RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Finley 1 on Sunday 15 November 15 21:11 GMT (UK)
-
I know we have discussed this on here so many times. !
But I have just come across a TREE on Ancestry.
And oh dear what a terrible mess - and such a shame.
You can see that the person has worked hard with their research, but not followed the simple rules.
Well my simple rules of research are:
Name - should be known
year or approx. dob
Birth AREA
and later on Employment
and of course its handy to know family names.
these things usually help in research.
So if your main research, finds the person born in say ---- 1820 in Lubenham and a silk weaver
why then do you take on as same person someone in 1851 that says born in Lincolnshire.
and a bloomin guitar player (just an example)
They then follow the wrong man through the census NOT checking Birthplace (seemingly)!!!!
DO I tell them, I really feel tempted to advise them - and I have records and things to prove =
that they just didn't look hard enough. Or do I leave them to it!!!
I don't know.
xin
-
Depends how strongly you feel about it and whether you can cope with either being ignored or perhaps being told that they can't possibly be wrong! ;D ;D If you are lucky, they may thank you and accept your help but unfortunately those people seem to be in the minority, especially if they have gone a long way following the wrong person.
I tend to contact people and then forget about it. If they get back to me fine, but if they don't that is their loss.
-
Tell them. You have to think about others who may also see that info.
It could be a lesson for the tree holder re: how to research
I came across somebody researching a branch of my own FH who had a tree on Ancestry with incorrect info. I had BMD certs/census info etc and emailed them to him as proof but he insisted he was right so his tree is still showing the wrong person.
-
I will sleep on it ... seems he hasn't visited Ancestry for a month or so...
oh dear. :o
xin
-
The other alternative if they ignore you, is to add comments to their tree, which you can do if it is on Ancestry. That way, if if they take no notice, others who look at it may be alerted to mistakes.
-
Totally agree with you groom I usually email them politely and if they reply great if not although I fume I just leave it. Never thought of putting a comment on their tree must try it next time.
Maybe the person who had my great great grandmother going to New Zealand and dying there when I know she died here in Scotland and have visited her grave. This person had some very very obscure family connection, which I am still trying to figure out.
We can all make errors but those who blindly follow another's info without doing their own research really bugs me.
Dorrie
-
I have seen it all before
When will researchers take note of places of birth and occupations?
I used to get annoyed, especially when it concerns my ancestry, but I gave up emailing or advising anyone
It's the blind copying of incorrect and unsourced info that I now laugh at.
Just last week, I found the "same" info relating to one of my relatives on at least 10 trees.
He did not marry the wife in question and of course, the children involved were not his.
A wealthy farmer who has also just inherited from his grandfather's estate does not suddenly become a coal miner.
Meanwhile, my relative and his true wife have already emigrated to New Zealand where they are happily running their prosperous farming business!
-
There are trees on Ancestry that have my maternal gran's elder sister dying on exactly the same day as my gran and at the same address. Clever that seeing the elder sister died 16 years before my gran. I know I'm right as my gran lived with me, my parents and my brother and she died when I was 8. Her elder sister died 6 years before my parents married and at least 3 years before my gran and my mum (still single at that point) moved into our address.
I've tried telling one person but they've not corrected it and I really can't be bothered to tell the others.
I've also got my g.grandfather's alleged parents shown on numerous trees, but although they were parents of two sons (one died) of the same name, they are not the parents of my g.grandfather. I don't know who his parents are, I just know they're not the ones everyone thinks they are. I've no idea who the tree owners are, as they don't seem to have any connection to my family, so I guess they're just people who go around collecting trees. If I look at the trees to see where a connection can be made, there isn't one.
-
I think that's the most annoying thing, when it is a close relative that some one has wrongly claimed and when the person is claiming they are a distant relative of theirs. If someone told me that the person I thought was my great uncle's wife was their grandmother and had proof, I'd believe them!
-
Thanks for responses, some interesting stories.
Still contemplating.
