RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: bungleberry on Wednesday 04 March 15 16:51 GMT (UK)
-
Several of my forebears lived and died in Gloucestershire. One in particular has appeared in many public trees on ancestry. His death, unsurprisingly, occurred in Glos. Someone has obviously googled Glos and deduced that he died in Calvados, France. So he/she posted it into his/her tree. An understandable error for someone who's not a Brit researcher.
But what has got right up my hooter is that the entry has been copied blindly by six other alleged researchers. I've given up trying to point out boooboos of this type - there's only a limited amount of abuse I can take.
Trouble is that, as politicians continue to demonstrate, if you repeat an untruth often enough it becomes 'true'.
-
Oh how I do agree!
I have a baptism record and marriage record for my great great grandfather's sister in Holborn, London. The witness at the marriage was her sister.
But others seem to think she married, as a single woman in Australia.
I have sent all the details I have, to three different people, who don't want to know.
I assume one person put this information on the internet and others copied.
I really think the problem is, if they delete the person in their tree, they have to delete all that person's ancestors and descendents. That can mean half a tree in some cases.
Which is why a lot of trees are at best a guess and at worse total fiction.
And why I get such a headache trying to find proof of everything.
Torre
-
Found one last night that had the gentleman dying correctly in 1889. He then got married in 1913. I couldn't be bothered to contact them, if they wanted to believe in reincarnation its up to them.
Regards panda
-
Several of my forebears lived and died in Gloucestershire. One in particular has appeared in many public trees on ancestry. His death, unsurprisingly, occurred in Glos. Someone has obviously googled Glos and deduced that he died in Calvados, France. So he/she posted it into his/her tree. An understandable error for someone who's not a Brit researcher.
But what has got right up my hooter is that the entry has been copied blindly by six other alleged researchers. I've given up trying to point out boooboos of this type - there's only a limited amount of abuse I can take.
Trouble is that, as politicians continue to demonstrate, if you repeat an untruth often enough it becomes 'true'.
It is an uphill battle isn't it, I corrected a change that someone had done on Anc. today - it WAS correct but some kind person changed it! I think it's what passes often as history, I have a real doubt about 'the written word' when you see people who approach with a scientific evidence based scalpel and dispel a lot of myths about previous historical fact. It is frustrating for those of us who take our evidence based trees seriously - not everyone does. I don't think there's an answer either, sadly, the Internet is wonderful and maddening at the same time :o
-
Several of my forebears lived and died in Gloucestershire. One in particular has appeared in many public trees on ancestry. His death, unsurprisingly, occurred in Glos. Someone has obviously googled Glos and deduced that he died in Calvados, France. So he/she posted it into his/her tree. An understandable error for someone who's not a Brit researcher.
But what has got right up my hooter is that the entry has been copied blindly by six other alleged researchers. I've given up trying to point out boooboos of this type - there's only a limited amount of abuse I can take.
Trouble is that, as politicians continue to demonstrate, if you repeat an untruth often enough it becomes 'true'.
The name of your ancestor wouldn't be Stinchcomb(e), would it, Bungleberry?
I've seen that error and have a feeling I copied it myself at one point, until I saw sense, gave myself a clip round the earhole, told myself not to be so stupid, and removed it.
I searched for Stinchcomb and any event in Calvados-Basse on Ancestry and got about 43000 hits in public member trees.
-
I've just about given up on Ancestry trees.
Just been looking at a tree that has 3 x great grandparents. Born in Baltimore (that's news to me :-\) they then nip over to London where the wife dies (no she doesn't she outlives him by 30 odd years) he gets married again but his death date is before his supposed second marriage date ...shoot me now!
There I am wondering if I can make a connection back to the 1600's simply because the names are right, George following John etc.etc. and they are living in the right area, dates are a bit dodgy. I can make 'em fit but are they right. Another lot for the maybe pile ::) ::)
suey
-
The most annoying one for me was a tree owner I recently contacted who didn't realise his GG Uncle had been married to my GG Grandmother (they were both widowed). Being helpful, I gave him full details from the marriage certificate plus some information he didn't have about one of his GG Uncles son's.
He duly added her to his tree - and then copied a bunch of incorrect trees to give her three children she'd never had, born in a place she'd never been, to a man she'd never met. >:(
-
Sorry Lisa, he was Capt. Edward HERBERT RN (approx 1758-1820), whose ancestry is a bit of a mystery anyway, due to extra-curricular activity.
