RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: joboy on Sunday 28 June 09 02:38 BST (UK)
-
Family history is thoroughly corrupted by the placement of unsourced material.
Sad as it is the quest to acquire a family tree by 'tapping' into other family trees is now rampant.
What we now have are hundreds,possibly thousands,of trees which are incorrect and corrupted because of material that is unsourced and unverified.
only this morning by using a well advertised programme to see if other people had an interest in a particular person who married a particular person at a particular time and place I found five ..... four of which had the bride married at age 11 .. it so happened that the bride(s) had identical names and an age difference of 7 years *and* were born 300 miles apart ..... the 5th was a match to my own so I am now pursuing my interest only with the 5th to see if we can conjointly expand on our individual trees.
Looking more closely at the four "failed"others (representing 80% mark you) each had a tree that ran into many thousands ... mine after 20 odd years or so of doing it boasts of only 704 but I know that I can be as reasonably sure as one can be that it is as correct as possible by verification.
I elected not to place my tree on the net even though I subscribe to that programme preferring rather to see what trees are there that contain families that interest me.
How this problem can be sorted I dont know because the stable door is open ......... but if I can offer a little advice to people who have collected very large trees it would be to scale down to those that you can verify and leave those that you cant on the 'backburner' until you can (if you can),
Joe
-
I stopped updating my online tree a few years ago when I discovered - again on a well known site - that one of my ancestors who was born in Scotland had been updated by someone to say he was born in Dorset.
I know this because on every English census from 1851 onwards the place of birth is Scotland.
Jean
-
I agree Joe
I found one yesterday where there were 5 trees all exactly the same of one of my families that tally with the verified information and with what I have found but the 6th tree had a death in Germany!!!! The man actually died in Lincs where he was born and lived through 4 census returns. He died in Lincs, I have the death certificate!
Where the death in Germany came from I can only guess. I wasn't very good when I started this but now every single bit of information that goes into by tree I give the source, and date found and that gets passed on to anyone I happen to pass the info on to.. I never believe anything given to me until it is verified, as difficult as that can be sometimes and I desperately desperately wish that others would do the same. :-\
Kerry
-
Checking references and verifying sources is basic.
I avoid any data passed on which does not tell me the source in such a way that enables me to follow thru and satisfy myself that it's correct, and has been correctly passed on to me.
Trees online are a hazard- and certainly no way to proceed with reliable research.
charlotte
-
I found my family on a tree with refs to living people, I have asked three times for them to contact me, then requested that all refs to my tree be removed but have received no reply.
I also have most of my relatives on the maternal side included in another tree where all the addresses are quoted with Malvern, Worcester etc all located in USA. I know that is wrong we have census details from 1841 to prove it.
Bah, don't youj ust get mad?
Mike
-
Firstly, I do not have my tree on the net.
While browsing Axxxxxxy family trees I come across quite frequently my gt grandfather is named in trees.
I have the shortest genealogy line in history, can name them on one hand., so why does his name crop up.
I check the trees if it is a public tree and cannot see any connection with him and the rest of the tree.
Please understand I might be wrong and is missing the missing link.
Because my line is short obviously I have spread out sidewards to include my gt gt grandfathers brothers and sisters to make my tree interesting for me.
Secondly, if while browsing these trees and you see an obvious mistake do you contact the owner of that tree to correct them. I dont but I do get irritated by it.
I try to back up and have a paper trail for verification when I can, if not, even my research has a question mark on it.
-
Checking references and verifying sources is basic.
I avoid any data passed on which does not tell me the source in such a way that enables me to follow thru and satisfy myself that it's correct, and has been correctly passed on to me.
Trees online are a hazard- and certainly no way to proceed with reliable research.
charlotte
Completely agree Charlotte. I do however see all the corrupted trees as a bit of a necessary evil, after being able to find some very useful information in others that has helped in my own research.
-
When I first started online research, I innocently downloaded information from several online trees. Some of them proved to be valuable links to previously unknown branches, others may well be accurate but I've yet to verify them . . . and then there are some I wish I'd never seen! >:(
All over the Internet information of all sorts is cut and pasted and errors are replicated to the point where 90% of it is unreliable to say the least. Even some of the news media seem to be guilty of plagiarising dubious "blogs", etc. instead of proper journalistic research but, as serious researchers we're all becoming more aware of the pitfalls and learning to check sources more thoroughly.
