RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: flateric999 on Sunday 19 April 15 14:05 BST (UK)
-
http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/4377996/family?cfpid=7028531900
Why put in the effort to produce a wildly inaccurate tree?! The work of randomly connecting all these people must have taken hours!!
Mike
-
Hi Mike,
I'm inclined to agree with you. I wouldn't trust A******y if they gave me a free subscription!
Victor
-
Sorry can't look at your link as I do not have a subscription...which very likely tells you what I think of online trees and a website that actively encourages such nonsense
-
We seem to be having a spate of topics about ancestry trees, name collectors, tree grafting and the like.
How about a voluntary embargo on such themes for about 6 months ??
;D
Bob
-
We seem to be having a spate of topics about ancestry trees, name collectors, tree grafting and the like.
How about a voluntary embargo on such themes for about 6 months ??
YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
In fairness its not all the websites fault. If someone is daft enough to accept the suggestions thats not ancestries fault. Its expensive but these things often are.
-
We seem to be having a spate of topics about ancestry trees, name collectors, tree grafting and the like.
How about a voluntary embargo on such themes for about 6 months ??
YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A big yes from me as well! But not necessarily with the word 'voluntary' ;D Just make it an embargo, please! ;D
-
Its also a case of not knowing when to stop. Ancestry offer links, which if accepted in full, incorporate wives/husbands through marriage, who, of course, have parents who have siblings etc
If one is not careful the tree eventually becomes full of people who bear little relationship to the home person.
Pheno
-
Fine. Have an Embargo. I shall continue wroting polite notes to tree owners.
-
What is irritating, to some of us, is the number of topics all on the same subject!
For example, a quick search, for the last 99 days, turns up these:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=712629.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=710754.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=712239.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=716988.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=714702.
-
Just ignore that type of thread then. Nobody is twisting our arms to read them, but people meeting this phenomenon for the first time often have a need to ask whether they are alone in their evaluation of the situation.
-
What it says to me is that there is a problem and Ancestry should be sitting up and taking notice.
The polite answer to those who are irritated by these threads is 'Don't read them' ;)
-
I apologise if my enthusiasm caused any distress. :-[
In our defense, due to nondescriptive thread titles it's often difficult to know what a thread contains before reading it.
-
Hi Alexander.
I know, some of the titles can be misleading and whops...there's one of those threads again. My hope however is that somewhere someone in one of the Goliath family history companies will see these types of threads and they will realise they need to make some changes. It really isn't so much that X ancestor has been taken or there is a huge mistake here or even the bloke who seems to be trying to connect EVERY family tree on Ancestry for some bizarre reason. But if we are looking into our digital future I think these companies have some sort of duty. I don't think it's enough to present the information and then not offer the guidance required to make informed connections. It's all very dumbed down. I think it is Ancestry that is writing out your family's timeline as you connect the data. Well I hate to tell them we can't all be pigeon holed that easily!
I was hoping to find some Ancestry 'suits' at the latest WDYTYA , to do some in person complaining however none this year. Only groovy young people in t-shirts and no-one seemed to be in charge.
I will flash a warning up if I start one of these threads. 8)
Kind regards
CD
-
If someone wants to produce a tree that size, that is their business.
If someone wants to start a thread about it, that is their business.
If someone wants to believe the tree is 100% accurate, caveat emptor.
As that tree owner is over 60, retired, and working on it virtually everyday, good luck to them.
flateric99: have you checked to see that it is wildly inaccurate - it would take a little time as you might just find the only bit that is wrong if you have only looked at a hundred or so entries? (100 out of more than 300 000 is a very small percentage)? :)
Added:
KGarrad, your first link is to a thread about 'uncontactable tree owners' not inaccurate ones?
-
Well said Chempat....There are enough other topics to choose from.
Carol
-
Well said from me as well chempat...nobody is twisting arms to make people read the posts.
I agree with Craclyn too...some people have a need to ask, if they've not encountered
these type of trees before. Personally, I just think they're hilarious and have lots of giggles ;D
Joy
-
I find them entertaining rather than annoying. Some of the responses are fun too. Any on line resources like these companies offer are invaluable.
It is funny but also a little sad that so many trees online end up as good as this one. My research is also on ancestry and its a good tool, but used carelessly can be disaterous.
If the tree owner answers, i'll help get what i can right.
-
If the tree owner answers, i'll help get what i can right.
I hope it's not the same answer I received when I asked about a relationship - "I am not connected to WA I just follow every person I come across." 8)
-
http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/4377996/family?cfpid=7028531900
Why put in the effort to produce a wildly inaccurate tree?! The work of randomly connecting all these people must have taken hours!!
Mike
Hi Mike,
Just noticed this one. Although it is a subject that has been discussed, even by me, It don't bother me. Repeat away. It is my particular "bête noir". It annoy the bejesus out of me to see all the misinformation on my family on other trees.
As for embargo no way, lets discuss what we want even if it has been said before. As someone said we don't have to join in. But if we do lets play nicely! Some people may have missed the other posts or be new to Roots chat.
By the way Mike agree with your last comment - why do they do it?
Jane ;D
-
I suspect the answer to "why do they do it?" is because they can and they want to. If someone wants to trace the ancestry of people they are not related to, for their own amusement and to pass the time, why shouldn't they? If someone wants to try and connect 300,000 people together, again for their own amusement, why shouldn't they? No one is forcing other people to look at their trees - if you are clicking on other people's trees then you have chosen to do so.
As to the inaccurate trees on Ancestry - I wonder whether the owner of many of these trees started out believing Ancestry's advertising hype and thinking that the "hints" were Ancestry telling them who their ancestors were. By the time they realised the error of their ways they had built a mess of an inaccurate tree. On realising how much effort would be needed to correct it they lost the will to live (and who can blame them). So they either stopped, or stopped that particular tree and started another one. An inaccurate tree on Ancestry therefore does not necessarily mean the owner is a complete idiot.
As to similar threads on here - if you clicked on the thread to read it, you chose to do so. If you are reading every single thread that is posted here then you obviously have a lot more spare time than I have!
If we all thought exactly the same things all the time, what a terribly boring place the world would be.
-
As to similar threads on here - if you clicked on the thread to read it, you chose to do so. If you are reading every single thread that is posted here then you obviously have a lot more spare time than I have!
If we all thought exactly the same things all the time, what a terribly boring place the world would be.
-
Sorry Jm, meant to add comment.
I do not click onto every thread but read what takes my fancy and reply if I want too. I have not got a lot of time on my hands. Work full time and the usual running a home blah blah. I come in here to unwind and snatch s minute between tea cooking, eating it and washing up.
The wrong info on trees will continue to bug me. But that's my opinion and mine alone. If I can get facts right why can't they?
Jane
-
Maybe there should be a board for "Ancestry [other genealogy site's also included] moaners."
-
Maybe there should be a board for "Ancestry [other genealogy site's also included] moaners."
Do you mean me?
I am not a moaner! It a healthy discussion with a few differences of opinion. Who is to say whose view is right.
I agree with JM if we all thought the same world would be a boring place.
-
Maybe there should be a board for "Ancestry [other genealogy site's also included] moaners."