??? ::) ::) is it worth it
xin
-
The tree is perhaps, deliberately wrong, due to the "Cut and paste" mentality of those who do not research properly. They may have been burned by copying someone elses. Since there has been no activity on the tree for some time now, he/she may now be playing a waiting game fo reactions from others.
Me personally, I would ignore it, as you may get the "who are you to tell me" attitude response.
Regards
Malky
-
The other alternative if they ignore you, is to add comments to their tree, which you can do if it is on Ancestry. That way, if if they take no notice, others who look at it may be alerted to mistakes.
This is something I felt compelled to do as one tree had a photo of one of my Ancestors wrongly named in their tree...I told them that I had the same photo and that the person lost their life in WW1...their tree had this same individual married with the wrong Family >:( It was, in this case an easy mistake to make as there was two people who had the same name, born in the same area one year apart.
I sent them a message and they didn't respond or change the info so I put a public comment and the person changed the information. People are reluctant to change what they believe to be true, even when presented with the evidence because it messes up their tree.
I would tell them and take Groom's advice if you don't get a favourable response...I believe we owe it to related researchers to keep it real and stick to proven facts. Otherwise it ends up being a piece of fiction.
Carol
-
I'm afraid I'd feel I had to tell them. Then it's up to them, but I hope they'd at least look again, to check out what they have, and consider if they may be mistaken.
I hope someone will tell me if I ever get climbing out along a branch that's not really attached to my tree, before I fall off it with egg all over my face.
I nearly did once, researched what seemed like the right parentage ... but somehow it didn't quite seem to "fit" properly, so I went right back and started again ... and found I'd slid over onto a cousin, with the same names of children, almost the same ages, and in the same general area! I could so easily have adopted this branch as the right ones! Even the job fitted.
At present I'm going cross-eyed trying to search into the back-story of a chap who spent 2 censuses with a direct ancestor, claiming her as his wife (I don't think they married at all!) before she goes off in the next census and claims to be married to another chap (and I know he was married to someone else!) but I can't find him before or after, and he claims two different dates of birth, nearly ten years apart! I've found someone who so nearly fits .... but no proof, so can't get there.
Isn't it frustrating? But isn't it satisfying when we do get an awkward so-and-so of an ancestor finally pinned?
-
Tell them about Rootschat - it sounds as though they are in desperate need of proper advice!
-
It seems to me that only genuine researchers wanting accuracy would be happy to receive any corrections and act on it. Those who don't must be copiers who aren't interested enough to do any research. Just my opinion xin.
-
Well - I sent a note to them, so we will see - probably no response.
But I do feel better .
xin ;)
-
I found one who had my mother marrying twice, and I did correct her! The annoying thing was that if she had asked my cousin, she would have been put right ( I did not know her, she was my cousins relative) - it was just lazy researching on her part, and she did apologise to me ::). If it is a distant branch I usually ignore it.
-
Xin, I would contact them and then forget about it. I have learned the hard way not to get wound up about incorrect details or to expect an immediate reply (or any replies!)
I contacted two people who were seeking relatives and info on maternal Grandmother s family in Ireland. That was 3 weeks ago, have heard nothing. Had put it out of my mind until I read this. It is a shame because the Irish side is tricky. It could possibly be a great help to me and I could help them.
It slightly annoys me because they were asking for people to contact them. Both were active on ancestry.
Jane
-
Through a newspaper article, I finally found the 1877 death record for one of my relatives.
She never married and died at the age of 76yrs in the SAME house where she was born.
No less than 23 Ancestry trees have her married off to a randomer and all show a death date of 1885.
Moreover, this man's wife doesn't even fit the profile for my relative.
Slightly different 1st name ( Janet rather than Jane) and she has a completely different place of birth.
That's 23 researchers who have either the incorrect ancestry or have added incorrect descendants to the correct ancestry!
-
Jane: as far as I can see, almost everyone's Irish side proves "tricky"! I've completely given up on all Irish ancestors, and the headaches from bashing my head against that brick wall will subside in time, I believe.
anne-p: I simply think those silly errors multiply, as each lazy researcher simply copies.... they get the inaccurate trees they deserve.