So . . . back to verifying sources. It's tedious work, but very satisfying when things fall into place. I just wish I'd been a little more rigorous with my earlier work.
Mike.
-
I have a couple of well researched lines in my tree that when I started and knew no better I just copied and pasted to my tree. However since then through my own research I have found mistakes in that research and also had contact with a some people who have pointed me in the right direction and I am always grateful for their help.
However when I have contacted other researchers because I have found different and verified information why do they have to get so defensive, I don't know how many times I've heard the phrase I've been doing my family tree for XXXX years. So because they've been doing it for years longer than me, that makes them correct and me wrong. ::) ::) It doesn't matter how many years have been spent on a tree, if its wrong, its WRONG!
Yes csh I get irritated too!
Kerry
-
"I elected not to place my tree on the net even though I subscribe to that programme preferring rather to see what trees are there that contain families that interest me."
That seems rather selfish to me. If everyone adopted that attitude, what would be the point of sites like Ancestry or GR ?
This topic is discussed in one form or another on quite a regular basis. The bottom line is that no data can be guaranteed to be 100% accurate, even when documentation is produced. The father's name on many thousands of certificates simply isn't the correct one, because infidelity and deception was as rife then as it is now, if not more so.
All you can do is to sift through all the evidence at hand, and select the data that best fits, and even then there's no guarantees that it's 100% correct.
-
Another thing that is on the nose is when people get hold of photos of living family members and publish then in their "research" without even asking if it's OK to use them... Happened to me recently... >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
charlotte
-
I would not claim to be an expert in family trees, but what I have found helpful with on-line links is the sharing of information which then can be used as a guide, rather than taken on face value. I find that people who are serious researchers are quite happy to email their paperwork to back up their research, and I am delighted to receive it. However, to just copy and past from on-line trees surely takes all the fun out of the hunt? Well, it would for me, anyway.
I am fortunate that one of my trees, which goes back to about 1540, was researched by my uncle before all the wonderful on-line facilities were available. This means that he actually had to visit records offices, parishes etc to glean all the information. In comparison to his contribution, which took him about 30 years to accumulate, mine is quite meagre - I am filling in the gaps, so to speak, and adding some twigs and leaves, always conscious of how hard it must have been for him to get as far as he did.
I can't understand this quest for collecting ancestors like stamps: what interests me are the people, their stories and the way they lived. What elation when you find the 'lost' child with an aunt; what pity when you find the young widow with four small children.... To me, that's what family history is all about.
Regards
Greensleeves
-
Greensleeves, Yes about the pleasure on feels when learning details of the daily lives of those who are our ancestors and the pity on can feel for them in their griefs and the tough circs many of thme faced. They come alive to one- it has nothing to do with trying to collect huge numbers of names.
charlotte
-
Online trees can be useful for suggesting "possible" connections as long as they are used that way, as possibilities to be proven. I use them as a pointer and then look for verification documents to confirm whether or not if it is valid. So I "analyse" and "cooberate" the information and I don't make my tree public.
If I encounter someone who has strong connections, I contact them to determine if we do connect ask if they are interested in communicating. I still take anything they have with a grain of salt and do my own verification and expect they will do the same with mine.
I have contacted people and told then when I thought they had something wrong and told them what I had found. They then took a look at it with new eyes and if they agreed, corrected it. Sometimes they don't agree but so be it, I have done my best.
I have been able to focus my research more effectively and have learned a lot. Ancestry has allowed me easier access to information than I would never have dreamed of but it is only one tool. And like any tool, it is the person operating it that controls how well it functions. The same goes for the internet in general...
My tree is large because all sides of my family have large families, but i have sources to back it up. Luckley I obtained a lot of source information through the Druoin Collection. I found I had to go both /wide and deep wide since the names were so common and to try to sort out the interconnection of families.
J
-
Another thing that is on the nose is when people get hold of photos of living family members and publish then in their "research" without even asking if it's OK to use them... Happened to me recently... >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
charlotte
Make a complaint to Ancestry - doing this is outside their terms and conditions of use.