Let's not stop there YT, why not a board for "People bemoaning "Ancestry [other genealogy site's also included] moaners" " ? then of course there can be
"Action against "People bemoaning "Ancestry [other genealogy site's also included] moaners" " also known as Get a Grip"
I jest of course, as I do a fair bit of moaning myself. ;)
-
I find the moaning about Ancestry etc a perfect example of deja vu.
Why?
Because it duplicates the moans about the IGI when it appeared on line in 1999.
The more available the IGI became the more the moaning increased.
I wonder if Fred Filby ever regretted negotiating with the LDS to bring it over here to the UK when he heard the moans it later received.
When it was first introduced to the UK in 1976 (on microfiche) every one was happy with this great new resource but gradually the moaning could be heard.
By the time the IGI was released on CD-ROM the moaning was about at the level the moans about Ancestry are today. After it was released online they hit a crescendo until now they have more or less subsided again.
Possibly because few genealogists actively search the IGI now, but access it as a part of the ever increasing familysearch website rather than a stand alone data set.
Cheers
Guy
-
The problem is, however many times people bring up the subject/ complain about it/ moan about it, it will never change. There will always be trees on online sites that are wrong and life is far too short to get annoyed by them. The trees won't be altered, as the owners either think they are correct or they don't care. Who knows, those same people could also be complaining as they think your tree is wrong! If they are happy with their tree containing over a quarter of a million people,most of them not connected, so what! They aren't hurting anyone.
-
I will continue to be annoyed, my prerogative. Whilst agreeing there is nothing I can do about it. And yes if the people with duff info are happy fair play to them. I rest easy knowing I am right-obviously ;)
Mike if you are still reading all this you sure opened a can of worms with this one. Perhaps we should face facts, we are just a couple of moaning minnies!! Join the Jane akways says the wrong thing club Lol ;D ;D ;D
-
I have read most of it.
I am now hiding.
-
I have read most of it.
I am now hiding.
Don't be silly. I am with you!! Let's both be bad together! Let's live life on the edge. Stand by what we think. As Del Boy Said "who dares wins!" We dare. No one has to agree with us. It what we think and why not?
Why are we wrong and everyone else right?
Keep smiling, I will and nice to meet you.
Jane
-
I rhink online trees should be rated. 5 star for really good well researched and 1 for total waffle. When someone visits they leave a star rating.
-
I rhink online trees should be rated. 5 star for really good well researched and 1 for total waffle. When someone visits they leave a star rating.
Controversial but I like it! You think like me. We are in the minority here. Never mind we entitled to our opinions. Or are we!!!!!
-
I agree with most of you! ;D
But I simply don't see the point of raising yet another topic on the subject?
Ancestry doesn't care what the trees are like, just as long as they get their subscriptions! ::)
I simply treat each and every tree I look at as badly researched, which MAY offer me some hints.
If the tree is obviously badly done, or a name-gatherer, then I just ignore it.
-
I can sympathise with the frustration and the wish to let off steam, but ...
What it says to me is that there is a problem and Ancestry should be sitting up and taking notice.
- How much of what is being said in such topics is actually finding it's way to Ancestry ?
- Is Ancestry bothered ? Will they reply "We provide you with the opportunity but we can't police every entry" ?
regards,
Bob
ps:
The polite answer to those who are irritated by these threads is 'Don't read them'
In our defense, due to nondescriptive thread titles it's often difficult to know what a thread contains before reading it
I've modified the title to make it easier to choose whether or not to read it.
-
I can sympathise with the frustration and the wish to let off steam, but ...
What it says to me is that there is a problem and Ancestry should be sitting up and taking notice.
- How much of what is being said in such topics is actually finding it's way to Ancestry ?
I think perhaps the majority of those of us who have been perturbed/upset/annoyed by what we have seen added to another Ancestry tree have already made comment - to the tree owner; to Ancestry via their own site; by posting on their FB page. Resulting in what? Usually nothing, or useless platitudes.
- Is Ancestry bothered ? Will they reply "We provide you with the opportunity but we can't police every entry" ?
regards,
Bob
ps:
The polite answer to those who are irritated by these threads is 'Don't read them'
Agreed
In our defense, due to nondescriptive thread titles it's often difficult to know what a thread contains before reading it
The same goes for every thread I imagine.
I've modified the title to make it easier to choose whether or not to read it.
Thank you for not locking this thread yet Bob, it may be the first one some people have seen regarding their own frustrations, and as mentioned previously, if anyone dips in to read it they certainly don't need to leave a comment to advise of their disinterest. Just pass on by.
-
The way I see it, Ancestry is the library containing books. Some of the books are fiction, which are misplaced in the wrong section. The space available for non-fiction is limited, as is the level of staff within Ancestry. If I pick up a "fiction" book from the so called "fact" section, realising the fiction aspect within said book, I put it back and ignore it. I can go to the history section of any library, and pick out ten books all giving a different account of what happened on a certain date. Which one do I believe, none of them. Records are just information stored, based on information utilised by the recorder of said information, and available at that time. If I have not done it, I take it with a pinch of salt. I may be interested, the information may be interesting, but I don't have to believe it.
Regards
Malky
-
I simply treat each and every tree I look at as badly researched, which MAY offer me some hints.
If the tree is obviously badly done, or a name-gatherer, then I just ignore it.
Me too KG.
On a happier note I have just discovered 2 female 2nd cousins through ancestry, they live close as well! I am arranging a meet, quite nervous never met a live one before! So ancestry ain't all bad ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just a thought, but rather than several threads all saying the same thing on Rootschat about Ancestry, wouldn't the frustration and annoyance about incorrect and copied trees be better posted on the Ancestry Forum or on their Facebook page? That way they are more likely to reach the eyes of those concerned.
-
Keep your comments coming on RootsChat - get it off your chest.
You're all entitled to opinions of family trees posted somewhere or other, even if other people have posted before on the subject.
After all that's the "chat" in RootsChat.
Trystan
RootsChat Admin
-
Thanks Trystan :)
-
Keep your comments coming on RootsChat - get it off your chest.
You're all entitled to opinions of family trees posted somewhere or other, even if other people have posted before on the subject.
After all that's the "chat" in RootsChat.
Trystan
RootsChat Admin
Well said Trystan ;D
I think my concern ( concern is not really the right word, maybe frustration) is that many new researchers think looking and copying online trees is "researching" and then they hang on to and defend their tree which they gleaned from them as real and true
-
I think it comes down to people trusting what they see online as always being true or factual. Or perhaps they want to believe what they read.
I wonder how many "junk trees" there are online, where they just use them to harvest email addresses or contacts online?
Trystan
-
I don't know about 'junk' trees Trystan, but the one mentioned by Mike in his opening post boasts 1/3 million people. Over 300,000 updates every day! Now I don't believe a single person could possibly manage that on his own so who is helping? Of course, as usual I stand to be corrected by some expert or other.
As to trusting a tree like that to have correct info - I will reserve judgement!
Can they really harvest emails? or would that only be after making contact with individuals who hand them over?
-
I think many people would be more than happy to give their details out if they believed they were related to them if the online family tree showed that.
The 300,000 updates a day could possibly suggest that it's an automated thing?
-
Keep your comments coming on RootsChat - get it off your chest.
You're all entitled to opinions of family trees posted somewhere or other, even if other people have posted before on the subject.
