RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: grandma on Wednesday 13 August 08 15:42 BST (UK)
-
A little over 4 years ago I put my first query on Roots Chat. Got a reply from someone I think was called Pauline. From the info she gave me we were able to find 4 different family trees. Rishworth from 1350, Barkisland from1200 through to Gledhill,1292 and Barker abt.1562. Needless to say we downloaded all the info and put it on FTM. Almost over night got several hundred names on my tree. Since then I,ve found thanks to Root Chat people loads more, but I still think I,ve done something not quite according to Doyle, using all the info someone else has done.
My ggggrandmother was Nancy Gledhill who marrid Joseph Barker in 1806.
Mary
-
It's not cheating, but not as satisfying as find out the information yourself.
If the information wasn't verified it might not be correct. Did the people who gave you the family history, also give you details of all the parish records searched, etc. for pre 1837 records? I've been given a lot of information about branches of my family tree, but I always check it out thoroughly before adding the information to my tree. In some cases, the dates of births, marriages or deaths have been wrong, and quite often place of birth has been wrong.
Lizzie
-
Thats exactly how I felt by not finding the info myself. It was all through info from LDS, so felt reasonably sure it had been properly investigated. I,ve since found other tree resembling the ones we found and they were the same thought they could be copies.
Mary
-
Should have said Hoyle...l
Mary
-
No, not cheating. You should take advantage of all sources.
However, I do feel I know most of the people on my tree as it's taken blood, sweat and tears (and several quid on certificates!) to find them one by one. As a result, I sometimes I follow some lines from intuition, which often prove fruitful.
I suggest you now look carefully at your tree, so that you get to know them all.
meles
-
Submitted entries to the LDS are one of the major sources of error. They creep into a large number of trees and there is a huge danger that you use one of these trees to confirm that yours is correct.
In one of my branches some years ago I discovered an error which had been made some twenty years earlier by an elderly lady. I tried to discuss this with her niece but she stopped communicating with me because I had the audacity to question her aunt's tree.
I am now aware of this error having been copied onto at least half a dozen trees published on GR. I am 100% sure because I have checked the parish register and I have found the place where she combined two adjacent marriages to get the wrong wife.
David
-
I am almost in the same situation on my fathers side as you. Not long after I started I contacted a distant rellie who, unknown to me, had actually published the family tree which went back to 1300's. I was sent a copy. I briefly glanced at it to confirm it was the right family and haven't looked at it since or done any work on that side of the family. That was over a year ago, and there is no joy in doing anything about it. It is detailed, well sourced, and doesn't mean a thing to me. I hope at some time I will be able to get over the feeling and be able to look for it all myself as finding out about my Dad's family was why I started in the first place.
-
Have studied these different trees and seen how the different branches have come to-gether to my ggggrandmother. Have found a lot info on the net about the different families. Of cource I cant be positive that every thing is true, not doing it myself and seeing the proof myself. Makes good reading though. I,d never in a hundred years had the time or knowledge to find it all. Still have it in the back of my head though that it,s not my work.
Mary
-
What I do when I find other trees that seem to connect to mne is make note of them, and sometimes even copy the gedcom. I don't put them into my tree without first verifying as others have stated.
For example, a year ago I discovered that a GG GM was a Chisholm. It took me a year (off & on) to verify siblings, parents, etc. A couple of weeks ago I came across a book done in late 1890s or early 1900s called "History of the Chisholms". It is a scholarly work that takes this line back to the mid-1200s and posits that the original line came to Scotland with William the Conqueror. It is very interesting reading, but I will not put all of these people in my tree until I verify them (if ever) myself.
Echoing meles , I feel the need to do the research that helps me know these people: otherwise I'd just be collecting names to no real purpose.
Nick
-
I see your point and that,s all fine and dandy, but just how far shall we streatch ourselves. I have mar. cert. of several of my ggggrandparents. Have the names of their children, some with spouses but no cert. to verify them. Found them on Family search and Ancestry. Should I not put them on my tree?
Mary
-
A difficult one, grandma. We all do our trees in different ways.