-
Yes this subject has been discussed many many times.
Many years ago before the internet was popular I sent a copy of my tree to a distant relative. I had researched it on Parish registers at the LDS. This person put it on Rootsweb. It is now on Ancestry. One of my ancestors who died in 1851, I have the death cert, was resurrected in America with a new family. How clever.
Use the trees as a guide only and check everything
Sylviaann
-
It all goes back to the vagaries of human nature, doesn't it?
Some people are determined to do the job properly; others are happy to blatantly filch information from other people; and others just don't seem to care whether they have the correct information as long as it goes as far back as possible with as many names as possible. ::)
Bottom line - I don't really care! I research my tree with integrity and know when some parts of it are 'on the back burner' i.e. only 90% sure.
I learned my lesson with putting my tree online (via GR) - similar experiences to others - so I've removed it and no longer subscribe. I've said it before - GR is like chinese whispers, with information being manipulated along the line so that, in the end, the truth can be lost.
I don't have any experience of Ancestry trees - never subscribed as I'm not City Banker nor do I own an oilfield!
I would just add my advice to that of others - if you don't want your tree manipulated and abused by others - don't put it on the web. As the meercat would say - "Simples!!".
;D ;D
Jill
-
I made contact with a chap on the GR site regarding on of my families. I couldn't see any connection and wrote to tell him so. When next I was checking my tree matches I noticed he had started to put some of my familes into his tree. ( even ones that we hadn't written about originally) I quickly closed my tree and wrote to ask him what connection he had found. His answer was ' I'm still working on it'
I reported him to the GR team who didn't want to know. They said if he hadn't put any living relations on his tree, then there was no problem.
I've learnt my lesson.
Carol
-
Sometimes it feels a bit like some people just want to be the first to 10,000 names in their tree or find a hidden royal rather than find out about the history of the ancestors that lived along the root and branches of our own tree. In other words it doesn't seem to matter how they get there!
Kerry ::)
-
Well, it's only a hobby !
If I was a stamp collector, and I put my favourite penny black in the Hungarian section, that would be nobody else's business or folly, except my own.
You do not own your ancestors. If someone else wants to marry off your great Aunt Gladys to Tommy Cooper, then you can't stop them. They can do it "Just like that" ;D
The only thing I would object to would be if anyone entered the personal details of anyone living from my tree into the public domain.
-
Yes but you wouldn't advertise in Stamp monthly that you had a penny black when in actual fact it was a Penny Red would you? ;D
Kerry
-
This sort of thing is very frustrating.
We don't own our ancestors, but they mean a lot to us & it's annoying when untruths are published about them.
However, it is up to each of us, who cares, to research properly.
I have published incorrect material without realizing it.
My 'tree' is a work in progress. It may be amended from time to time.
I try to check everything & I think that others should do likewise, but not all will. Some do not have the knowledge, inclination or education to research 'correctly'. For some people, finding a tree on the Internet IS research.
That's life, I suppose. We may get upset, but is it really worth it?
-
Firstly, I do not have my tree on the net.
While browsing Axxxxxxy family trees I come across quite frequently my gt grandfather is named in trees.
I have the shortest genealogy line in history, can name them on one hand., so why does his name crop up.
I check the trees if it is a public tree and cannot see any connection with him and the rest of the tree.
Please understand I might be wrong and is missing the missing link.
Because my line is short obviously I have spread out sidewards to include my gt gt grandfathers brothers and sisters to make my tree interesting for me.
Secondly, if while browsing these trees and you see an obvious mistake do you contact the owner of that tree to correct them. I dont but I do get irritated by it.
I try to back up and have a paper trail for verification when I can, if not, even my research has a question mark on it.
It is possible - unless you have a rare name - that the name that crops up is not your gt grandfather but someone else with the same name. They may even be uncles or cousins of your gt grandfather.
Depending on which part of the 19c they lived depends on how families were named. A lot of families in the early part of the 1800's may well have used their family names for their children. I know a lot of mine did.