After all that's the "chat" in RootsChat.
Trystan
RootsChat Admin
Thanks Trystan. I agree a nice healthy discussion/ debate or just a chat is what this site is all about.
What I was trying to say badly earlier about previous postings on the same subject is that not everyone, especially newcomers may have seen those other posts. Also if people are fed up with the repetition of this subject why are those same people joining in this one? I am joining in because I want to and find it interesting.
No way am I blaming Ancestry for the mistakes in trees it is the tree owner who is (in my opinion) at fault for lack of research.
Jane
-
I don't know about 'junk' trees Trystan, but the one mentioned by Mike in his opening post boasts 1/3 million people. Over 300,000 updates every day! Now I don't believe a single person could possibly manage that on his own so who is helping? Of course, as usual I stand to be corrected by some expert or other.
The 300,000 updates a day could possibly suggest that it's an automated thing?
1/3 million people = about 300,000 people.
The tree is updated everyday.
-
Just checked the tree owner's profile, the head count is now up to 366,980! And he/she has logged in today so heaven knows how many more will be added tomorrow.
Already several generations before Alfred the Great!
-
Just checked the tree owner's profile, the head count is now up to 366,980! And he/she has logged in today so heaven knows how many more will be added tomorrow.
Already several generations before Alfred the Great!
Lizzie they will be back to Jesus in a few days.
-
OK Alexander, I take your point.
Still, creating a tree of 366980 people in 7 1/2 years is still some feat, no matter how many daily updates there are.
1000s of records, photographs, stories. Must not sleep.
With you there LizzieL ;)
And you Jane ;)
-
Small things amuse small minds ;D ;D And I'm not going to qualify that ::) Live and let live 8) Who cares?
-
Small things amuse small minds ;D ;D And I'm not going to qualify that ::) Live and let live 8) Who cares?
You must care enough to comment BumbleB, as is your prerogative.
Small minds indeed ::)
-
Just remember, we are all related in one way or another. Just, some are more distant than others.
Regards
Malky
-
Small things amuse small minds ;D ;D And I'm not going to qualify that ::) Live and let live 8) Who cares?
You must care enough to comment BumbleB, as is your prerogative.
Small minds indeed ::)
Here, here msr ;D There is another line to add to that small minds comment but wouldnt dare mention it here. I am on my best behaviour. Hard for me but had my wrists slapped too often in here so it's a new me. For how long ??????
-
I'm really excited! I've just searched on the mega tree for my maiden surname - and there it was! Linked to British royalty too. So now I just need to import this tree into mine and I'll have an even bigger one by about 2000 people.
-
Small things amuse small minds ;D ;D And I'm not going to qualify that ::) Live and let live 8) Who cares?
You must care enough to comment BumbleB, as is your prerogative.
Small minds indeed ::)
Here, here msr ;D There is another line to add to that small minds comment but wouldnt dare mention it here. I am on my best behaviour. Hard for me but had my wrists slapped too often in here so it's a new me. For how long ??????
Would that be something to do with trousers and bottoms Jane? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm really excited! I've just searched on the mega tree for my maiden surname - and there it was! Linked to British royalty too. So now I just need to import this tree into mine and I'll have an even bigger one by about 2000 people.
Oh wow Lizzie or shall I call you your highness? That is fantastic, hope you still want to associate with us lesser mortals ;)
I have touched royalty! Acting as dad's (my avetar on left) Mayoress meet Prince Charles. All I can say is he is very short!
Jane
-
Small things amuse small minds ;D ;D And I'm not going to qualify that ::) Live and let live 8) Who cares?
You must care enough to comment BumbleB, as is your prerogative.
Small minds indeed ::)
Here, here msr ;D There is another line to add to that small minds comment but wouldnt dare mention it here. I am on my best behaviour. Hard for me but had my wrists slapped too often in here so it's a new me. For how long ??????
Would that be something to do with trousers and bottoms Jane? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No suey what's that one? Or can't you say here. I cant tell you mine. Being good.
-
Oh wow Lizzie or shall I call you your highness? That is fantastic, hope you still want to associate with us lesser mortals ;)
I have touched royalty! Acting as dad's (my avetar on left) Mayoress meet Prince Charles. All I can say is he is very short!
Jane
Love your comment Jane! We seem to be on the same wavelength. With some of the other side of my family in Sussex, maybe we're related.
I saw Prince Charles once - at an agricultural show when my college had done a display garden - I agree - shorter than he looks on the telly.
Alan Titchmarsh is the same - shorter than you expect.
-
Jane, small things please small minds and smaller trousers fit small behinds....
-
Love your comment Jane! We seem to be on the same wavelength. With some of the other side of my family in Sussex, maybe we're related.
I saw Prince Charles once - at an agricultural show when my college had done a display garden - I agree - shorter than he looks on the telly.
Alan Titchmarsh is the same - shorter than you expect.
Lizzie yes we seem like kindred spirits. Could you be the sister I have always longed for?
Regarding short celebs and I use the term celeb very loosely, most I have meet are very short! Do they have to be to fit on TV screen?
-
They wouldn't be able to get in the box otherwise Jane.
Now there's a thing, do many people know that tellies were a box with innards?
So used to the new fangled flat screens that one forgets ::)
-
Now there's a thing, do many people know that tellies were a box with innards?
So used to the new fangled flat screens that one forgets ::)
Msr I am showing my age now. Yes I remember tellies with innards. I am 63. Yes I know hard to believe I am so old ;D The flat ones are mystery to me, so how do the people fit inside?
Enjoying this chat, right up my alley, I love a laugh. I act my shoe size not my age! So I am 6.
-
And it is on the "Lighter Side" after all too :)
-
And it is on the "Lighter Side" after all too :)
Trystran. Am enjoying immensely. Good fun.
Jane age 6
-
I have found the ultimate genealogy website!
It solves all the questions a genealogist needs to know.
Try it now
http://tinyurl.com/oxejjyy
PS Don't blame me if someone slates you for adding these fine details to your family tree. ::) ;D ;D
Cheers
Li Heng (795 – 824)
-
So who are you a reincarnation of Guy ?
-
So who are you a reincarnation of Guy ?
From Frank Morgan through many reincarnations including pigeons and rats and trout to Emperor Muzong of Tang (personal name Li Heng).
It must be true cos it's on the internet!
Cheers
Li Heng
-
Guy it didn't w work fo r me!!!Will try again.
-
Guy still won't work. Can you do it for me and find out who I was? 18.02.1952 is my do b.
-
Jane,
It's an American site!
So you have to enter the month first!! ::)
So try 02.18.1952
-
Guy still won't work. Can you do it for me and find out who I was? 18.02.1952 is my do b.
Have sent you a PM.
I noticed when I typed your DoB in & hit return I had to scroll down for the reincarnations, it just blinked as if nothing had happened
-
OK. Got it sussed after hint from KG. I was a Japanese Emperor that I have never heard of. Quite liked going through Rupert of the Rhine though. Remember reading a good book about him when I was in my teens.
-
I had a good laugh...now to see just where I can fit them into my tree ;D ;D ;D
Blessings my children
Pope John X11
-
Guy and KG thanks. I now know where I came from now!!! Brilliant but what rubbish. Still have smile on my face.
