and diligence.  One gets the impression at times that some researchers add names regardless of whether they are correct.  I believe quite often no sources are given so no means of checking the information provided.

Exactly!

I also remember when I was doing some research and another person in the room was uploading their tree.  She said "but I'm not sure that I've got the correct mother/wife".  "It doesn't matter" was the response from the supervisor. 

AND you must never forget what I have as part of my details!

HE/SHE WHO NEVER MADE A MISTAKE NEVER MADE ANYTHING

[Pheno]

This is one reason why I never put any of my family trees online.  Open to anyone who decides you have the wrong person and does a correction. 

Regrettably so many trees are not researched with due care and diligence.  One gets the impression at times that some researchers add names regardless of whether they are correct.  I believe quite often no sources are given so no means of checking the information provided.

It's familysearch in particular who operate like this - maybe uniquely - it does annoy me when people give the impression that it is all online sites where you can establish a tree.

At most of the other sites other people can collaborate with you on your tree - but only if you invite them and give them access to do so.  It seems to me there is no problem with these trees as you can keep ownership, unlike familysearch trees, but after all that is their aim - to have one big joined up tree with everybody's ancestors on it.

Pheno

[Girl Guide]

"It doesn't matter"

Dear me!  Doesn't say much for the supervisor does it!     What a lackadaisical way to approach family history.

[rosie99]

"It doesn't matter"

Dear me!  Doesn't say much for the supervisor does it!     What a lackadaisical way to approach family history.

I was witness to a similar comment by the person 'in charge' at my local LDS family history centre, hence the reason I treat familysearch trees with a large pinch of salt 

[Erato]

The problem is that FamilySearch permits users to make changes rather than just allowing them to make annotations.

iNaturalist is another site that works by crowd sourcing but no information is ever changed, it is just elaborated on.  Maybe I post a photo and claim that it is Tellina species x.  Someone else comes along and says,  "Nope, that's Tellina species y."  And the next person says, "You're both wrong.  No way is that a Tellina; there are no lateral teeth."  Then I say, "Yes there are but they're very small and it's a crummy photo."  The discussion may be prolonged and it might not reach a definitive identification but no information is ever obliterated.  By this process, iNaturalist has amassed some 130 million photos of about 420,000 species and slowly but surely they get identified by consensus.

[BumbleB]

rosie99 -SNAP - perhaps we shared the same venue   

Girl Guide - if you're number-crunching then again, it doesn't matter, does it? 

[coombs]

I have never had a Family Search family tree. I have a tree on Ancestry and a PAF which is my private family tree. I also have a tree on Familypedia, an ever growing wiki about genealogy and places.