Jean
-
i just dont understand why people latch on to other peoples trees without researching.....
to me its the thrill of finding the link yourself or with the help of others and checking it out because i like to know about their lives where possible, and not just collect names ....
but we are all different and everyone to their own...
-
It is not a matter of collecting names, you can get clues by other people's research. It is sill up to you to search out the sources to see if they are in fact your family and the right people in your family.
-
For once i mostly i agree with Nick :P
i read so many posts about which is best ie FindMyPast, Genes, Ancestry etc, i actually subscribe to all of them,
and no matter how careful you are someone will abuse your generosity, kindness and it doesn't have to be from strangers, i was in contact with a cousin who until contact from genes had never spoken to before, he sent me massive emails asking this and that, yet somehow always avoided answering important questions from me, my Nan when she married put her Dads Brother as father, as she was under the legal age then, and her Dad was dead, so was done to avoid getting all kinds of documents, how ever many times i explained it to him, i found his tree on Ancestry and he had the brother as my Nans father, so obviously threw a whole line wrong, and checking for the same names on there i have found about 4 people have the same info' from him,
i found a personal photo i sent to him of my Nan and his Nan together with wrong tagged info, but what can you do? myself if i see a census form added to a tree i always try and check its correct rather than tag to my tree, if i can't i won't add it ,seems a silly thing to me to add a census from someone elses tree to yours, as the link when people look at someone elses tree then leads to how ever many people have added that census etc (hope that makes sense lol)
My tree on Ancestry is private unless i add people , but doesn't matter how much you trust someone, do you then know what they or the next person does with it, so you have to accept its public property and if you make sure yours is as correct as possible then hopefully you will be contacted by like minded people,
i have many of my cousins on my tree, as the information and links further back is amazing to find they lived in the same streets, before our families were even connected,
as many have said above best not to get to stressed about misinformation from other trees, if you find one genuine one with new information then it makes it worth while,
lol as an example for someone fishing i got this via genes and he had opened his tree, out of interest i clicked on it and he had 5 names himself his father his father etc and nothing else
so wouldn't be surprised if he sent loads like this to different people
"I have just spotted your entry and that for Richard, Mary, & Harriett.
I have a large database of ***** and connected names and if you would like to make contact maybe we can iterate to expand on your tree - no charge !! "
how honoured i was that he wasn't going to charge me ::)
-
....... ;) A data source box/window should be a compulsory 'tick'. :P
-
What is more annoying is when you find wrong information, point it out to them and they don't get in contact with you!
Recently I bought a male relatives death cert, death was notified by wife B. I was certain this was my man and I knew wife A had died >20y previous in childbirth. So trawlled freeBMD found 2nd marriage for my man to wife B and bought cert. All present and correct. Updated my tree on ancestry with wife B. She appears on 4 other trees, with out marriage to my man and all quote a the same death details! I took the pain to ask them all (4) to confirm source of death as I thought it was wrong. Needless to say only 2 bothered to contact me back and I filed them in on what I had found. One of those despite quoting a death date on their online tree even asked me to "if I knew the death cert to let them know"
Spark
-
I found my family on a tree with refs to living people, I have asked three times for them to contact me, then requested that all refs to my tree be removed but have received no reply.
I also found a tree with references to living people including myself, my sisters and cousins and as the owner hadn't obtained the information from me or my close family it wasn't that accurate either. I contacted the tree owner and made a complaint to Ancestry. Ancestry said they investigated but because the information on the tree was incomplete, i.e., not full dates of births it wasn't in breach of their conditions. The tree owner hasn't removed them and doesn't seem bothered that she has caused offence.
>:(
I do have my tree on Ancestry and Genes but I am very careful who I open them to and never reveal living persons. When sharing photographs and documents, I have also learned my lesson as someone I thought I could trust just uploaded a photograph without asking. They have paid a price though because I have since uncovered some new photographs which I know they would die for but no way. Whenever I share something now, I make it a condition that it is kept for private use within the family and everyone agrees and I think that without exception everyone has said they prefer to work anyway.
I have noticed two trees which include my gt grandparents and gt, gt grandparents and which are totally inaccurate. Its like the owner has just taken pot luck with the census returns. I have thought about contacting the owners but then I think they wouldn't have gone so wrong if they were researching properly and from reading some of the replies tonight, would they thank me for it?