-
Joyful I have a pope too And a Japanese guy. Best one Michelangelo ceruutii. Believe it or not that is name of perfume I love Ceruitti 1881xxxxx
-
Joyful I have a pope too And a Japanese guy. Best one Michelangelo ceruutii. Believe it or not that is name of perfume I love Ceruitti 1881xxxxx
That proves it then Jane, nobody could have guessed that. ;)
Cheers
Guy
-
Yes Guy must be true!!! Brilliant link, great fun. Still smiling gonna do rest of family in a minute. Let's see who we really are.
-
So who are you a reincarnation of Guy ?
From Frank Morgan through many reincarnations including pigeons and rats and trout to Emperor Muzong of Tang (personal name Li Heng).
It must be true cos it's on the internet!
Cheers
Li Heng
In my past life I've been a rat, a snail, a hamster and for 68 days a piece of moss! ;D
-
I typed my DoB in and followed it back, then typed my wife's DoB in and between 1392 & 1448 and earlier we were the same person (John VIII Palaiologos)
The true meaning of pedigree collapse?
Cheers
Guy
-
I h ave been a patch of mildew, blade of grass and head louse!! Oh and tree and giraffe! So me!!!
-
Oh dear
Still a Wiltshire Ag Lab :(
8)
-
So who are you a reincarnation of Guy ?
From Frank Morgan through many reincarnations including pigeons and rats and trout to Emperor Muzong of Tang (personal name Li Heng).
It must be true cos it's on the internet!
Cheers
Li Heng
Guy, we clearly have a problem as I too am Emperor Muzong of Tang (唐穆宗) 795-824 (personal name Li Heng) :o
Does this mean that I am also you and you are me? Has there been a pre-death reincarnation of one of us ???
The questions are endless. I may not sleep tonight....
-
"Still a Wiltshire Ag Lab"
dgibbins02, never mind my son you're doing a mighty job ;D
Blessings
Pope John X11
-
Guy, we clearly have a problem as I too am Emperor Muzong of Tang (唐穆宗) 795-824 (personal name Li Heng) :o
Does this mean that I am also you and you are me? Has there been a pre-death reincarnation of one of us ???
The questions are endless. I may not sleep tonight....
Sleep easily Jomot I may be able to solve your dilemma, my family have told me for year I have lost my mind so obviously it has been reincarnated in you.
On second thoughts that could be very worrying for you, I mean who on earth would want to admit a connection with me. ;)
Cheers
Me or you or somebody
-
Oh dear
Still a Wiltshire Ag Lab :(
8)
Thats better than being a mushroom for 23 days ;D ;D ;D
-
I had a good laugh...now to see just where I can fit them into my tree ;D ;D ;D
Blessings my children
Pope John X11
Strange...... I was also Pope John X11.
FS
-
Well now FS this poses a problem...are you me or am I you ;D :D
Joy
-
I had a good laugh...now to see just where I can fit them into my tree ;D ;D ;D
Blessings my children
Pope John X11
I was a Pope too!
Adrian the sixth
-
I h ave been a patch of mildew, blade of grass and head louse!! Oh and tree ..
Still having fun with this one as I am bored at work today!!!
I can now see why I was attracted to hubby!! In a former life he to was a head louse , a patch of mildew and a tree - we were made for each other!
My father was reincarnated from dramatist Chrisopher Marlowe and Michaelangelo.. Spot on, he loves poetry and Shakespeare (Marlowe was supposed to have influenced him) and Art. So do I- double wow!
The weirdest reincarnation was hubbies. A Nicholas Cresswell of Derbyshire. Hubby comes from Derbyshire and his step-mum was a Cresswell!!!
I will be busy today slotting all these finds into my tree ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I was a Pope too!
Adrian the sixth
Lizzie, Popes seem to figure heavily in reincarnation. My mum was reincarnated from an Anti-pope?? Benedict XIII.
Guy, we clearly have a problem as I too am Emperor Muzong of Tang (唐穆宗) 795-824 (personal name Li Heng) :o
Jomot and Guy, another problem, my father was Emperor Muzong. Who is my Daddy :o :o :o :o :o :o
-
Guy and Jomot, you both appear to be my husband and my mother, both of whom were Emperor Muzong of Tang ;D ;D ;D
-
Well now FS this poses a problem...are you me or am I you ;D :D
Joy
Well, of course the obvious answer is that we must be related. So why don't we just merge our trees and create ourselves another inaccurate Ancestry tree!!
FS
-
Guy and Jomot, you both appear to be my husband and my mother, both of whom were Emperor Muzong of Tang ;D ;D ;D
This gets better and better. So we are all related - "that's nice" as Mrs Brown would say!
Yes, lets all merge our trees!
-
Yes, lets all merge our trees!
Looks like this is where we came in !! ;D
-
Well now FS this poses a problem...are you me or am I you ;D :D
Joy
Well, of course the obvious answer is that we must be related. So why don't we just merge our trees and create ourselves another inaccurate Ancestry tree!!
FS
Sorry FS, I don't have time to merge my tree with others at present, I am too busy working on my thesis on how I gave birth to Jebber. (That's bound to make me a million).
I would have offered the story to the News of the World but it was closed down a few years ago.
Cheers
Guy
-
Yes, lets all merge our trees!
Looks like this is where we came in !! ;D
Indeed it is Bob, we have come full circle. Thanks to Guy it has been a great thread. Right up my particular alley.
Jane
-
When you have worked it out Guy, I want my share of your million. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jebber
-
What fun! I always knew I was born to be Royal ;D
Among mine are Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire - now there's a gal!
Princess Bernadina Christina Sophia of Saxe Weimar Eisenach
Edward 3rd
Christian 3rd of Denmark - plus a few others of a lower rank.....but then I was also a head louse, a clam, a hamster and some algae to name just a few ;D ;D ;D
-
....but then I was also a head louse, a clam, a hamster and some algae to name just a few ;D ;D ;D
Suey a fellow head louse fantastic. Can I put you on my tree? hubby and I were head lice I hope we don't come from same head louse though, thats insestuous!
All this is proving how much we can make info fit if we have a vivid imagination. As Bob said we are back to original post! But what fun.
-
As Bob said we are back to original post! But what fun.
I think you've got it !!! They are doing it all for fun ;D ;D
-
As Bob said we are back to original post! But what fun.
I think you've got it !!! They are doing it all for fun ;D ;D
Yes, got it a long time ago ;) Still bugs me people playing with real people on their trees, especially my ancestors. This reincarnation is fantasy just a laugh. Anyway thats enough of that it's only my opinion that it's wrong. I can get over it.
Jane
-
As Bob said we are back to original post! But what fun.
I think you've got it !!! They are doing it all for fun ;D ;D
Yes, got it a long time ago ;) Still bugs me people playing with real people on their trees, especially my ancestors. This reincarnation is fantasy just a laugh. Anyway thats enough of that it's only my opinion that it's wrong. I can get over it.
Jane
Yes, fun, has anyone been reincarnated from a common person such as an Ag Lab rather than a king or pope etc.?
Perhaps it is a privilege of the upper classes and what happens if you were a trout and got eaten would you still have been reincarnated.
Just like family history the answers lead to more questions.