I personally make a note on my FTM the source of my info. In some cases I note that it's e.g. from someone else's tree, so I am on the alert that it might not be right. In time, I try to verify it - not always easy, but if someone has managed to come up with the info, it must exist somewhere!
meles
-
That,s a good idea, making notes about where the info came from. If everyone who has put in info on their tree without having it verified, should delete it there would be rather slim trees kicking around.
Mary.
-
Hello Mary
Like meles I keep a record in FTM of sources for my family tree information.
Generally I rely on free information for people other than direct ancestors although, in many cases, I have extracts from parish registers. For direct ancestors I try to have BMD certificates (if possible) wills, PR extracts and census info.
When sharing my tree information, I always tell the other researchers my sources and how reliable I think the information is.
When I obtain information from other researchers I note the source in FTM but try to verify the information to my satisfaction.
This works for me - but everyone has their own views on this subject :)
Barbara
-
That,s a good idea, making notes about where the info came from. If everyone who has put in info on their tree without having it verified, should delete it there would be rather slim trees kicking around.
Mary.
Only last week I removed over 800 people from my tree because I had acquired them via ancestry or gr and had no way to verify them all myself.
I went through each person in my tree who was of no direct relationship to me or hubby and unless they were married to a direct relation (including nth cousin x times removed) then the got removed (well to another tree - I didn't just delete them totally).
With this smaller tree of actual relations I am concentrating on finding birth/bapt, marriage, death, census, addresses, occupations for each and every one.
I use submitted IGI's as a guide only but I do accept the extracted records.
Where I don't have a cert for BMD I note the index ref, so that I can go back to it anytime.
I save a copy of each relevant census image (using it's ref as file name) and draw an yellow outline around the relevant family. Then I attach that image to each person that is appropriate.
Until I have all (or as close to all as possible) for my actual relations, I see little point in obtaining the names of parents of spouses of siblings and their lineages.
I got caught up and went too far "sideways" and my tree ended up more of a hedgerow instead, but a little pruning and it's all back under control =)
-
Hi,
I recently did something similar, splitting my database into two; one for genuine ancestors with verified sources, the other for 'possibles'. This was prompted by stupidly downloading someone else's GEDCOM directly into my tree . . . and subsequently spending many weeks carefully correcting all their mistakes! >:(
In RootsMagic it is possible to open several different trees at once and 'drag and drop' individuals or families from one to another, so it is easy to transfer people to the main tree once they are checked.
Actually, I am currently doing almost everything that JustKia is doing . . . I've even done a bit of 'hedgerow pruning' of my own, and I now try to limit myself to the spouse and children of siblings.
Mike.
-
Ditto here!
I got loads of information that had already been researched/obtained by others around the world researching the tree. I threw it all on genes and thought yay, look at that! As I've become more experienced and more thoroughly hooked, I've seen this as an error on my part, so I've now started from scratch with my direct line in a seperate tree. Every member of the new tree now gets thoroughly researched, bmd's, census, IGI extracts etc. before I move on to the next one. I already had a lot of information, but I didn't cover everything I could so I'm backtracking. I've found a few issues with the 'accepted' family tree research, which may in fact be correct, but until I can verify them for myself, I'm not happy to move up the tree. It might be hard work, but it's very satisfying and you get a real feel for the people, rather than just a bunch of names. I mark all the family tree members as OK after their surname once I've exhausted every avenue and have detailed as much verified information as I can obtain, leaving the odd one or two that I will need to go back to. This way I can see at a glance who I still have to work on. Does mean that I now have a family whose surname is OK, but still, it's working for me! ;D
Lass x
-
must admit i feel the same as many others have already said, i found a line of mine going back to the 1300's its geniune with very good source info and very well documented - in fact its too well documented , i cant get my head round it all !
also only last week i was searching through other peoples trees on ancestry and found lots of trees that had my ancestors wrongly added to them . some of them with ridiculous mistakes - one had a child born 100 years before his alleged parents, another had the parents of one family born in america then apparently got married in finland and had a child in kent !- the child was my great grandfather from a long line of kent families , i politely wrote to the person whos tree it was and explained to him that it was all wrong and he was wasting his time he told me he had copied it from other trees found on the web .