I've several relatives who seem to have been hijacked, over the years, especially as many had similar ages, and the same names as each other.
But it doesn't take that much effort to get it right, nowadays, IF you want to, does it? No more than to get it right.
-
Jane: as far as I can see, almost everyone's Irish side proves "tricky"! I've completely given up on all Irish ancestors, and the headaches from bashing my head against that brick wall will subside in time, I believe.
Yes but I got a lot of help from a lovely Irish lass I met on this site. She was able to research and purchase many certs for me which opened many doors. I got back 3 generations one side and 2 the other and doing reasonably well myself. The people I contacted could have helped but it wasn't to be.
Never say die!!! I almost gave up but kept at it. Took years.
-
I have looked at trees of people with my ancestors or their siblings in them and they are on the 1871 census after they died and are on the 1880 US census then the 1881 UK census, and they were born in Essex, Massachusetts, USA instead of Essex, England. Or Sussex, Delaware, USA instead of Sussex England. Very sloppy research and not double checking the drop down menu. I wont go round constantly telling them of these errors. That is why I am thorough and my tree does not have such glaring mistakes.
-
I know this is an ongoing problem --- when I look at trees and see someone has been a member of "A"
for a short time & already has thousands of names I do wonder where they came from.
Recently I contacted a lady who was researching one of my ancestry lines which was partly incorrect.
I asked her "where are you getting your info from"
Reply -- " from other An--- trees " surly they can't all be wrong"
This is what she had for my maternal Grandmother -- E.P.S.
Stepdaughter of nephew of wife of 2nd great grand uncle of wife of paternal 1st cousin
If some one can sort out the connection please let me in on it.
-
Spices, I sympathise have had similar. This topic has been discussed many times here. I have learnt the hard way to walk away and not get wound up. I know I have correct information backed up with certs etc.that is all that matters. I cannot be bothered with trophy researchers especially when they are not interested in knowing the truth. Just my opinion, we all deal with the bogus trees in our own way. I am happy to say I have seen the light and don't bother with them any more.
Jane
-
Could be some people type into FamilySearch their ancestors name "John Bloggs" born England 1815-1820 and see results for the right man but also see an 1880 US census for a John Bloggs in the USA born England 1816 and think it is him (so then look him up on Ancestry USA and attach the entry as a source) as he hopped along to America then returned to the UK by 1881, totally forgetting to look at the rest of the 1880 household and that man was married to a different spouse and his eldest child was 18 and youngest was 2 and all born USA.
They often just go on someone of the same name, similar age and birth country, which is not enough to assume it is the same person, unless their name was Cornelius Aloysius Nicholas Bracegirdle ;D.
One ancestor sibling was Emma Finch and there was an Emma Finch in America in 1880 born England, similar age to my Emma. One other tree has my Emma in 1871 and 1881 in Northumberland, England and also the Emma Finch in 1880 in the US as the same person when that is impossible if you look at the rest of the households.
-
I found one yesterday for a great x 2 aunt who had the right marriage for her in 1869 and the right family in 1871 in London. Then for some reason they had another marriage for her in 1874 in a different part of the country. However in 1881 she was back in London with her original husband and with their children born in 1870, 1872, 1874 and 1876. I'm afraid I can't even be bothered to point out such an obvious error.
-
I found one yesterday for a great x 2 aunt who had the right marriage for her in 1869 and the right family in 1871 in London. Then for some reason they had another marriage for her in 1874 in a different part of the country. However in 1881 she was back in London with her original husband and with their children born in 1870, 1872, 1874 and 1876. I'm afraid I can't even be bothered to point out such an obvious error.
Jan, I think that answers the original question. No, dont be tempted to tell! It's taken me long enough to arrive at that conclusion but glad I have-at last ;D
-
When helping in our research library I often tell people to do a TIME LINE and to remember to do this when checking dates, movements etc.