Another aggrannoyance concerned someone who was insistent that one of mine had married at 12yrs old (and produced the first sprog two years later). I mean, I know that happened in royal and such exalted circles, but mine certainly weren't.
I could go on . . .
-
I symphasize with all of you but having had some of my ancestors spirited away from their graves and reincarnated in the USA and having tried to intervene, I have to say this is the disadvantage of having a Public Tree.
The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, however. I have had many an interesting discussion with near and far relatives.
Make your Tree private. With a bit of ingeniousness, a few will be able to fathom some of it out but not all of it.
Beware, grave diggers are everywhere.
-
Sorry Lisa, he was Capt. Edward HERBERT RN (approx 1758-1820), whose ancestry is a bit of a mystery anyway, due to extra-curricular activity
No worries, the Calvados/Gloucestershire bit jumped out at me, as I'd seen that in an ancestry tree as a birthplace/ marriage place/ death place for one of my Stinchcombes from Hawkesbury, Gloucestershire. A couple of them went to America, but the vast majority never left Hawkesbury.
-
According to a tree on Ancestry my father died in America. That was news to me as I was with him in England when he died. When I pointed it out I was asked if I was sure as the name fitted. The laughable thing is that my father never left England during his life - he refused to fly and it was as much as he'd do to get on a ferry to the Isle of Wight, yet alone a ship across the Atlantic. Nice to know that what he didn't do in life he accomplished in death. ;D ;D
-
When I pointed it out I was asked if I was sure as the name fitted. The laughable thing is that my father never left England during his life - he refused to fly and it was as much as he'd do to get on a ferry to the Isle of Wight, yet alone a ship across the Atlantic. Nice to know that what he didn't do in life he accomplished in death. ;D ;D
;D ;D This is the proof there is "Life after death" !!! :o :o
-
................................... Nice to know that what he didn't do in life he accomplished in death. ;D ;D
Bless, ................that made me smile :)
Frank.
-
Part of the problem is that, on Ancestry. people don't enter placenames fully - including the country!
Then, Ancestry in it's wisdom, decides that a place in USA or France or Africa is a better fit!
I have had in my English tree people with with places in Somerset, Kentucky or Suffolk, Virginia, etc.
If, in the original error spotted, the Ancestry user had just entered "Glos." as the placename, then there's no guessing what Ancestry will make of it!
Of course, other users are to blame for blindly copying everything! ::)
-
I am in New South Wales, Australia. The capital city of NSW is Sydney. Back in the 19th Century and into the first couple of decades of the 20th C, New South Wales would be written on BDM documents as "N S Wales".
There's also a Sydney in Nova Scotia, which as I understand it was often abbreviated to Sydney, N.S. as opposed to Sydney N.S.Wales.
So, at local family history gatherings where I reside, we have cheerful meetings with fun topics about the latest confusions found on the submitted online trees.
I should also add that I shop in Swansea, NSW; my nearest big city is Newcastle, which is in the Northumberland County of NSW and Cardiff NSW is not too far away either. Nearby, but further north from Newcastle is Gloucester, NSW, and of course to the south there's Brisbane Waters NSW which is no where near (hundreds and hundreds of kilometres south of) Brisbane the capital city of Queensland.
So there's plenty of times our NSW based deceased ancestors have managed, even in the 19th century, marry in NSW, have children in NSW and miracles fly beyond our seas to have babies in same month and year in far away lands (Britain, USA, Canada, "Japonica" ) and even after becoming deceased in NSW, and buried in NSW, photographic evidence of the scan of the BDM cert etc, well, they recover, climb out of their grave, and manage to continue to have children way past child bearing ages, and all this in those foreign lands far beyond the seas .....
Sometimes our meetings run overtime with the latest tall tales to be told.
Cheers, JM
-
The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, however.
I tend to take this attitude. What a correct or incorrect tree does for me is give me a pathway. If I choose to walk upon it without looking then I am bound to stumble.
If I can confirm for myself then I will tend to trust a tree- but only so far. I still need to check.