In a similar vein when Morphing software first became available I spent hours experimenting with different family photos seeing the effects of morphing the pictures of the two parents (and grandparents etc.) to see if I could generate likenesses of their children.
Again just fun but interesting.
Cheers
Guy
-
Talking of Ancestry ... I think that reading all this has cured me of my ailment it is not the site that's at fault. It is simply over enthusiastic gullible (at least I spelt enthusiastic roight) people who do not want to have to admit to our mutual ancestors being illiterate hayseeds. Therefore they mix in a sprinkling of folk who probably had a servant to wipe their bottoms and revel in the accompanying fantasy bless em. Or they rake in a bunch of namesakes pending some unplanned cull when they can be bothered to sort em out.
-
Talking of Ancestry ... I think that reading all this has cured me of my ailment it is not the site that's at fault. It is simply over enthusiastic gullible (at least I spelt enthusiastic roight) people who do not want to have to admit to our mutual ancestors being illiterate hayseeds. Therefore they mix in a sprinkling of folk who probably had a servant to wipe their bottoms and revel in the accompanying fantasy bless em. Or they rake in a bunch of namesakes pending some unplanned cull when they can be bothered to sort em out.
Clogs nice to meet you. By Jove you got it!!! I never blamed the site just the people that use and abuse it!! Lots of people are indeed name collectors- look at me I have thousands of names on my tree. The fact that they can't be proved is irrelevant,they just want names. Me I settle for a few dozen that I know 100% are mine. I will not have anyone on my tree unless I can prove they belong.
Jane ;D
-
There used to be a argument with member submitted trees on the LDS website, some of which went all the way back to Adam and Eve. Apparently LDS church members got more points in the religion if they had lots of names in their tree, so if they found a name that vaguely fiitted, it was added, never mind checking for accuracy or anything.
-
But it's a hobby and people take from it what they will....if no harm is being done...what does it matter. As long as you do the research and make sure your tree is accurate and has supporting evidence then what is the problem?
Some people will always take their hobby more seriously than others....and...there are many housebound and lonely people out there and building bushes, trees or forests are what fills their lives.
Just live and let live...you're a long time dead :)
Carol
-
There used to be a argument with member submitted trees on the LDS website, some of which went all the way back to Adam and Eve. Apparently LDS church members got more points in the religion if they had lots of names in their tree, so if they found a name that vaguely fiitted, it was added, never mind checking for accuracy or anything.
That says it all Lisa!!! Don't know about you but the fun of research is proving people are yours, not just taking them from other trees! Any fool can do that.
-
But it's a hobby and people take from it what they will....if no harm is being done...what does it matter. As long as you do the research and make sure your tree is accurate and has supporting evidence then what is the problem?
Some people will always take their hobby more seriously than others....and...there are many housebound and lonely people out there and building bushes, trees or forests are what fills their lives.
Just live and let live...you're a long time dead :)
Carol
Quite right. I just like a controversial discussion. But it still bugs me and will continue to do so. That's just how i feel. Yes live and let live, that applies to me as well. All I say is its my opinion and I would not deign to say anyone should share it.
-
"but the fun of research is proving people are yours"
That's what YOU find fun. But you aren't the last word on fun. Other people may differ.
-
There used to be a argument with member submitted trees on the LDS website, some of which went all the way back to Adam and Eve. Apparently LDS church members got more points in the religion if they had lots of names in their tree, so if they found a name that vaguely fiitted, it was added, never mind checking for accuracy or anything.
That says it all Lisa!!! Don't know about you but the fun of research is proving people are yours, not just taking them from other trees! Any fool can do that.
Exactly! A friend of mine has just started, and I've seen them blindly copy from ancestry trees. I have explained that they're not necessarily accurate, and maybe just use them as a possible line of research to be checked out and proved or otherwise for yourself. And to come onto rootschat if you're stuck!
-
"but the fun of research is proving people are yours"
That's what YOU find fun. But you aren't the last word on fun. Other people may differ.
Quite right. I AM NOT THE LAST WORD ON FUN. Other people differing is what makes the world go around. How awful and boring if would be if we all agreed on everything.How many times do I hAve to say this is only what I think. So can I ask why you feel the need to censure me and reply the way you did? Not n necessary.
-
.
-
"but the fun of research is proving people are yours"
That's what YOU find fun. But you aren't the last word on fun. Other people may differ.
Quite right. I AM NOT THE LAST WORD ON FUN. Other people differing is what makes the world go around. How awful and boring if would be if we all agreed on everything.How many times do I hAve to say this is only what I think. So can I ask why you feel the need to censure me and reply the way you did? Not n necessary.
I think possibly her final four words my explain it Jane. Maybe that is what fun means to some, but then I'm only guessing. You continue with your way of thinking. ;)
-
.
Trying to work that out YT :-\
-
Invisible ink msr.
-
I tree(t) ancestry trees like a sweet shop with much too choose from that you can sample before you buy ;D ::)
Annie
-
Chill out! You just gotta laugh! Why worry about it? .
Someone has me on a My Heritage tree married to my father! And our children are my brothers! My darling Mum doesn't even get a look in! So what! Not my problem!
Also several other crazy connections! Just makes me laugh! Their loss, not mine! Why worry!
It's their money that's been wasted!
Jeanne😄
-
So agree jaybelnz, if I worried about every misstep/error that people made I'd be crazier than
I am already am. ;D ;D ;D
Cheers,
DB
-
;D ;D ;D.
Absolutely "dead" right CB. And your logo says it all too! 👍
Jeanne 😄
-
Chill out! You just gotta laugh! Why worry about i
Jeanne😄
I do laugh and although when I see errors it bugs me I don't worry about it. Perhaps I should re-evaluate some of my comments. I don't want to fall out with anyone ;D We all differ somewhat with our views and how we approach our research.
It's ok Jeanne I am chilled-call me sub-zero. My tree is accurate that's all that matters at the end of the day.
Jane ;)
-
All good Jane, we all get annoyed, no doubt about that, but I say ....if they've got it wrong - their problem not mine ;D. I take my annoyances out on the weeds that are harder to get rid of in my garden! Once I've mangled them and sprayed any remains with weed killer, they've gone! 😄😄
And I really do love DB's logo!
Cheers
Jeanne 👍
-
Most enjoyable thread although somewhat disconcerting to discover that my son and I are both reincarnations of Isabella I of Castille .....
As to trees on the Internet that appear wildly inaccurate - leads me to reflecting on what I think I know is accurate on my tree (which sits quietly on my computer). All I really know is that Joe appears to have been brought up by Bob. Bob is listed on the census in a way that indicates he is the father of Joe. Bob is listed on the baptism register as the father of Joe. All data and documents indicate that Bob is the biological father but how do I really know what Mary (the mother) was really up to nine months before the birth of her son, Joe? I don't. All I can really deduce is that there is a pretty high probability that Bob is the biological father and clear documentation that he was the "nurturing" father.
Cocksie
-
That is very true, Cocksie. None of us can say with 100% certainty that our tree is accurate, it is just as accurate as we think we can get it from the information available. Just one little slip up by an ancestor along the way could mean that, unknown to us, we end up following the wrong father.