On the positive side, I have made a handful of excellent contacts (distant cousins) who I can trust and it has been a pleasure working with them and we have really helped each other. Making contact with these people and joining Rootschat have made my research all the more pleasurable as I think sometimes it can be a lonely hobby.
:D
Luzzu
-
....... ;) A data source box/window should be a compulsory 'tick'. :P
Excellent and right to the point!!
Verification .. Verification .. and Verification!! ... the 'tick' would be a great way to minimise those expansive trees.
I dont explore trees which list over 10,000 entries on the basis that the owner must be either very rich to have afforded so many (listing cousins so far removed etc) or the owner has just not understood the importance of verifying.
Of course it is wonderful when one contacts another who is happy to pass on the actual verification ... that has happened to me I am glad to say.
Nick29 said of my original post;
"That seems rather selfish to me. If everyone adopted that attitude, what would be the point of sites like Ancestry or GR"
Well I have no answer to that ..... I joined the first site that you mentioned and am getting good value from it but only on my terms ... which are simply not to place my tree there and I have benefitted by being able to remove lots of dross and through this am able to find little gems with new found relations.
Footnote ... I know that many wont believe this but one tree that had a few names in it that interested me listed over 100,000 names ........ I ask you 'is it possible?'.
Joe
-
I have been doing family history research for over 50 years and I have at least one tree/database with well over 11,000 names on it.
I have others with around 2,500 names.
None of my trees have been grabbed from the web in fact most of the research was done before the internet was invented and much even before the IGI was invented.
My online trees do not show sources simply because the programs used at the time did not have the facility to show sources (even though they held them).
I may eventually re-upload my online trees with sources but this takes time and I have other more pressing things to do.
As far as I am concerned an online tree is simply a guide to what records may be available. If the researcher who uses any online resource cannot be bothered to check then that is their look-out.
Eventually new comers to family history (including those who have only used online sources) will realise that many if not most sources contain errors.
Even official sources (census, births, marriages deaths, baptisms burials etc. etc. contain errors and must be checked against other sources.
Only when a number of different sources of information have been assembled can the possibilities be weighed and a conclusion reached.
Family history research involves balancing the accuracy from many secondary sources as virtually no primary sources exist.
Even where a primary source exists it is only a primary source for a small proportion of the information it contains.
Cheers
Guy
-
Hello Guy & Joe..
I can understand Guy, you don't want to start the mammoth task of thousands of sources ::) that would take another 50yrs + :P :P
Any new data, just a name, even 'self' or TBC (to be confirmed) would stop wholesale copying and let people new to our 'addiction' see the justified entry.
Best wishes,
Lesanne.
-
I'm sure some people would simply ignore TBC ::)
Someone once said, not sure if it was on here that if it is on the web it must be true - NOT! ;D
Kerry
-
:D Hi kerry, Yep, they have.... and added the futher 3 generations..... after I'd put TBC... cause they've copied the lot :o :o and it's all wrong family.... ;D
Well, I'm NOT gonna tell them.... :-*
OOO.. is that naughty of me.
-
I'm sure some people would simply ignore TBC ::)
Yes, they do ! I added two "possibles" to my tree, and clearly put "NOT CONFIRMED - COPY AT YOUR OWN RISK" in the details.
Within a month, three people had copied it. I think this is partially the fault of Ancestry - their hints only show the basic "facts", and not the actual page containing them.
The bottom line is, of course, that hobbies mean more to some than to others. Some people have a train layout, and are quite happy to watch a plastic model go round and round in circles for hours, whilst others have to build everything themselves, exactly to scale, and exactly to period and region. They both probably get the same amount of pleasure from it.
