Inconsistant Info

[Lensmeister]

Not sure how I want to phrase this:

Searching on Ancestry for a person.
Trying to match to what I have already found in the past. I come across THREE people trees
All the same name and all roughly the same DOB/DOD info.
It's the marriage that's thrown me - It's all to the same person!

Tree one has:
Marriage
24 Feb 1519 • Ardingly, Westhoathly,Sussex,England
Marriage
1524
Marriage
1530 • Balcombe, Sussex, England, United Kingdom
Marriage
1539 • Ardingly, Sussex, , England
Marriage
26 Jun 1571 • Bitton
Marriage
24 FEB 1619 • Ardingly, Westhoathly, Sussex, England

It gets better:
The person died 1558!!!!

Tree 2 has:
Birth
1500 • West Hoathly, Sussex, England, United Kingdom

Marriage
Abt. 1511 • Somersham, Huntingdonshire, England
Marriage
February 24, 1519 • Ardingly, Westhoathly, Sussex, England
Marriage
1524
Marriage
1524 • Huntingdon, Huntingdonshire, England
Marriage
ABT 1527 • Bedford, England
Marriage
ABT 1530 • Balcombe, Sussex, , England
Marriage
1535 • Lavenham, Suffolk, England, United Kingdom
Marriage
ABT 1538 • Suffolk, England
Marriage
31 Aug 1568 • Bury Saint Edmunds, Suffolk, England
Marriage
26 Jun 1571 • Bitton
Marriage
06 Jul 1589 • London, London, England
Marriage
February 24, 1619 • Ardingly, Westhoathly,Sussex,England
Marriage
Somersham, Huntingdonshire, England

Burial
13 Feb 1559 • West Hoathly, Sussex, England

Tree 3:
Birth
1500 • West Hoathly, Sussex, England

Marriage
24 Feb 1519 • Ardingly, Westhoathly,Sussex,England
Marriage
1524 • Huntingdon, Huntingdonshire, England
Marriage
ABT 1527 • Bedford, England
Marriage
1530
Marriage
ABT 1538 • Suffolk, England
Marriage
31 Aug 1568 • Bury Saint Edmunds, Suffolk, England
Marriage
26 Jun 1571 • Bitton
Marriage
06 Jul 1589 • London, London, England
Marriage
24 FEB 1619 • Ardingly, Westhoathly, Sussex, England
Marriage
Somersham, Huntingdonshire, England

Burial
13 Feb 1559 • West Hoathly, Sussex, England

Do people actually check ANYTHING?
How can you look at your tree and then think what you have got on it is right?

I know my tree isn't perfect with Abt., Bef. or Aft. on it.
But seriously in the 1500s Sussex, Huntington, Suffolk ... that is one hell of a well travelled family !

RANT OVER

[Jebber]

That’s nothing,  many trees have my grandmother’s brother born 1875 with daughter born in 1500, plus all her descendants. It appears to be because some idiot found someone with the same forename and her married surname. 

I could list several other almighty clangers, just because some people latch onto a name and don’t do any proper research. That’s why I keep my tree private.

[coombs]

Welcome to Ancestry family trees. 

Where you can get married aged 1 and have children while in infancy or still be fathering children centuries after you have died.

[Wexflyer]

Death, tis but an illusion....

[coombs]

As a genealogist I often revisit certain ancestors hoping to get back further, and I never add anything if I am not certain. I guess we can become so determined to try to keep going further back but can reach dead ends and maybe have to accept that some ancestors cannot be found especially pre 1800. Such as no wills left by them or their family, no coming under the poor law, or witnessing very few marriages etc. But i never just accept Ancestry hints without going through them with a fine tooth comb and many hints are just far fetched, such as an Ancestry hint for an ancestor who was born in 1785 in Suffolk as being a baptism for someone of the same name born in 1640 in rural Cornwall.

[BarbW]

That’s nothing,  many trees have my grandmother’s brother born 1875 with daughter born in 1500, plus all her descendants. It appears to be because some idiot found someone with the same forename and her married surname. 

I could list several other almighty clangers, just because some people latch onto a name and don’t do any proper research. That’s why I keep my tree private.

My tree is private too for the same reason though I will message someone and help them if I can see their tree is well researched and they've just gone a bit off track.  Many have taken Ancestry tips as actual facts, I just can't be bothered with those trees as they're a right muddle.  If you look at the owners many haven't been online for months or even longer, probably because it all got too confusing. 

[MollyC]

I have never subscribed to Ancestry, but took advantage of some free weeks and had some fun testing out Story Scout.  My grandmother would have been horrified to find her mother was missing.  Her mother died when she was aged three but it was her step-mother who appeared in the line, the marriage being several years later.

On another line I found a useful progression back from c1800 to c1700, and then descent from a notable landed family which was simple to check.  There had never been a son named Christopher, so I cannot be descended from him!  Delusions of grandeur.

[coombs]

Some Ancestry hints can be useful, and some can actually be correct. If not for one of them I would not have known my Oxford born great gran spent time in a Hackney convent in 1910 as it threw up a baptism in a Hackney church, and the details matched upon me checking. I guess she was baptised again as she was about to go out to work, as I already knew she was baptised as a baby in 1895.

[bikermickau]

Familysearch trees can be just as bad.

Mick