Genealogy is supposed to be a hobby and a hobby is something you do for fun and enjoyment. The day it makes me really cross, annoyed, upset etc is the day I stop doing it. I have now reached the stage when I know that nothing said on here, or other genealogical forums, will change the minds of people who have have wrong information on their trees. After all those people are so convinced they are right that they probably don't participate in forums, or if they do, they don't think what is being said applies to them .
-
.
I see your point.
-
Perhaps the Ancestry arborist's are living in the third dimention.
Regards
Malky
-
Well, sorry guys I've got tough feelings about his. I suppose initially it's funny, but when people are making 'public' statements about their families (i.e. online trees, websites, sharing information with other family members) for posterity I think you need to be as accurate as you can about connections.
And, I'll say it again these big organisations have a duty - they are presenting us with a phenomenal amount of information and minimal guidance to make £££. The very least they can do is put some restrictions on the automatic sharing of trees to provide some checks & balances.
What it has done for me is to make me mean about sharing. I am particularly wary about Ancestry but use it out of necessity. I assist many beginners and have to remind people time and again that the 'shaking leaves' are suggestions ONLY and may not apply and don't take online trees as accurate. Honestly I see this as a nightmare for future family history researchers. You will be untangling other people's mistakes for years - add that to your "brickwall" . I also think the SOG should stand up and champion some guidelines.
Sorry my opinion only. I'll :-X up now.
CD
-
And, I'll say it again these big organisations have a duty - they are presenting us with a phenomenal amount of information and minimal guidance to make £££. The very least they can do is put some restrictions on the automatic sharing of trees to provide some checks & balances.
Why? They are there to make money, so they aren't going to impose any restrictions, they want it to seem easy. The very fact that some of the adverts state things such as, "With one click of a button you can take your family back hundreds of years" shows that. It is up to every individual who uses these sites to use their own judgement. If they decide they just want to copy trees without checking that is their decision. People who are really serious about genealogy only use these sites as a starting point.
-
Well, sorry guys I've got tough feelings about his. I suppose initially it's funny, but when people are making 'public' statements about their families (i.e. online trees, websites, sharing information with other family members) for posterity I think you need to be as accurate as you can about connections.
What it has done for me is to make me mean about sharing. I am particularly wary about Ancestry but use it out of necessity. I assist many beginners and have to remind people time and again that the 'shaking leaves' are suggestions ONLY and may not apply and don't take online trees as accurate. Honestly I see this as a nightmare for future family history researchers. You will be untangling other people's mistakes for years - add that to your "brickwall" . Sorry my opinion only. I'll :-X up now.
CD
Hi CD.
For fear of being outspoken yet again (I will never learn to shut up) I agree with your comments above. I am not sure how I stand on Ancestry having a duty to provide correct information, that was never in the equation when I was moaning about incorrect information, however, perhaps some sort of disclaimer on the site about the trees to the effect that you should not take anything at face value but do your own research. Not so much standing as sitting on the fence on this one!
This is your opinion and yours alone and please do not feel that you have to shut up. I am sure all views are welcome in any discussion on this site. If I felt like that I would never make a post on here, I do have to bite my tongue at times but always qualify my controversial comments with "this is my opinion only"! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jane ;)
-
The disclaimer is already on Ancestry:
For User Provided Content, we are merely hosting and providing access as well as providing tools to post and share content, and we cannot accept any liability whatsoever with regard to such material (including with respect to its accuracy)
So they cover themselves and it is up to the user to check.
-
when people are making 'public' statements about their families (i.e. online trees, websites, sharing information with other family members) for posterity I think you need to be as accurate as you can about connections.
And a different "Why?"
Just because a tree is public doesn't mean it's been put up there for posterity. Sometimes I find it's useful to try things out to see if a connection "works". If it doesn't, then whether I spend time deleting my workings is, frankly, none of anyone's business.
-
I have sometimes put a "theoretical" person into my tree if I am unsure about someone. I actually put the name and a few details but add a couple of question marks in the suffix box! Then I add a fact, "Theoretical only for research purposes". It works well in the searches, still bring up records for the name! Or not! I can then investigate it more thoroughly. If it turns out to be ok and I can confirm with further research and good evidence that it is indeed mine, or leads me to mine, I make the appropriate changes. If not, I leave it for as long as it takes, or try someone else!
It also can serve as a reminder to me to get on with that particular search, especially if I haven't done anything in that family for a while!
Jeanne 😄
-
Hi CD.
For fear of being outspoken yet again (I will never learn to shut up)
.................. Not so much standing as sitting on the fence on this one!
Jane ;)
Oh Jane don't sit on the fence, all you will get is splinters in your bum ;D ;D
-
One of my ancestors appears to have given birth two hundred years before she was born herself, and again five times after the age of sixty five!
rayard.
-
Bit like the tree on Heritage that has me married to my father, and my brothers as our children! My poor Mum. ;D ;D ;D
Jeanne
-
You will be untangling other people's mistakes for years - add that to your "brickwall" .
Only if you take any notice of them. Anyone who cares about accuracy learns very quickly not to take online trees at face value - you can see that from the comments here. I've seen plenty of howlers but they haven't had any effect on my own tree or my own brick walls.
And, I'll say it again these big organisations have a duty -
Not at all. Why do they have a duty to do anything?
-
"Not at all. Why do they have a duty to do anything?"
Exactly. Ancestry provides raw information in the form of databases. It is not responsible for the way its clients use the information just as the authors and publishers of 'Sea Shells of Tropical West America' [or any similar reference work] are not responsible for misidentifications made by users of the book.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D. Very good Mike and Erato!
Jeanne
-
The disclaimer is already on Ancestry:
For User Provided Content, we are merely hosting and providing access as well as providing tools to post and share content, and we cannot accept any liability whatsoever with regard to such material (including with respect to its accuracy)
So they cover themselves and it is up to the user to check.
I didn't know that, learning all the time. That's OK then.
Oh Jane don't sit on the fence, all you will get is splinters in your bum ;D ;D
Don't worry iluleah have hide like a rhino cant feel a thing ::) I am also no stranger to the naughty step!
Very interesting comments but I think I will just watch, it is nice on the fence today, the sun is shining and the wind has gone away ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jane
-
I think Ancestry is no more than a bit of light entertainment to many people - in the same way that we download apps or join web sites then forget about them when they no longer interest us.
There is no requirement to be a serious genealogist to join any family history site. Or even to have more than one brain cell - one might be required for the login ;D
Maybe years of system testing has made me more sceptical than other people but I've learnt not to believe anything I read on the net until I've checked it in half a dozen places so why would family history sites be any different?
Like others I might seeth a bit sometimes (and laugh a bit sometimes) at seeing relatives included where they don't belong but the reality is no one builds a tree to provide others with information or for posterity - there is nothing to stop people building imaginary trees of names they find interesting if that's what they feel like doing. I don't see how Ancestry or any other site can be held responsible for the vagaries (or incompetence) of its users.
-
As you said many posts ago, JetteJane, you know you're right - well, many of them feel the same. They "know" they're right, too.
You have said that you can take criticism for being outspoken, and enjoy it - so do, don't get worked up about it. As others have said, the Public trees are a sort of guide or help, not chiselled in stone as ultimate facts. You, or anyone else need not take any notice of them.