For most of us, genealogy is just a hobby, and we all have our own ways of doing things. My tree currently stands at around 5,500 names, and the accuracy of the data in my tree really depends on how far you stray from the main branches. When I hit "dead ends", I will often look down branch lines, to see if I can pick up any clues. I have also researched the branches of cousins at their request, but I draw the line on obtaining certificates for their family, so they're not fully verified either. Now, that may fit in with the ways of some others, but I'm not doing it for them - I'm doing it for me, and I'm not forcing anyone to look at my tree. I think we spend far too much time in this country worrying about what other people are doing ::)
-
Everyone has made some really good points, but as Nick has pointed out, it is basically a hobby for most people! It is done for your own pleasure or gratification and as long as you do what you think is right for your own tree, then no one can fault you. However, if you choose to show it off to the world, you have to accept the consequences and be prepared for other people to disagree with your findings, hence the reason for having sources to back up anything you have. You also have to accept that the same people might just plunder all your hard work for their own. It has been happening since the beginning of time, either through the spoken language or the written word, it is what people do! Future genealogists will have to sift through all the various family trees done by different branches of the same family and decide which is the right one, lets hope they choose yours! ;D
-
I recently had some corresponence with a fellow off GR. It was quite obvious from the emails that it was the correct family however there was one difference. A marriage back before civil registration for a Jacob Chandler and an Ann.
Mine was Vanes and his was Banes, so I asked him "why the difference?" his reply was that he had been to a genealogical fayre and purchased a one name study and he had trouble reading the tree compilers handwriting!!
I pointed out the marriage on the IGI and he said how did we know they had copied the record accurately. No way of knowing I said I wasnt there. At least now we can share but its true just keep checking
Barry
-
Hello Guy & Joe..
I can understand Guy, you don't want to start the mammoth task of thousands of sources ::) that would take another 50yrs + :P :P
Any new data, just a name, even 'self' or TBC (to be confirmed) would stop wholesale copying and let people new to our 'addiction' see the justified entry.
Best wishes,
Lesanne.
It is not as simple as that.
My database contains in most cases multiple sources for one item of information.
For example a birth entry may be sourced from a birth certificate plus a baptism register, a school register, various census, family sources etc.
Due to the limitations of the old family history programs many of the sources had to be entered into the notes field rather than into a sources field.
This means that to include those sources online I would have to delete pages of text that form the other notes. On top of this would be more time checking that I had not made a mistake whilst doing that.
It could be done but it would take an immense amount of time which could be devoted to other matters.
Perhaps a future generation will have the free time to convert my databases to a future proof format, I do not.
In many cases though showing sources would simply make internet users less likely to actually check the particular source as they would take the record at face value as the source had been shown.
Cheers
Guy
-
Compared to many on this site I still feel a novice when it comes to family history but here's what I think.
My tree contains about 1100 individuals. I started with a fairly small inherited tree with few sources. I have done my best to verify all the original information and all new dates etc I have tried to confirm from at least two sources. Because I live about 300 miles from my ancestors historical stamping ground I have had to do virtually all this from the internet. I can't afford subscriptions to the big sites nor to obtain certificates for every event. I have therefore used free sites and developed `constructive` index searches of the big sites then taken a couple of free trials and blitzed the records. When information has come just from the index I say so in the source citation.
I have my tree on the web and am happy for any one to view it. If someone finds they are related and wish to copy my tree - fine, after all I got 99% of the information for free! If they then copy people and get it wrong that's their problem. Would I be upset? possibly - most likely probably - but having chosen to make my tree available to the public that is something I will have to face.
I have found other trees on the net to which I have connections and have contacted the owners and gained permission to add those individuals. This I do along with their site as a source AND wherever possible a reference to the original source which I have checked.
As for the propagation of what has been termed corruption I hope my methods do not contribute to this.
As with all of life their will be a number of people, usually a minority, who will want to get something for nothing or pass off the work of another as their own. Personally I am happy in the knowledge that what I have done and posted on the net is as factual and correct as I can make it. If anyone points out a mistake I will respond and correct it. If someone then plagiarises it and gets it wrong I have the original and can say "that's not what I put" but quite honestly would it be worth the effort? let them live in their ignorance
-
Well said. I don't think any of us would get very far without the work of others, so it's good to give something back.
-
I still haven't put any of my ancestors information into a programme - it all just exists on bits of paper stuffed into folders. Honestly - there's too much of it and I can't face all the effort and I'm also banking on paper outliving any computer software.
Mind you, it hasn't stopped me from seeing my research appearing on someone's website. I sent them the information in the days before computers, so it cost time AND money. I didn't get any thanks then and no acknowledgment on their website either ....