the golden rule has got to be never trust anyone elses research unless you have double checked every fact yourself
-
In Jan. and Mar. of this year I finally came in touch with my Aussie rellies, thanks to Roots Chat. Had been searching for 4 years. They didn,t even know of one another. I was able to provide them with the names of their ggrandparents who had emigrated in the 1880,s They have since met and are gathering info about the huge family there. They have sent copies of some of the BMD they have gathered. Also a lot of names and dates of their still living families. Will this mean that in 100 years someone studying my tree will be in doubt of the authenticity of my info. Should I exoect them to send copies of all living and dead??? Think this is just going a bit too far!!!
Mary
-
I think perhaps the telling point here is that most of us enjoy the hunt - it doesn't matter to me that there's lots of work to do, it's the thrill of finding ancestors in the census or matching up relatives to the tree by some little quirk discovery. If, in 100 years, my descendants question the validity of what's on my tree, then great - provided they have the hunger to work on it, then I'll be delighted to watch over them from wherever I end up! But if I put as much verified information on the tree as possible now, then there will be less to question!
Lass x
-
Hi Lass.
I agree with you completely, the thrill of finding just one more name is rewarding. I tell all my family I,ve finally found so and so... they just look at me!! Thank godness my one son i s also into geneology, though he is concentrating on his Norwegian roots.. He has a much easier job than me though. The church records are more or less complete.
Mary.
-
Should I exoect them to send copies of all living and dead??? Think this is just going a bit too far
I believe that the consensus is that all research should be properly sourced and that those sources should be properly recorded and documented to allow such checking as necessary to allow the validation and confirmation of the research.
I was recently allowed access to a tree of a possible 4th cousin several times removed. This tree was very interesting and claimed to have searched some of the lines (not my direct lineage) back to the 7th century in Scandinavia. As much as I would have loved to have been part of that tree I started spotting problems very quickly and further checking showed that the facts were being bent to fit the theories. Overall very poor research.
-
I believe that the consensus is that all research should be properly sourced and that those sources should be properly recorded and documented to allow such checking as necessary to allow the validation and confirmation of the research.
exactly , agree 100%
the amount of times ive seen people that have trees built just on names and dates is ridiculous.
its up to you whether you want to include other peoples trees but without sources you might as well just read read the phone book
-
In other words I should refuse to accept the info that my Aussie cousins send me as true, unless they send me cert. of all the family. Where I come from thats called nitpicking.
Mary.
-
In other words I should refuse to accept the info that my Aussie cousins send me as true, unless they send me cert. of all the family. Where I come from thats called nitpicking.
Mary.
no not at all , but they must have got the info from somewhere -if they are sharing their tree with you surely they would be happy to share their sources? if they cant tell you where they got they the info from then personally i wouldnt put it into my tree , but thats just me
its completely up to you
-
But when it,s their own children and grandchilrdren I must take it at face value. Some will say I,m too lax about this but I,m quite happy going on with it the way I am. I don,t have cert. for my siblings or their children either. Or my huge set of cousins on the praries. Have no plans on publishing this, it,s for my own satisfaction and as Lass said if in 100 years someone questions it all, well let them do the work. It,s a hobby for me, I try to do my best so can,t ask for anything more.
Mary
-
when its still living or recent relatives then of course accept their word , i would myself.
i didnt realise thats what you meant . i thought we was talking about going back generations
-
If living relatives are giving details of their current/immediate family then you have no reason to disbelieve.
The issue I believe most of us are concerned with is being able to doucment our research, that does not mean to produce a certificate for every birth, marriage or death, but to be able to validate our sources.
Knowing the names is one thing, being told they were born in 1828 is another step, finding the correct birth reference is yet another step, validating that Joe Bloggs from Yorkshire is indeed your direct ancestor on a given line is something, I at least, aim towards.
For each person doing research, they will have their own level that they want to achieve.
My personal aim is to be as documented as possible (depending on availability and funding) on my 4 (grandparents) lines. Once I feel I have achieved that for me the next step is to expand on the families of my ancestors siblings. This is only one way of looking at the research.
