RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Finley 1 on Friday 14 March 14 06:56 GMT (UK)
-
As you do, when researching a difficult member of the tree Or should I say as I do....
I check out public trees on Genes or Ancestry......
NOW luckily through over 15yrs of research, I never think GREAT this is them, without thoroughly - thoroughly - disecting the information --- if there is any.
Well honestly, I have just had cause to research a gentleman who was missing in the 1871.....
The information I had from the 1861 Francis Wardle born Lullington 1858. I also had the 1911 with him and his family (my Julia Lavinia/Lavernia) which shows him born in Lullington/Lillington.
Found the 1881 - found the 1901 all showing same place of birth... NO 1871.
So asked for help on here and even together, we couldnt find him -- So popped him in my 'to complete' box.
Then in the middle of the night, when he wouldnt get himself out of my old head... ::) ??? :o
I decided to browse the public trees...........
And it seems no one can find him in 1871. :-\ :-X
UNTIL I came across one particular tree.............................
that was 'Bursting' with Wardles (and I am sorry if you are a roots member) but ooooooooo dear me..
What a pickle...
They have him down married to two different ladies albiet consecutively .. but with children born from both marriages at very similar times, but he lives in two different areas. Now they are not too far from each other. ???
SO has this researcher discovered he is a bigamist....... or what. ::) :-[
I checked his census rtns and No ... One of his Francis is from one area and the other from another.
So this again, goes to prove, that people who do not READ the census thoroughly and double check - are messing up.
It is such a shame, on this one because he/she has worked so hard on the information on there, and just one error - one census read wrongly has messed it all up.
I did send a note......... to gently ask ???? ---- but nothing yet.
So yet again the future of online information, is nothing but SUSPECT.... and should alllllways be throroughly checked.
AS we know --- dont we ?????
-
We do indeed.
Recently I too have had a peep at a few trees, just to see if anyone has had any luck finding some of mine. But it is so depressing ..... tree after tree of copied info one from another all completely wrong!
Which one to send a gentle note to? Cant be bothered with telling them all that a Peter Bradford may have married a Charlotte Boniface and then she died not long after, but it was not definitely not the one who was dtr of John and Elizabeth of Eastergate/Aldingbourne - If you read the Will of John then his daughter Charlotte married a George Field and she is still very much alive when he wrote his will.
My real worry is that people take trees on Ancestry as a reliable source, not as what they are ie the result of peoples "research" which may be thorough and accurate or may be no more than a random guess, and sometimes not even that - more a strick a pin in a list of names!. With these "trees" portrayed alongside original sources such as census returns and BMD records, it is all too easy for newcomers to the hobby to see them all as the same. I worry about the future of Family History Research as a result of this blurring between access to surviving documents and the practice of people sharing their own interperatations.
-
I can't be bothered to tell anyone anything anymore ;D ;D ;D
As you say Liz,people pinch bits of trees and then end up with a right mish mash of incorrect info.
I know that I have certs and facts to back mine up, gleaned over 30 + years,so mine is the real Mccoy,not from some tree nicker online ;D
Carol
-
You're researching the name McCoy? !!!!!!!!!!!!
-
;D ;D ;D
agree
no tree nickers round here ;D ;D
or bloomers!!! (I hope)
;D ;D ;D
xin
-
Recently found a 'family tree' which included a photo of one of my husband's ancestors, but as the same photo has been used twice we don't know if it's his 4xgt aunt or her daughter, and that's assuming that the photo is genuine. ::)
Bee
:)
-
There are numerous trees online which trace back to William Macdonald Simpson, born illegitimate to Mary Simpson in Dingwall in 1889. Unfortunately all of these trees then go on to claim that Mary was the great-niece of Sir James Young Simpson, and that she was born in 1873 (you can all do that bit of arithmetic and draw your own conclusions) to John Simpson, pharmaceutical chemist and druggist in Edinburgh, and his wife Christina Petrie.
This is just pure, complete and utter fantasy. I have thoroughly researched the mother of William Macdonald Simpson, and I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that she was born in Dingwall in 1863, the daughter of William Simpson, carpenter, and his wife Ann Mackenzie, with no connection whatsoever to the family of Sir James.
All of these trees ultimately refer back to a tree put online by one Naomi Simpson-Beck, a descendant of William Macdonald Simpson, who is soooo proud of her (completely imaginary) connection to Sir James. How she got this idea I simply cannot imagine. I have tried to contact her to ask her to delete this totally unwarranted assertion and replace it with the correct information, but without success.
-
It is funny I have just asked a question related to exactly this ::)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=680711.msg5252610#msg5252610
-
Gosh! I know about mistakes!
I traced one of my London ancestors through the census back to Northampton.
I was so excited, as that is where I live now! I went to the local record office and traced right back to the 1600s. Fantastic!
Then (why ever I didn't do this before) I sent for a marriage certificate.....you know what's coming don't you? ::) ....wrong family. My family had never come from Northampton. They had come no further than Lambeth!!!
That was a couple of months research IN THE BIN!
It was soooooo easy to go wrong!
-
Gosh! I know about mistakes!
I traced one of my London ancestors through the census back to Northampton.