Poor Annie, according to others, died age 10 months HOWEVER still managed to emigrate from the UK to US and have children.
I know we all have seen these glaring mistakes. I know I will have transposed numbers but when it is pointed out I look into it.
-
The thing that amazed me on my great x 2 aunt's one was that they had it all on their tree, with this odd and obviously wrong second marriage stuck in the middle. If they'd only looked at it they would have noticed it was wrong!
I'm sure a lot of people just put things on without a second thought or look. How often do we see someone's death and then they appear in the next census?
-
Spices,
Although the connection that you posted earlier is ridiculous, I can beat it!
I stupidly allowed someone to have access to my family tree as I honestly thought that the person was only interested in our "Shared Ancestry" and their descendants.
Unknown to me, the contact proceeded to copy my entire family tree onto his own and made it public.
I was not a happy bunny and told him so.
Half of my paternal side, ALL of my maternal family and NONE of husbands family belong in his tree, so what was he doing?
He tried to quantify it by claiming that everyone in my family tree was related to him in one way or another and therefore belongs in his tree?
It explains why his tree contains more than 80,000 names but he has very few direct ancestors.
I chose my husbands great uncle ( yep! he copied all of this too) and asked him to provide me with the exact connection to himself.
I promise you... this was his extremely proud response which I have copied and pasted from his message that I kept.
"1st cousin 1x removed of wife of brother-in-law of sister-in-law of 3rd cousin of husband of sister-in-law of paternal grandfather of wife of brother-in-law of 1st cousin 3x removed of wife of 2nd cousin 3x removed of husband of 1st cousin 2x removed of husband of aunt of wife of 2nd cousin 2x removed"
Classic name collector who cannot grasp the concept that an in-law has no biological link to himself.
-
"1st cousin 1x removed of wife of brother-in-law of sister-in-law of 3rd cousin of husband of sister-in-law of paternal grandfather of wife of brother-in-law of 1st cousin 3x removed of wife of 2nd cousin 3x removed of husband of 1st cousin 2x removed of husband of aunt of wife of 2nd cousin 2x removed"
Thanks anne_p better than cryptic crosswords
;) ;) :D :D ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
I don't like this either
I had photos of my late father in my ancestry tree and some more photos grt grt grt grandmother
and her family
While searching I noticed these photos were in someone else's had added tree and beside they had added she had put the photos in
I was so annoyed I wrote and asked her the relationship to my tree .
She was related to my grandmothers full cousins wife
No blood relative to my grandmother at all I have now deleted my photos
At the moment I am in contact with some one in Australia who has looked at my tree and has told me I have some mistakes I'm not bothered I have sent him a copy of the family I have and hopefully he comes back with the corrections .I have also allowed him to look at my tree .I don't pay to Ancestry just on an odd occasion if I really want to see something
Elizabeth
-
If you don't want something out there, my suggestion would be don't put it in a public space. I think you lose the right to complain if you do.
I'm an adoptee who has researched her adoptive family, as well as her husband's family, so I don't think you're required to be biologically related to someone to be interested in them.
Some of the people on my Ancestry tree are a best guess or something I may look into more in depth later. If someone wants to politely point me in the right direction on someone, I will happily accept the information. If they just want to tell me that I'm wrong, that's not going to go over so well.
-
If someone wants to politely point me in the right direction on someone, I will happily accept the information. If they just want to tell me that I'm wrong, that's not going to go over so well.
I think that about sums it up - it is very much how some one approaches it. If I had a message from someone saying that I was wrong as they knew that they were right, I'd probably ignore them. If however they worded their message to perhaps ask how I'd come to that conclusion and was I certain as they had found ...... etc. I'd be more inclined to take note and reply.
-
I too agree with shellyesq. I don't have a tree online but have many posts in here about my family that anyone can access. If anyone used any of that information it would be correct. Anyone can Google dad and get a lot about him and then make the rest up. But why?