6 months ago if someone handed me a tree and said "here you go, here's your ancestors to xdate" I'd have been thrilled, now I'd be greatful but it would be merely a guide for me. If however I was handed a tree that had references (be that an index ref, or a parish and date, or census ref) I'd be greatful and I'd want to see each reference for myself before commiting it to my tree.
I struck lucky in two ways, my paternal line has been pretty easy to trace (I've 12 generations and all within about a 25 mile radius) and my paternal grandfather's brother researched the same line 20 or so years ago. I don't have his research, just the tree he wrote (beautifully so), but it did give me names and dates. I trust his research implicitly because I know it was done with accuracy and no costs barred. I've built on that and using his dates/places/names I have been able to pull up index references that match and order some of those certificates.
As I've been going through my tree recently some of my own work has come back to bite me. I've looked at a person and thought to myself "now, how did I get that date for their marriage? How did I know that? Where did I get that info?" and I've simply had to go back and do that bit of work again to make sure I was right and this time noting the sources/references. If I can't remember where I got some info from, I can't know if it is right or not, with the source I can check I didn't make a typo or something.
Don't be offended that people want to verify sources and wouldn't just accept details from another tree, it's just what has been learned (often the hard way).
Do what makes you happy, otherwise it's a chore instead of a hobby =)
-
I think we,ve been missing the point here. My original question was "is it cheating" to add to your tree info obtained from trees you find on the net. I believe I,ve been answered.
I can verify the info I have about my gg and ggggrandparents and all the decendents. Like I said it,s just a hobby for me, but I try to make sure I,ve got the right people otherwise whats the use of doing it. You,re only fooling yourself if that,s the case.
Mary
-
I think we,ve been missing the point here. My original question was "is it cheating" to add to your tree info obtained from trees you find on the net. I believe I,ve been answered.
I believe you'll find that is a matter of personal opinion, there is no hard fast answer.
Do you think it's cheating? If not - go for it.
I can verify the info I have about my gg and ggggrandparents and all the decendents. Like I said it,s just a hobby for me, but I try to make sure I,ve got the right people otherwise whats the use of doing it. You,re only fooling yourself if that,s the case. Mary
I'm not fooling anyone, including myself, as I am ensuring I document my facts to my own satisfaction.
I appreciate the answer you wanted was "of course it's not cheating". But it's not one that can be decided by another person for you.
-
Is it cheating ........
The answer to that one as said by Justkia lies with you and what you want to get out of your search, some people enjoy the "hunt" others seek to expand their knowledge, some gather facts and figures while others delve deep into the social history.
Some of us do a little bit of each and every one of us is different - the bottom line is if it ticks the boxes for you then fine you know the old saying about gift horses.
-
I'd say the ultimate answer is that it's not cheating unless you are passing it off as your own work for financial reward. If it's just for your own personal enjoyment, you make your own rules . . . and break them if it suits you. ;)
What many people have been saying, based on their own bitter experiences, is that if you accept others' work without verifying sources you may be cheating yourself, and you may find half your supposed relatives are actually not!
Mike.
-
I got a few distant relatives who I contacted on Genes Reunited and had access to the tree. But as I am 13 my parents think it is got be the truth and ban me form investigating more on that line.
-
I agree with most of the posters, it's better to try and verify before putting onto your tree.
I usually print out the info I find then double check, mostly via census images. This is a good way back to 1841 as if they are found with known family them it's odd on they are correct.
I then obtain copies of the BMD's as this is another good source of verification, plus it can give extra info. Prior to 1837 I check with IGI then it definately is down to double checking.
The only problem I have with some of the names I had put online in the early days via my A******y tree is when I spot someone else has put alternative info against one of 'my' names.
For example with my Comb family, Robert Comb was born in Scotland but I have discovered that someone else has added that he was born in DEVON even though I have Scotland down as his place of birth.
As every English census since 1871 has Robert's birth place as Scotland and I may have found him as a boy in a Scottish census (there are three with the same name) I am 1000% certain he was from Scotland.
Unfortunately I don't know who did the amendment so am unable to contact them to explain their error.
Jean