The worst thing is pointing out errors to the senior family researcher ''who has been doing it for 25 years so I oughta know what I am doing !!!'' ( and this is in my own family ) :-[
-
The worst thing is pointing out errors to the senior family researcher ''who has been doing it for 25 years so I oughta know what I am doing !!!'' ( and this is in my own family ) :-[
Well, ummm, I've been 'doing it' for a tad longer and when I share stuffs with my family I announce "I am allowed to make mistookens, and I expect I have made far more than any of you, afterall, I have been doing this since before some of you were born. One time I figured out for Uncle Bertie that Aunty Flo was his aunty. He then told me that Aunty Flo was actually not his aunty, but his twin sister ::) . That usually breaks the ice and lets them know that I can get things stuffed up. :)
Cheers, JM
-
I agree it is irritating but, as previously stated, I only use Ancestry trees as a guide - not as gospel truth.
I have contacted a lot of distant cousins in one line of my family and some of them have trees on Ancestry. I assumed that because they started a long time before me that they were correct. One particular tree is correct up to a point then goes in a totally different direction to mine but as this is distant for her and direct line for me I don't worry about it too much.
I occasionally use these trees to give me a starting point - even if they are wrong. At lease I enjoy the process of proving they are wrong and it can even lead me in the right direction eventually.
Rishile
-
I occasionally use these trees to give me a starting point - even if they are wrong. At lease I enjoy the process of proving they are wrong and it can even lead me in the right direction eventually.
Rishile
I think that sums it up beautifully Rishile - if everyone remembered those words when searching we might all have a few less sleepless nights and a few less grey hairs ;D ;D
-
I think my point is that, yes, we are all prone to make errors, some of them ludicrous, but it's the thoughtless repetition of them that's irritating.
-
Several of my forebears lived and died in Gloucestershire. One in particular has appeared in many public trees on ancestry. His death, unsurprisingly, occurred in Glos. Someone has obviously googled Glos and deduced that he died in Calvados, France. So he/she posted it into his/her tree. An understandable error for someone who's not a Brit researcher.
But what has got right up my hooter is that the entry has been copied blindly by six other alleged researchers. I've given up trying to point out boooboos of this type - there's only a limited amount of abuse I can take.
Trouble is that, as politicians continue to demonstrate, if you repeat an untruth often enough it becomes 'true'.
As the saying goes "Dont bother me with the facts, my minds made up!"
-
Lisa, I have Stinchcombes in Hawkesbury as well but a very long way back.
-
Lisa, I have Stinchcombes in Hawkesbury as well but a very long way back.
We are probably connected somehow - there are quite a few of them! In Hawkesbury genealogy circles they're known as the Bloody Stinchcombes - no matter whose tree you are researching, you'll have a Stinchcombe or 10 in there! My great grandmother was Alice Mary Stinchcombe, the mother of the lady in my avatar picture, and I'm also related to the Thompsons, Martens, Tandys, and Always, amongst others in Hawkesbury.
-
Found a great one today, given as a hint by ancestry - chap born in 1724, apparently his first child was born in 1717 :o How's that work then? :P
And yes, people had copied it.....
-
chap born in 1724, first child was born in 1717
Does this mean that unlike FTM there is no prompt to say it's wrong (on ancestry)?
-
chap born in 1724, first child was born in 1717
Does this mean that unlike FTM there is no prompt to say it's wrong (on ancestry)?
I am sure I get a warning when I do typos like that.
Town, city name that are the same around the world can be problematic. Not everyone can latterly think or think to do timelines.
My findings are --Born in Dhwood NZas however the child was born at sea on the "Ann Dashwood"
Had the researcher had done a timeline they would have realised the mistake.
Port Fairy in Victoria Australia was once named Belfast. Once again had a timeline been done the mistake would have been realised.
Lastly the best was an Ancestry tree had my OH's cousin & his wife being deceased. They are very much alive. I did point this out to the tree owner to no avail. The cousin said they were sent a FH book with them being deceased.
How could you even think to send a book to a deceased person? ??? ???
-
chap born in 1724, first child was born in 1717
Does this mean that unlike FTM there is no prompt to say it's wrong (on ancestry)?
Yes you do get a warning usually something like "The birth of the child is before that of the parent, do you want to proceed?" So obviously the tree owner just ignores that and enters it anyway.
-
Does this mean that unlike FTM there is no prompt to say it's wrong (on ancestry)?