Carole
-
I still haven't put any of my ancestors information into a programme - it all just exists on bits of paper stuffed into folders. Honestly - there's too much of it and I can't face all the effort and I'm also banking on paper outliving any computer software.
Carole
Carole,
you really should make a start by entering at least your direct line of ancestors into a programme.
Quite a number of subscribers to this topic (me included) did exactly as you are doing ... visits to the LDS/FHC and burial grounds and similar with a 'dog eared' note book and badly written notes ........ waiting until a viewer was available only to find that the film you needed was in use by someone else and your time allocation had run out.
Those old 'bits of paper' will eventually die if you dont put them into something reasonably secure.
I look at my old notes occasionally and think about all the time that I spent in those days that could have been spent on other things that were more pressing ... at least they were to my dear wife.
Make a start ... and add the other little bits as you are able.
Joe
-
I would advise you to put your research on a computer as quickly as possible, it is at risk.
I totally agree that paper will (if stored correctly) outlast current computers & programs, but digital information can be transferred from system to system.
I first compiled my computer data on a Commodore 64, transferred it to a Commodore Amiga and eventually on to a PC.
The great value of digital data is it can be easily spread to different locations. This spread provides safety in case of disaster.
If you had a fire or flood or other similar event your work could be lost forever.
Digital copies (though not being able to replace the original documents) could provide copies of those documents.
In addition digital copies are easier to search, store and share and all may be taken with you when on research trips.
Digital does not replace paper records but augments them.
Cheers
Guy
-
Drifting off-topic a little, I think the biggest advantage for me of storing my data in a computer is the discipline it introduces into my work, creating order out of chaos ::)
It's easy to spot missing people, sources, etc. and also to correct errors that have crept in (mostly from other people's work!) without having to completely re-draw a tree.
BUT . . . I print out hard copy of everything as well because in the longer term it is arguably more permanent. I know you can upgrade data to new formats as they arise, but it might not be so easy to retrieve the family history from that old Sinclair Microdrive tape that you discover in your late uncle Fred's effects. Far easier to read his handwritten or printed work, and you don't even need any special equipment . . . except perhaps the reading glasses ;)
Mike.
-
I think it would take years for me to do :( And probably drive me even more mad! ;D
I also do a lot of family history type research on the life and times of the C18th diarist Parson James Woodforde and all of that is on computer AND backed up - so I'm not a complete troglodyte. I think in the greater scheme of things, that is much more valuable work than my own family's history.
Carole
-
I print out hard copy of everything as well because in the longer term it is arguably more permanent.
I haven't even owned a printer for the last 10 years and haven't missed it. The last time I needed a printout was when a 95 year old cousin without a computer wanted to see the tree and going to the version I keep on the web wasn't feasible for him. It took me a couple of hours to export the relevant portion for him, pull it into Word, clean it up, and send it to the local UPS store for printing and mailing: total cost was $7.00.
He now has a 30 page, professional looking document that has all his ancestors and their siblings back to the early 1800s: and all the documenting notes I have made on them over the past 20 years.
The worry about not being able to transfer your hard wrought computer files from one platform to another is no longer relevant. The internet has done away with that problem: if you can get it on the web you can literally port it to any other system.
Nick
-
I don't really care that people have the wrong info on their trees, that's up to them. However, it does seem a bit perverse to be interested in family history but not check properly.
I am in touch with a 4th cousin in Tasmania, he has done a lot of research verified with certificates etc. but for some unknown reason decided to take some info he'd found on an Ancestry tree as correct. He then bought the "wrong" marriage certificate. He asked me about it and I said I had a different husband for our mutual ancestor. I hadn't yet bought the marriage cert, but having looked at FreeBMD and found two possible men on the same page, I then checked on the census after the date of the marriage to see which of the men's surnames had become hers. Easy to do and very effective. It turned out I was correct and my 4th cousin having now bought the correct marriage certificate agrees with me.
What didn't make any sense was to order a marriage certificate using what may or may not (and in this case not) be the correct husband. Why not order the certificate using the known name of the ancestor.
Lizzie
-
I don't really care that people have the wrong info on their trees, that's up to them. However, it does seem a bit perverse to be interested in family history but not check properly.
