Genealogy Chat

I have spent the last week looking on Ancestry's family trees, knew there were a lot of mistakes on one line of my tree, but I am now really frustrated that I am finding so many lines completly wrong, errors ie. mother 102 giving birth. I did try e-mailing several people but no reply. It is so obvious one tree wrong and everyone is copying. There must be so many wrong trees circulating on the internet, don't know what the answer is. The joke is several of these people say they can offer help - I think not.

Suppose I can feel satisfied that as a mere beginner, well 14 yrs. that I have a correct tree.

Carol :S

As long as you are happy with your own research then why worry about other trees on the web

I know, but I worry about everything :-) :-)

I today have been struggfing with the same responsibility of mistakes. I had my ancestor G dying in 1880 - then today found his wife as Head of household in 1851 - wondered where on earth I got the 1880 date from and couldn't find it anywhere, went to free BMD, Find my past, then my contact list on Ancestry, many of which had 1880 without a source, must have got it from my public tree, help, sorry!). He was alive in the 1841 cernsus, so in the end searched the death registers all over again and found a very probable one in 1843 Have inserted it as a possible fact in my Ancestry tree, and will have to get the certificate hoping the details will help to confirm..

This has taken most of the day, still haven't done the ironing! or sent off to the GRO either.

I know Elizabeth, it is so frustrating that people are posting completly wrong information on the web, and perpetrating inaccurate information .

Carol

I have my tree private now as I did'nt want people copying my hard work.

I like to have a look whenever something comes up in recent member connect activity just to see if its a load of rubbish or not.

I saw five trees the other day that had the same death but it was different to mine...when I looked into it they had all copied one another or all accepted some idiotic hint that although living in London all his life ...died somewhere in the US ??

jax

I know Jax, for example someone born in Cornwall in 1700's then in America, then a year later having children back in Cornwall, then dying America, dont think so. Perhaps as Glitter Baby quoted should not worry


Carol :D

Spare yourself the anguish, ancestry trees are so easy to copy and once copied become fact.

As you say there are glaring errors, but it's rarely worth the bother to inform the tree holder, just be happy with your own research.

I have a few spoof relations on my tree to make it easy to spot the copiers, so anyone sporting my young Cornelius has copied from me !

I know Lindsey, as you say real researchers should see the glaring anomalies, but still worry they don't.

Carol

I can quite understand how you feel Carol...it is so frustrating...so much so I deleted my private tree from Ancestry awhile back. I found so many anomalies on public trees where they had attached my ancestors (different lines) it became a farce ...because the names somehow tied in with what they had found on bmds' or the census however unsourced and so it carried on.

Ooops Jax...one of my ancestors lived in Lancashire all of their life however managed to marry in the US and then sadly die back in Lancashire???

However sometimes it isn't easy to say why worry. I was so so lucky to know my great grandmother until she sadly died at a grand old age when I was in my late teens so when I found gt grandmother and a few of her 12 siblings attached to a tree...then another tree and then another and so on, with completely different parents and so down the line, it became a sensitive issue...well to me anyhow and found it very upsetting.

Because of my gt grandmother I have researched this family line to the hilt...my 2x gt grandfather's birth wasn't registered however I found his baptism...did they...obviously not!

I have tried to contact these Ancestry members in the past mainly for my peace of mind but as yet have had no replies.

Linda x

I can understand how you feel Carol. I have had the same problem. I have had direct links to my tree by someone who although shares the surname has completely different ancestors, unrelated to mine and not even from the same counties. So much so, this person has my grt mother having something like 20 children, 2 non twins born same year and if the calculations are right she had her last child when she was close to 70 years of age..Of course all completely wrong, which we know for fact. I have contacted this person and asked them to remove my ancestors from his tree. Naturally he never responded. While it doesn't particulary bother me that he has these errors, my family and I know who we belong to, however mistakes like these do make for some confusion for others just starting out with their family research.

One of the problems with Ancestry is that if you don´t specify that an event has taken place in England, it automatically defaults to a place of the same name in America. That´s how you get people marrying in America & having kids in England & other stupid entries.
It´s so easy not to notice that it has happened. I have seen it on many of the trees that I share ancestors with.
Marion

Glad I am not the only one who feels like this, must add it is usually people who have extremely large trees. Often the line in question is only very distantly related to them so do not research it. Like you say Karen it is a shame for new researchers, all so easy to copy on line these days. When I started used to travel every week to the Family Record Office, plus visiting Cornwall and Deven twice a year, as my OH and I both originate from there.

Nothing beats the thrill of walking in their footsteps.

Carol

There are some cases where the errors are more subtle and really depend on proper documentation to prove the link rather than a similar birth year.

With the exception of an Old Parish Record , I found all the certificates to prove that my great grandfather was twice married, fathering his last child at the age of 58. The poorly hand written document contained the correct parents, area and approximate date, but it was only when I later obtained a cleaner scan from Scotland's People that I spotted my glaring error................ he was a she!!

"The lawful something of Francis and Elizabeth" turned out to be "Daughter" with the name of Frances, not Francis. :S

The only explanation I could find was that their daughter Frances died in infancy without the death being registered and their son Francis was born the following year without the birth being registered which would go a long way to explaining why the age always appeared to be about a year out and Frances never appeared on a census.

So it's not always down to laziness although sometimes an eye test would help.

Should have gone to Specsavers............ ;-)

I know where you are coming from Frank, several times I have looked back on my research and found mistakes which I initially made, I am not perfect, that is why I will not put on here anthing that I have not thoroughly researched, as you say with documentation.

Carol

Would you believe my sister married a man b in 1723, despite the fact that quite a few of the idiots who have that have her father correctly b in 1899? I contacted lots of people with her in their tree but of the few who answered most didnt believe that they had an error. And the error just keeps getting attached to more trees all the time. Grrr.

Huia.

Has anybody noticed a common thread amongst the trees which contain very obviously inaccurate information?

In my experience a large proportion of the owners of such trees are based in the USA.

Now I am not suggesting for one moment that our colonial cousins are more intellectually challenged than anyone else but their trees do seem to contain a disproportionate number of obvious errors. Perhaps such errors are accepted as fact because of a desire to form a connection to "The old country" or perhaps in an attempt to have the largest number of people in ones tree as possible. Who knows but it can certainly be frustrating to see that someone in the USA has purloined your great granny who was born, raised, and died in Manchester and has transported her across the Atlantic to marry and have children years after her death.

Should you be worried about it? The answer is no.

Should you try to persuade the third party to correct their records? Here I would say that the answer is yes because if you don't then there is every possibility that someone else will copy the inaccurate information into their tree and the myth will be perpetuated.

Not everyone will accept your correction even if supported by reference to census records or BMD registers but some will and will thank you for pointing out their error. Such people are to be congratulated, the others, well perhaps they might deserve our pity.

Well put Jonesey, my thoughts exactly. As I never seem to get replies to my e-mails, I now put comments on their trees, hoping others will see and not copy.

Carol

I made my tree private (on ancestry & Genes) when I realised that someone had taken copies of my photo's and not even asked if they could do it................they may have been distant relatives but they can stay distant now as I have deleted them!!!

I understand the fustrations............privacy Rules!!!

Lesley :D

I must say I think Carol's idea of sticking the corrective comment on the other people's trees on Ancestry is an excellent one, can't think why I didn't think of it before! Ancestry do acknowledge the comments on my own trees and I think do something to call attention to the variations on the records.

I have had pleasant and grateful replies to my direct messages to tree owners - but not always!