Yes you do get a warning usually something like "The birth of the child is before that of the parent, do you want to proceed?" So obviously the tree owner just ignores that and enters it anyway.
I did think there was a prompt but couldn't remember & wasnt sure if the same applied for Tribalpages................have used both but not made any mistakes as I had it all done on FTM ;D
-
Ancestry public trees are not the only culprits for the continuation of misinformation. I remember Genes Reunited used to be the same.
And there are multiple Dowdeswell family trees out there that are incorrect, simply because no one had bothered to look at the original records. So all of these trees have an ancestry from a someone who died aged 12, from memory. I tried once to inform the originator of this tree, but to no avail.
Sometimes it's better to just quietly know what's right and wrong.
-
Several of my forebears lived and died in Gloucestershire. One in particular has appeared in many public trees on ancestry. His death, unsurprisingly, occurred in Glos. Someone has obviously googled Glos and deduced that he died in Calvados, France. So he/she posted it into his/her tree. An understandable error for someone who's not a Brit researcher.
But what has got right up my hooter is that the entry has been copied blindly by six other alleged researchers. I've given up trying to point out boooboos of this type - there's only a limited amount of abuse I can take.
Trouble is that, as politicians continue to demonstrate, if you repeat an untruth often enough it becomes 'true'.
While I agree it is mildly irritating it should not make any difference to the serious researcher, who after all checks original records and alternative records to confirm any possibilities.
This stands for all records no matter how old or recent they are.
Errors occur in Heralds Visitations, some accidental some blatant fraud, Census contain errors and indeed guesses and even Parish Registers and BMD Certificates contain errors.
An example of this last is a marriage certificate I bought for my mother's marriage, it had her maiden surname as IMY instead of GUY even though the register was perfectly clear what the maiden surname should have been.
It seems that criticising Ancestry (and other on line providers) has taken over from the criticism of the IGI which was common between the 1980s and 2012 but seems to have died down in recent years since the IGI has mainly dropped out of sight of most researchers.
Never accept any information at face value, always check the original record and also use other original records (as many as possible) to corroborate information found.
Cheers
Guy
-
There are literally hundreds of trees on both ancestry and other websites that perpetuate the myth that Thomas Barsham of Oxwick and Thomas Barsham of Colkirk (both parishes in Norfolk) were one and the same person, in spite of the fact that many of their children were baptised in neighbouring parishes in the same years. :-X The parish records have been online on familysearch for a number of years now but there seems to be no end in the copying of these trees. Its another great example of the myth that the more trees that state the fact.
The two Thomas Barshams were first cousins; Thomas of Colkirk died in 1569 and Thomas of Oxwick's wife died the same year, so he then married his cousin's widow. I suspect this hasn't helped but then these trees seem to have conveniently overlooked Thomas of Oxwick's first marriage and his second (of four marriages) to his cousin's widow, otherwise you would have thought they might have seen the light.
What also hasn't helped is the familysearch have supposedly extracted the baptisms for both parishes but list the children of Thomas of Oxwick as baptised in Oxwick but as being resident at the time in Colkirk. The fact that the actual entry from the digitised copy of their own microfilm of the original parish register (not the BTs or Archdeacon's Transcripts) does not state anything of the sort, does make you wonder why familysearch have added this information to their website. It would seem that all the tree owners have never bothered to consult the original regsiters or they would have seen that it was inaccurate. ::)
This is another good example of why anyone serious about researching their own family tree really does need to see the original records rather than relying on 3rd party transcripts and other "published" information. Mistakes can and do get made, although in the case of some you do wonder why the mistake has been made.
-
Lisa, I have Stinchcombes in Hawkesbury as well but a very long way back.
We are probably connected somehow - there are quite a few of them! In Hawkesbury genealogy circles...... I'm also related to the Thompsons, Martens, Tandys, and Always, amongst others in Hawkesbury.
I forgot to mention that in NSW Australia there's the very famous, historical district of Hawkesbury and through that district is the very important river, the Hawkesbury River. The Hawkesbury district has been the food bowl for Sydney NSW for over 200 years. And the Hawkesbury family history group is one of the leading fh groups in NSW. And there's Thompson, Martens, Tandy as surnames in the NSW Hawkesbury district :) which includes : Llandilo, Londonderry, Windsor, Richmond, Pitt Town, Cornwallis, Grose Wold, and of course many other localities too.