If I contact incorrect tree owners I never say they are wrong just ask where they got info. Mygt X 3 Grandfather from Sussex emigrated to USA and most American tree have him wrong. Dob, place birth and wife's name incorrect. I have tried to find this mystery person and wife but he doesn't seem to exist. They do however have children correct which if they researched would give parents. I have parish records they could get them too. These tree owners are all copying names, this means they can't go back any further. I on the other hand can and have done so.
Jane
-
The best I came across recently was one of those nonsensical trees, regrettably too common from the USA, which had numerous claims of descent from pre-Norman and Dark Age Europe . In this case they not only had a date of birth for their revered ancestor ( a minor post-Roman British kinglet ) but also had his date and place of death : "Papua New Guinea". ??? ??? ??? ::)
If they have any supporting evidence for that one it'll require a complete re-write of the history books.
Maec
-
.......... also had his date and place of death : "Papua New Guinea". ??? ??? ??? ::)
If they have any supporting evidence for that one it'll require a complete re-write of the history books.
What's wrong with that ???
He was obviously on his way back from holiday on the Great Barrier Reef and his flight was diverted to PNG. Happened a lot in those days.
Carol
P.S. Same story with the Lost Tribes of Israel.
-
I have also 'suffered' in the same way- but in my case (twice) the researchers have posh all-singing all-dancing websites which make the information look very plausible.
Is there anyone with an 'in' to people who write articles for popular FH magazines, who could write something about this which would perhaps alert sloppy researchers to take more care?
Just a thought!
Melbell.
-
Is there anyone with an 'in' to people who write articles for popular FH magazines, who could write something about this which would perhaps alert sloppy researchers to take more care?
I second this suggestion and add my own suggestion that Ancestry be petitioned to make the default for their Tree's Private. My thinking is a large numbers of public trees are only public because that is the default when a tree is started.
MM
-
Melbell and MM, I am with you. When I joined ancestry in ignorance I started my tree not realising everyone could access it. I thought it was just for me. I didn't put much on it and luckily never added all my finds. I was very naive in those days.
Jane
-
I didn't put much on it and luckily never added all my finds.
But if you had, then maybe people wouldn't keep getting your ancestors wrong?
Is there anyone with an 'in' to people who write articles for popular FH magazines, who could write something about this which would perhaps alert sloppy researchers to take more care?
Trouble is, they'd be the ones least likely to read it!
-
I didn't put much on it and luckily never added all my finds.
But if you had, then maybe people wouldn't keep getting your ancestors wrong?
Fair point but even from what little I put they could find out for themselves if they wanted to. Its all out there somewhere, I managed to find stuff! They could also contact me and see if we have a connection that would be better.
I will never put my tree online I do it for myself not others. OK so that's maybe a selfish attitude. I may look at others trees but only for curiosity value now. I would not take anything as gospel without obtaining the proof myself and would not add anyone to my tree just because someone else has.
Don't mean to ruffle any feathers here, this is only my opinion and how I feel about the subject.
Jane ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
In this case they not only had a date of birth for their revered ancestor ( a minor post-Roman British kinglet ) but also had his date and place of death : "Papua New Guinea". ??? ??? ??? ::)
Maec
Those mudmen, they got everywhere.
-
Well my simple rules of research are:
Name - should be known
year or approx. dob
Birth AREA
and later on Employment
and of course its handy to know family names.
These obvious rules are reasonably easy to follow post-1837 (or at least from 1851 onwards). I recently posted about the Pattinsons of Alston around 1800. There are several Ancestry trees whose owners have netted all children born to Thomas and Mary between 1815 and 1829, not considering whether a series of baptism dates 6 months apart mattered. Now that FreeREG has published complete baptism records we can separate the Joiner from the Miner, finding two families married in 1815 and 1821, with more consistent progeny. Even then, the 1841 census shows that one of the Miner's children was really the Joiner's. I have reported this to one or two owners, with one grateful reply.
I suspect that many - perhaps most - of the false trees were spawned from one corrupt original.