I think that many of us when first we joined Ancestry, spent ages rambling around trees that featured any ancestors we knew of - and possibly believed the relationships there, ... until we found something we "knew" to be wrong. That doesn't mean everything is wrong, it's "caveat emptor", let the buyer beware, don't swallow it wholesale, use it as a possibility, and check and prove carefully. We can all be wrong, both innocently, and deliberately through careless research.
There will always be "scalp collectors", and others who will still be sceptical at an original document that has been preserved under lock and key for five centuries, signed and witnessed by eleven bishops - and quite rightly.
We've many of us suffered from relatives being hijacked or adopted, misplaced or misattributed - and when it's your own mob, you feel irritated. But, as several moderators and others have said - is it worth it? Are we all just racking up posts on here in order to increase our number of posts, and make it to the higher echelons more swiftly? Surely not. (But some competitive souls might, I suppose?) So let's just bury the subject. Accept lots of trees are nuts, politely communicate with the tree-owner if you wish, don't fret if you get nowhere - pour a drink, and relax.
Oh, and have at least a year-long ban on the subject.
-
Since this thread is on "The Lighter Side" it will not count towards racking up posts.
-
No sorry Yorky - if you want to go back to the beginning of this thread you will see it was a case of if this type of topic annoys you then avoid. If others ::) want to vent their spleen then let them.
And you bet these big organisations should have a duty. I really don't think y'all are looking at the bigger picture and neither are they. At the moment companies like Ancestry & FindMyPast are top dogs but they need to be thinking about how they can improve and provide a better service or they will lose their crown. Okay, so you all know the pit falls and what to look out for when researching on these websites but the vast majority really do not. Family History is now an industry it's BIG. You can still back and accept the problems or maybe protest a bit and try and make it better for future generations.
-
And you bet these big organisations should have a duty. I really don't think y'all are looking at the bigger picture and neither are they. At the moment companies like Ancestry & FindMyPast are top dogs but they need to be thinking about how they can improve and provide a better service or they will lose their crown.
That's a business decision, not a duty.
-
No sorry Yorky - if you want to go back to the beginning of this thread you will see it was a case of if this type of topic annoys you then avoid. If others ::) want to vent their spleen then let them.
And you bet these big organisations should have a duty. I really don't think y'all are looking at the bigger picture and neither are they. At the moment companies like Ancestry & FindMyPast are top dogs but they need to be thinking about how they can improve and provide a better service or they will lose their crown. Okay, so you all know the pit falls and what to look out for when researching on these websites but the vast majority really do not. Family History is now an industry it's BIG. You can still back and accept the problems or maybe protest a bit and try and make it better for future generations.
I agree - well said.
The very fact that some of the adverts state things such as, "With one click of a button you can take your family back hundreds of years"
That advert does annoy me >:(
There was a post, I think in the Common Room a day or so ago where someone is looking for a particular family name, the poster says "I can't find the tree online". I'll make a bet they've seen that bally ad and think that their family tree is going to magically appear in front of their very eyes.
It's all too easy to sit in the comfort of our own home and bash away on the internet. I have the utmost respect for those folk who slogged their way around dusty archives actively seeking out their families and their roots.
The internet is a wonderful tool and my family tree would not exist without it, however when I first began I was told over and over "you must check things out" - "look at the original where possible" and "provide sources and evidence".
Easy for us who have been 'at it' for a while but for beginners? Who bothers to read disclaimers?, most people don't read the small print on their car insurance, so they're not going to bother with it on Ancestry!
-
The internet is a wonderful tool and my family tree would not exist without it, however when I first began I was told over and over "you must check things out" - "look at the original where possible" and "provide sources and evidence".
Exactly. We were all beginners once, those of us who took it seriously soon learned what to do and what not to do.
-
And you bet these big organisations should have a duty. I really don't think y'all are looking at the bigger picture and neither are they. At the moment companies like Ancestry & FindMyPast are top dogs but they need to be thinking about how they can improve and provide a better service or they will lose their crown.
That's a business decision, not a duty.
Hey Mike,
Here's Ancestry's mission statement:
http://corporate.ancestry.com/about-ancestry/company-info/mission-and-culture/
Apparently they are guided by a very human mission. "We must think like category leaders and take that responsibility seriously" Their words not mine.
-
Mission statements are always good for a laugh. They also say:
"We value intelligence and smart execution."
-
That mission statement "We must think like category leaders and take that responsibility seriously" sounds - almost like politicians!! Amazed no party has adopted it. Must be the day (General Election) having its effect on my brain. The one Mike in Cumbria gives sounds as if it might be painful!
Actually it's the delving around in real, dusty records that is the real fun part of the hunt.
Just feel that it's so easy for us to feel we're right with the information we "know"... and after feeling that, I know I've found myself wrong, and had to rewind, unravel and re-sort, 'cos someone else was right.
So although the errors on trees annoy, sometimes, especially when we start out, they can be a bit helpful, but is it all worth getting so worked up about it? That's my point.
-
As you said many posts ago, JetteJane, you know you're right - well, many of them feel the same. They "know" they're right, too.
You have said that you can take criticism for being outspoken, and enjoy it - so do, don't get worked up about it.....
I am right. with certs, documents, pictures and family stories about ancestors handed down generatio n to generation. My Redmans are well catalogued in Arundel as well. How can they even think they are right without that.I take criticism yes but not always. Believe me I am not any more worked up than many others in here. You can't see my face when I am smiling at things I and others say.
This topic doesn't annoy me in the slightest. Have even learned a few things and said some stupid things . It is just a discussion with various viewpoints.
No ban on this subject please, as CD says if people don't like the subject they don't have to join in.
-
Hmm :-\ Ancestry also mention "authentic family stories".
Dictionary says - Authentic
not false or copied; genuine; real:
having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified:
-
I'm sure Ancestry would love it if all their users compiled authentic stories, I just can't think what they could practically do to ensure everyone does.
Anyone have any ideas?
-
They could police them all, check every part of every user's trees and delete those that were wrong. Persistent offenders would have their subscription refunded and they would not only be banned from Ancestry but then blacklisted from all FH sites.
Simple.
-
They could police them all, check every part of every user's trees and delete those that were wrong. Persistent offenders would have their subscription refunded and they would not only be banned from Ancestry but then blacklisted from all FH sites.
Simple.
That's what I thought too ;D ;D
But someone may have a better idea..............
-
Hmm :-\ Ancestry also mention "authentic family stories".
Dictionary says - Authentic
not false or copied; genuine; real:
having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified:
Suey thats what I have. From 1800`s a chest of docs has been handed down the generations it is in my possession. Every owner has added to it and all owners thankfully have been interested. It will go to my eldest son who has seen it already and showing an interest also. There ars copies in Arundel Museum. Have also many artefacts some priceless that I would never part with. My stories are genuine some tapes can back this up. Also the Family Bible. Dad on the left has a portrait in the town Hall and a room in council chambers named after him.
-
Since this thread is on "The Lighter Side" it will not count towards racking up posts.
Sorry, you are wrong, it doe's count towards posts,
-
My stories are genuine some tapes can back this up.
Just because someone told a story doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
I have a tape recording of my grandmother, in which she asserts that one of her uncles was a life long bachelor and had no children.
