DNA tests-is anyone else fed up?

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

My tree had always gone further back than that of a relative, I initially messaged them via Ancestry over 10 years ago without a reply, they found my tree hosting site including some images I had added text to. These images and extra generations appeared on a collaborative site, errors in relationships have been made. The manager claims not to have 'borrowed' from elsewhere or added anything to the collaborative site though their IP address comes up on both sites.  After pointing that out via screengrabs I was quickly blocked.  I'm happy to share with relatives but take exception to being ignored and lied to.

It's not the contents of the tree as such that bother me (it's out there to find or I wouldn't have it myself), it's the lies and deceit tat annoy. I've created a new dna based tree alongside my original and clearly noted events not currently supported by documents, it's mainly to find the connection to my dna matches I'll let you guess where the info appeared just two days later and whodunnit based on an IP address I'm familiar with.

[TonyV]

While I sympathise with you regarding the earlier events in your message I think that others copying your “DNA” tree is something that you could, and should have prevented. We are always advised to make our “quick and dirty” DNA research trees private and unsearchable. That means that other subscribers do not know they exist.

As you yourself said, such trees are not created using the same tight standards of proof that conventional trees ought to be, so anyone copying them is bound to copy errors. Indeed if you partly create such research trees using data from other people’s trees without proper checks, as is inherent in the process, you will inevitably be doing what we all condemn others for doing. However it doesn’t matter so much because it is only you that such errors will mislead.

[coombs]

Not just lack of replies with DNA hints and Ancestry trees showing a mutual ancestor but also I emailed a church about their burial registers post 1948 and never got a reply. I wanted to know if they still had their burial registers in possession. The parish itself has online burial registers on SEAX Essex website but they only go up to 1948.

I asked about a burial in January 1959, as my great grandfather died suddenly on 30 Dec 1958 which was a Tuesday. I am sure his burial would have taken place in early Jan 1959 as his death was registered on Wednesday 31 Dec 1958, and it took a few days inbetween death and burial, usually 3 to 4 days, sometimes longer. His headstone gives his DOD of course but they do not give date of burial.

[bikermickau]

I supplied one woman with parish Register copies of BMD and census records for her Grandmother who I found was born in one Shire and then married and died in another shire in the UK.
She rejected all the evidence saying her proof was her father had told her her grandmother had lived in one location all her life.

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

While I sympathise with you regarding the earlier events in your message I think that others copying your “DNA” tree is something that you could, and should have prevented. We are always advised to make our “quick and dirty” DNA research trees private and unsearchable. That means that other subscribers do not know they exist.

If your reply was to my comment I'm quite happy for them to take anything, they have a talent for mixing up relationships and adding images to the wrong people. Only a small part of what I have in terms of documents and news cuttings are online. 
I currently have two potential candidates for my grandfather and two lines heading back from hm in my dna ponderings, they have both been copied by this other researcher though again they claim not to have seen anything online. More fool them is all I can say, meantime I'm happy to work with the two big dna links and hopefully try and bridge the 2-3 missing generation gap between our trees.

[TonyV]

Glen

Sorry I should have made it clear that I was referring to your post.

I think that it is irresponsible to allow what I called "quick and dirty" DNA research trees to be visible. It inevitably adds to the vast amount of wrong data on Ancestry and other similar sites, which degrades them for everyone.

Tony

[brigidmac]

I add comments tags to pictures that people have copied and comments on my tree regarding the people who others mix up

ie this is not the same man as the farmer who married Y

this person was actually born in 1830 ..

or queries
+ i also indicate if i have a dna connection with someone on my tree

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

Glen

Sorry I should have made it clear that I was referring to your post.

I think that it is irresponsible to allow what I called "quick and dirty" DNA research trees to be visible. It inevitably adds to the vast amount of wrong data on Ancestry and other similar sites, which degrades them for everyone.

Tony

Although I have a bare bones tree on Ancestry my main working tree has been hosted on a small site for over 15 years, it is that tree that has been copied (badly) by this particular individual since at least 2010 and posted by them as a manager to a collaborative tree site. Only the manager can edit the details of the individual names. A number of contributors have suggested over 400 edits since 2012, the manager has yet to accept or decline any of them. Comments by the contributors suggest their trees have also been incorrectly copied.

My DNA tree is hosted on the same site as my main tree though separate and not linked to my main tree. It concentrates on my paternal line and is just two weeks old. The manager on the colab site has simply copied the details across and terminates the line to a 'living' individual, that 'living' individual would be me.

This particular manager just mines trees wherever they find them, new, old, sourced, unsourced, traditional paper based or DNA they will use and abuse them. The only parts of trees they ignore are sources, everything else they see as fair game.  If everyone made their trees private it would starve this particular individual of information along with everyone else. Of course the irony is that he is related in some way to many that have suggested edits. He is a bad apple that puts a lot of the current and future interaction between people at risk. The type of tree people have is not the issue in this case, I'm afraid to say HE is the issue. I'm just one of several people who is unfortunate enough to connect to the surname he takes an interest in.