I was so excited, as that is where I live now! I went to the local record office and traced right back to the 1600s. Fantastic!
Then (why ever I didn't do this before) I sent for a marriage certificate.....you know what's coming don't you? ::) ....wrong family. My family had never come from Northampton. They had come no further than Lambeth!!!
That was a couple of months research IN THE BIN!
It was soooooo easy to go wrong!
Oh No! its called research practise ;D ;D ;D
-
Margaret Anne Storey wrote a family history book on her Simpson family called
Echoes of a Blacksmith.
On her web page she has a poem
Family Tree Virus
It is about name gatherers
margaretannestorey.webs.com
Spices
-
There's a tree on ancestry with one of my ancestors which shows his death correctly, but which then goes on to find him again on census after he's died and then they marry him off and give him children, all whilst the poor man is dead and buried. I did try to contact them to ask how he could die and then be resurrected a few years later to marry and have children but, not surprisingly, I never got a response.
-
Margaret Anne Storey wrote a family history book on her Simpson family called
Echoes of a Blacksmith.
On her web page she has a poem
Family Tree Virus
It is about name gatherers
margaretannestorey.webs.com
Spices
Found that poem. It's very good :)
Are you any further forward xin?
and incorrect online trees, I could tell a tale or two also. Quite upsetting when you consider the huge impact they will have in another 100 years or so when they've gathered even more incorrect info.
-
NO he is now in a folder marked I will find you???? :)
He was 15 so somewhere in a school or something.
His father was a Sergeant Major in the Yeomanry, so maybe some kind of Military School?
Love the poem
xin
-
I found your thread on him and had a little dabble yesterday. I didn't end up posting anything as I decided I wasn't making any progress :) Good luck with him, he may yet climb out of your folder.
I've downloaded a sample of her book now, which looks good. Certainly like the poem and so may buy the whole book later.
-
Thanks for trying :)
xin
with a.n.other 'one day when'
-
There's a tree on ancestry with one of my ancestors which shows his death correctly, but which then goes on to find him again on census after he's died and then they marry him off and give him children, all whilst the poor man is dead and buried. I did try to contact them to ask how he could die and then be resurrected a few years later to marry and have children but, not surprisingly, I never got a response.
Better still, did they marry him off and have him having children 100 years before his birth?
-
Hi Xin
Have you looked at this Francis. Age 14, a servant in Hartington Nether Quarter
RG10 / Piece 3601 / Folio 8 Page 7
Is the whole family missing or split up in 1871 ......
Not all of course, but I reckon some of those wild tree errors we see are the A* 'hints' being accepted when they're quite clearly wrong. I know I almost inadvertently 'accepted' a hint once when it was definitely not one of mine!
Cheers
AMBLY
-
oh thanks for that will have a look.
The whole family seems to be split up.
His Father deceased
His Wife now is a House keeper in burton on trent and his daughter Catherine down as a visitor in Burton... I havent followed the others yet?!
:)
xin
-
Thanks again, yes we had looked at that one its the illegible one... ( ;D ;D)
So will study it more closely.
xin
-
I've found some bizarre mistakes concerning people in my or my husband's tree.
It seems as if there's more of it happening nowadays than when I first started researching my family tree. I wonder if it has to do with the genealogy sites offering such a wide range of search results. People see the "matches" and add them to their tree without investigating properly whether it's actually the same person or family.
As others have found, for the most part, the same trees are copied over and over.
And still, after all these years, any solid info on my family was supplied by me to others who then put it online (usually without my consent).
-
There's a tree on ancestry with one of my ancestors which shows his death correctly, but which then goes on to find him again on census after he's died and then they marry him off and give him children, all whilst the poor man is dead and buried. I did try to contact them to ask how he could die and then be resurrected a few years later to marry and have children but, not surprisingly, I never got a response.
Better still, did they marry him off and have him having children 100 years before his birth?
No, strangely they hadn't thought of that one yet. ???
-
I've found some bizarre mistakes concerning people in my or my husband's tree.
My husbands cousin and his wife are very much alive.
The Ancestry leaf had me look at a public members tree To my surprise both Cousin & his wife are marked DECEASED time ADT after .....
I phoned our cousin and asked NO I did not ask if they were still alive ;D
asked if the members on this tree was her relatives YES they were.
The tree owner was from another country so I sent a message stating that they were still alive- Surprise no reply.
Gets better The cousin was sent a small book on her Family history to find both she her husband and her sister were all deceased.
How could that happen >:( >:( >:(
Spices
-
Spices,
Some people think that copying and pasting equals research.
Years ago, a cousin told me: "I was up late last night researching our family tree back to the 1400s!"
She wasn't researching; she was looking at someone else's tree. And who knows if any of it had actually been researched; it was probably cobbled together from other sources.
If I take info from online trees I make sure I note where I found it and that it needs to be ruled in or out. Then, when I can, I do my own research, including finding source documents if possible.
I'm grateful when someone's tree provides me with a clue or, rarely, solid info that I didn't already have but many internet trees are definitely rife with mistakes.
I think I'd freak out a bit if I received a family history booklet showing me and my husband dead! :o
Josephine