Genealogy Chat

Can anyone enlighten me about the mormon site and how events of ostensibly the same people seem to have such differing dates. Am I right in assuming that volunteers are just copying info from microfilmed records. I presume, also, that other researchers are putting their findings on the site.There are often discrepancies re birth dates and christenings. Be grateful for your knowledgeable input!! Chris

If it says the entry was 'extracted' then they have copied it from records and it should be ok. If its 'member submitted' treat it as suspect and dont take it as gospel. I have to hold my hand up here and say about 3 months into my beginning my tree, in a flush of excitement I submitted my stuff to the mormon site because I wanted to share and get contacts. 6 months on and I realised it wasnt accurate and there was nothing I could do to change it - its fixed in stone once you send it to them. As a newbie I was very naive and accepted info given to me by people who I assumed were much more experienced. One guy gave me details which I later found were totally wrong from 1821 back to the early 17th century. In fact he had probably just trawled all the IGI entries and added anyone who seemed to fit. He told me at the time, he had researched the line for 2 decades - so who was I to question it!! Never ever take on info without checking it all out yourself.

I only use information from there that is from acutal records.some of it makes me laugh have one ancestor called Ralph bullock his father was ralph and some one had put his mother in as mrs Ralph Bullock! great help

Yes, someone told me the other day that the details for their ancestor would mean the poor woman was still producing kids at the age of 65.

According to them my gt gt grandfather was fathering children 7 years after he died.!!!! Pat

And we thought IVF was a new scientific innovation, eh? On this particular one, the chap who had 'been researching for 2 decades' had one William Dixon born 1821 in Richmond whose line he decided to follow when the guy he had followed his line back to - William Dixon born 1821 in Rotherhithe - was still alive and kicking!

Thanks for input....will treat with caution. I have also found a lot of info going back to 1530ish on Ancestry where someone has entered family tree details. Looks fairly well researched (they must have visited churches etc), but unable to get in touch as their email address no longer valid. Am wondering whether this is 'cheating' really as someone else has done the leg work. Of course I will try to authenticate as much as poss, but unlikely ever to achieve as much on every strand of tree. But is it 'cheating' to get info from any website really. Oh well..... Chris

I have a rellie,supposedly aged 30 and a widow ,who was a grandson 15 years younger than her living with her on census night! Must be that Norfolk air!!! Strangely as you follow her back through the census she grows older the earlier you go,it's only when you see her grandchildren living/visiting over the years and use Bishops Transcripts you find her marriage etc,and work out why she took in the younger ones. By 1881 if you believe the ancestry census and not the LDS version she is actually nearer to 90 years old and widowed,employing 8 workers and several servants on a 250 acre farm. Suffice to say the LDS is just a pointer for me,then i look for proof of it being correct. Glen

I've got a rellie who was apparently married to 3 different women, all coincidently with the same name (first name AND surname)according to the IGI one born about 1548 he married in 1569, one born about 1560 he married in 1586, one born born 1570 he married in 1601. These are all member-submitted pedigrees. This information (all 3 marriages!) is also on at least one web site that I've seen. The only thing I know for certain about this guy (at the moment anyway) is that he died in 1619 and DID have a wife of the right name! (from a MI & his will)

Chris it is not cheating really as you have to check the details are correct, and thats what they are there for surely, I am of the opinion every little bit helps, especially when you are my age and dont have forever.I must say I was extremely lucky as somebody had researched a part of my family tree right back to the 1600s and I was lucky enough to email him and he was very helpful and we exchanged info . Mind you most was on his side as I could never have done that well by myself, just treat it with caution as you have been advised and good luck

Yes, I have found women giving birth to 2 children within 9 months as well as others who have been christened before being born. There is always a lot to unravel on the LDS website. I suspect also that families took in children to help other members of family. That was very common. Chris

Valerie, You're right..it's all about checking things. Cheers Chris

Hi Chris, Always check everything from the LDS site. I always assumed the 'extracted' records would be safe - but they're not! Recently I have come across 2 entries that I know to be wrong. I presumed the transcribed 'extracted' entries would have been verified in some way, but it seems they are full of errors too! Debbie

I have had a couple of problems with extracted records - mistranscriptions of surnames - so its always advisable to check the original PR if you can. Or at least someone else's transcription - some FHS have done their own. Some mistranscriptions are understandable if you've seen the originals!

Deborah & Vicky, Thanks for your comments. I suppose if a lot of the transcriptions are being done by Americans, they would be at a disadvantage regarding place names in particular.

Its not the place names (on the extracted parish records) that are a problem - as they do a whole film, a batch usually only has people from one church. They may get places or counties mixed up, but in general the parish names are OK - the real problem here is identifying the ones that are in the right geographical area if the name is no longer used. My transcription errors have been May instead of Cray & Warr instead of Carr on 2 different marriages. Fortunately the spouses names were reasonably rare (in the right area) so they were easy enough to pull out & investigate further - but if the spouse had been a Smith I might not have spotted them. Perhaps whoever transcribed these wasn't too familiar with the very ornate writing some of these vicars had! You do get used to the handwriting when you look at loads of records from the same era. The member-submitted entries are a totally different kettle of fish though. I've seen loads where the date of birth has been guestimated as age at marriage less 25 for a man, or less 21 for a woman, just because the actual baptism records were in a different parish & they didn't look too closely for them when they were researching their own pedigree. These member-submitted entries CAN be clues as to where to look, but must be treated with far more suspicion than the 'extracted' entries. For example, another of my marriages has a member-submitted entry linking the names I'm interested in. There is no 'extracted' record on the IGI - but there IS a parish record in existence for the right pair & date. Without the clues from the member-submitted entry I would have spent a lot longer looking for it.

Hi all, The two entries I mentioned are not mis-spellings, or geographically incorrect either! I sent for copies of baptisms, that I had found for my Ashfield's in Runcorn. On the LDS site, there is a baptism for Benjamin Ashfield (amongst others) in 1822. When the copies came, the child is quite clearly SAMUEL! - the father is Benjamin. Also a marriage for one of my Swan's, took the date from the LDS site, when last at Hertford RO, I took a copy of the parish register for this marriage. On the LDS site the date of the marriage is 10 April 1870, but the register quite clearly says 24th April!! These are just 2 that I know about - I hate to think now, how many more there might be :(( Debbie

Chris, Take any info you can from anywhere just make a note of the source. That way you can later look into it and decide for yourself if it is useful. If you don't take the info then you are no further along. My tree is full of names/dates to be verified. I can't afford to do it all at once and I don't pass along info I'm uncertain about or I give warnings to others. Hopefully others will come after me and add to and verify my work. Toni

Thanks all for advice...obviously there is no better advice than to see the original record if possible. Chris