By means of marriage certificates, birth certificates and census returns I have been able to prove that she was completely wrong: not only did he marry and have two children with his wife, he also had several children with two other women.
-
Jettejane - you are very, very lucky to have so much documentation. I'm always very envious of all the interesting photographs and documents I see produced on here. I doubt if our family has anything beyond 50 years ago :'(
Many of us have to search very hard to find the documents that we need to verify information, and the further back we go the harder it gets, especially for generations of ag labs in areas where few records or newspapers have survived. Not surprising really that people make mistakes.
-
They could police them all, check every part of every user's trees and delete those that were wrong. Persistent offenders would have their subscription refunded and they would not only be banned from Ancestry but then blacklisted from all FH sites.
Simple.
Sorry Mike, I think you are being very flippant about this. Of course they can't act as police but what they could do is devise better methods of allowing access to family trees. For a start perhaps we should have to ask before we could 'click and attach'? Or colour code them? Delete or put into deep store in-active trees?
Mission Statement - you can laugh but a Company is suppose to stand behind their statement. Someone was paid alot of money to write that!
-
Since this thread is on "The Lighter Side" it will not count towards racking up posts.
Sorry, you are wrong, it doe's count towards posts,
Youngtug is right - before my previous posting I had 9239 posts, and now I've got 9240 - so I gained one by posting on The Lighter Side.
I'm not supposed to be reading this thread, so I'll go away now.
-
Sorry Mike, I think you are being very flippant about this.
Well we agree on that :)
Mission Statement - you can laugh but a Company is suppose to stand behind their statement. Someone was paid alot of money to write that!
Sorry - I've had to work for too many organisations with naff mission statements to take them seriously!
-
It is an 'authentic' story if it is a story that was really told by someone. That doesn't mean it is a true story; it could even be entirely and deliberately false. I posted online [not at Ancestry] my grandfather's written recollections of his boyhood on a Wisconsin farm. Are they authentic family stories? Yes, they are authentically his words but there is no guarantee that he recalled things with 100% accuracy. I also have a newspaper article published in various US papers and in Australia [cousin Beulah shipwrecked, attacked by cannibals, sees eleven sailors killed and eaten, barely escapes with her life through the fortuitous intervention of a German gunboat]. Is it an authentic family story? Yes, it is. Those things really were written about Beulah, they were part of her mystique as an inspirational speaker on missionary life, but they were probably 100% fabricated.
-
All I can say to all your comments is that everything I have told you is true. I am not lying and yes I am incredibly lucky. Before you scorn my findings you need to know my family and what I know. How dare anyone in here suggest I do not know what I know without seeing what I have.
Now the gloves are off and I am annoyed. Some comments sound like sour grapes or a touch of the green eye.
-
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick there, Jane
You ARE blessed that you have so much information. Others don't - that's why they have more potential to make mistakes
At least, that's my interpretation of everything
-
But it's a hobby and people take from it what they will....if no harm is being done...what does it matter. As long as you do the research and make sure your tree is accurate and has supporting evidence then what is the problem?
Some people will always take their hobby more seriously than others....and...there are many housebound and lonely people out there and building bushes, trees or forests are what fills their lives.
Just live and let live...you're a long time dead :)
Carol
Yes got it in one Carol but enroute to enlightenment I found myself getting a tad more than mildly annoyed by someone's efforts. I finally put it all to bed by deciding that I was being too judgemental and that for all I knew the other person was struggling with ADHD or a disorder of a similar nature though they would probably bite my head off for being condescending if they ever caught up with me ::)
While the trigger for my angst was the amount of time I had spent researching in order to prove or disprove relationship theories while they breezed in some 20 years later and blindly accepted all namesake hints. With Ancestry using census records to "prove" a namesake connection while overlooking mis-spellings I went into self righteous over drive. It was momentarily satisfying but far too draining as I could envisage it as a constantly repeating exercise.
-
All I can say to all your comments is that everything I have told you is true. I am not lying and yes I am incredibly lucky. Before you scorn my findings you need to know my family and what I know. How dare anyone in here suggest I do not know what I know without seeing what I have.
Now the gloves are off and I am annoyed. Some comments sound like sour grapes or a touch of the green eye.
I'm sorry if anything I said annoyed you - it wasn't meant to, I seriously am envious of anyone having so much documentation about their family. I know others on here have also, and I don't think it's that common to have so much.
I certainly didn't intent any slight.
-
All I can say to all your comments is that everything I have told you is true. I am not lying and yes I am incredibly lucky. Before you scorn my findings you need to know my family and what I know. How dare anyone in here suggest I do not know what I know without seeing what I have.
Now the gloves are off and I am annoyed. Some comments sound like sour grapes or a touch of the green eye.
I for one am not scorning your findings nor do I have 'a touch of the green eye'. No one has said you are lying.
All I was pointing out, based on my own experience, is that stories should not necessarily be relied on.
-
Guys pax. It was what Erato said that got my dander up.Not the rest of you. She is always spikey and opinionated with me. Perhaps we too alike!!!
I should not rise to it but it pees me off that others get away with murder and I get my wrists slapped occasionally.
I give up I certainly don't fit in here. But I do love Rootschat and will carry on getting it wrong-not intentionally.
-
How so? I said that all family stories are authentic stories. They are 'authentic' because someone in the family told them. But they aren't all necessarily true [e.g., Beulah and the cannibals - and that was a published story]. A lot of family stories may be true but are no longer possible to verify. There is no way now to know whether the first proto-barbed wire fencing that my grandfather ever saw was on the farm of Colonel Merritt, but that's what he said. It is an authentic story.
-
I wonder if it's down to people using online genealogy sites differently than they might have done originally.
For example, 10 or more years ago, someone seriously into family history might have only posted a tree that had been proven to whatever level of satisfaction fulfilled his or her purpose.
Genealogy used to be more costly, more difficult and more time-consuming, perhaps thereby limiting its attractiveness to some. Remember how patient you used to have to be if you were writing letters and waiting for replies from other countries?
But now the vast amount of information available online, and the ease with which it can be added to one's tree, has perhaps contributed to lowering the former standards of proof while at the same time making it much easier to engage in the hobby.
In addition, people use the internet now as their storage and back-up for working documents, photos, etc., so it probably makes sense to many to also use the internet for their trees, whether they are works in progress or as complete as they can be. I have a cousin whose tree exists only on Ancestry; I'd be surprised if she has any kind of genealogy software or data stored on her computer's hard drive. She keeps hers private but others obviously don't.
In the end, it doesn't matter. I agree that it can be annoying or downright ridiculous, but not everyone is a stickler for detail like me, and so I just shrug my shoulders and scroll on.
On the other hand, I am extremely grateful to the individuals who are meticulous and who go to the trouble of attaching source documents or links to back up their data. Yes, it can be a pain in the butt to scroll through the 17 (or 37) trees whose owners have merely copied and pasted some or all of the meticulous person's tree, but there's a definite pay-off if I can make my way to the original, well-sourced tree (when one actually exists).
On the lighter side, I recently started updating one of my family binders, with the intention of creating one for my brother and his children. Well, that got me back to researching that line, I've found a ton of new info, and am still in the process of gathering and synthesizing it all. So the binders are on hold again. ;D
Josephine
Topic Continued here: http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=726756.0