Lizzie
I have noticed some very odd things on people's trees on Ancestry - including some folk married long before they were born ::)
I admit I am in no way infallible - but I think it's sensible to make sure you have at least typed the date correctly - and when you see the same mistake repeated on someone else's tree ......... well ;D
Carole
-
I'm in the awkward position of having to break bad news to someone. Thanks to this person's previous efforts I was able to get past one of my blockages. The problem is that I've now been able to determine that there's a mistake in the research & my benefactor isn't in fact connected to the tree concerned (although I am).
Don't imagine that the news is going to go down well . . .
I have noticed some very odd things on people's trees on Ancestry - including some folk married long before they were born ::)
Yes, I think that the overwhelming desire to make connections blinds people to the bits that don't quite fit. Cognitive dissonance?
-
:o Blimey Bhoy, if you know, tell them.
I wish someone had known I was barking up the wrong tree, before I had got to page 19 of a thread........ countless trip's to Oxford, which is quite a journey for me.
But, someone has got, all the connections of wills etc to confirm........ :D
I've mailed everyone that I know has copied it. Now I'm off, up another tree........
:P :P only time will tell.......
-
I'm sure it has happened to us all. I spent months of hard research on a line that I thought was mine and through blood, sweat and tears got 3 generations in the 1700s.
Then a contact emailed me and pointed out that the census return of my great x 4 grandfather that I had pinned my research on was the wrong one. There were in fact 2 boys born round the same time with the same name in the same village but what I had failed to see was that the death certificate of mine definitely put him as the census return I had not seen rather than the one I had (if that makes sense).
I was grateful she pointed it out to me and eventually started on the right trail but a bit peeved that I had just paid West Sussex CC for some parish registers entries for the wrong family ::) :-\
I'm sure Bhoy that your contact will be grateful eventually ;D
Kerry
-
~~~~~~~~
I have a couple of well researched lines in my tree that when I started and knew no better I just copied and pasted to my tree
I think a lot of us have done that! When I first started looking for my Scottish ancestors I found scotlandspeople very expensive, and eagerly copied a tree that later turned out to have been built on guesswork. I learnt the hard way what everyone is saying here about backing up your data.
However, don't knock large trees. I have expanded my tree sideways, taking in cousins and inlaws etc, because my interest is not just getting my direct line back as far as possible. I'm far more interested in the lives these ancestors lived. It fascinates me that in one small town or village I can find dozens of families with the same surname as my ancestor. Their relationship may be a bit convoluted, but I love the challenge of finding the link. I reckon these 'cousins' probably knew each other and shared each other's lives - and documents such as removals orders and death certificates often verify that there was contact between the different branches.
So large trees don't necessarily indicate a mindless 'name collecting'. Some of my most interesting family history stories relate to the extended family - and have taught me more about history than I ever learnt in school!
-
The worry about not being able to transfer your hard wrought computer files from one platform to another is no longer relevant. The internet has done away with that problem: if you can get it on the web you can literally port it to any other system.
I'm as much an enthusiast for the Internet as you'll find anywhere, but I do remember that all those uploaded files are still stored on a server somewhere . . . ok, maybe on several servers, with multiple reduncancy, and all manner of safeguards, but it's certainly not under my control.
Furthermore, when I want to access the data I need special equipment to translate the digital coding into the English language and reproduce it on an electronic screen, so I also need to have an electric power supply. No doubt our brains will be eventually hard-wired into the "system" at birth thus avoiding such inconveniences, but until then I'll settle for printing it out in a form I, or anyone, can read unaided . . . except, as I say, for the reading glasses ;)
Mike.
-
I have noticed some very odd things on people's trees on Ancestry - including some folk married long before they were born ::)
Carole
Occaisionally Ancestry goes a bit giddy and displays wrong dates even when the correct ones have been entered. I was embarrased to find I had my great grandma christened before she was born, but when I went to edit it I had put the right dates. (Although someone has my dad dying 30 years before he actually did)
-
I think the One World Tree had a lot to answer for in terms of people being able to link people wherever they fancied but I believe that has been changed now!
Kerry ::)