RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Gone on Monday 18 January 16 00:26 GMT (UK)
-
I'm sure this subject has been discussed here before, but why do people copy others findings? It seems my 2x great granddad, Luke Hulme, b1837, Horton (Biddulph Moor) died 1881, according to many people who have him in their tree. I'm not the best researcher in the world, but by ignoring everyone else, I found a huge amount of info on line about him which led me into the early 1900's and a second family. Even a family research website which claims to have 80,000,000 members, got it wrong saying he died by 1881. Show me your evidence!
If I'd taken notice of everyone else, I'd have missed so much. And even though I live a very long way from where Luke lived and died, it seems his second family live just over an hour away from me, now I want to go and meet them. :)
-
Hulme-Griff,
I can only agree with you. Online trees copied left and right perpetuate the same errors unfortunately. I have found the same errors in Dowdeswell family trees across the internet; John Dowdeswell born 1647 in Temple Guiting Gloucs. did not have a son Samuel. I have wills and data from PR's to back this up, with Samuel Dowdeswell belonging to another family of the same name in the same area. Yet I have been unable to convince almost anyone, including one that was one of the first to show this error. The basis of their research hinges on a Thomas Dowdeswell, who I have discovered died as a teenager.
It is very frustrating, isn't it.
-
Brilliant name for these, the mental imagery.
And, I was guilty of being a solo lemming, I couldn't understand why all trees lead to Joan Stoate c 1650 Selworthy. Until I found that I had picked the wrong john Greenslade and wow is it complicated getting rid of a branch without losing the maiden side and the children.
My tree is private so no one was seeing my blunder. ;D
Salute,
Janelle
-
But are you sure you got it wrong, and not everyone else? ::)
-
Pine family & Janelle thank goodness its not just me.......although I'd rather it didn't happen at all :)
Of course, I'm guilty of "errors" but won't add to my tree unless I can prove a link now.
I found one couple's tree with Luke Hulme 1838 on it where his father died 2 years before Luke was born according to them, when in fact I know he lived at least another 50 years, even though I e-mailed the couple concerned and pointed out that they had several members of my family which were wrong , they thanked me but ignored it. How many people have found it and copied I wonder?
-
I found a similar one tonight (my time) while searching the public trees on Ancestry. A woman born in 1788, married in 1850, and had a son baptised in 1819!
-
Pinefamily, good job we can get it off our chests here , I think I'd explode ::) I once found my granddad on someone else's tree, wrong birth year, wrong family and the photo of him, which was the only right thing was lifted from my tree, grrrr! Lol.
I stopped putting photos on the tree after that.
Its a real shame so many people gave up looking for Luke and thought he died. I found him on 2, seperate 1871 census's, one with his wife in Biddulph, and a second that told me where he really was, an 1881 census with him on which everyone seems to have missed because his d o b and place of birth are wrong, but its definately him. and 2 further censuses, 1891 and 1901, divorce record, second marriage cert, death cert, will, second family with 3 children....newspaper articles, and a photo on line,
Griff.
-
Surely to just copy someone else's information is not only plain lazy but takes the fun out of doing the research yourself. I don't see the sense in just being a "lemming" a very apt name indeed ;D ;D
It is easy to get confused with so many having the same names, my lot were very unimaginative when it came to christian names and it would have been so easy to add the wrong one to the tree and then end up going off in the wrong direction completely. ::) ::) So don't accept any information without checking it yourself ;)
-
3sillydogs, absolutely right! I don't think its helped by a certain genealogy website advertising on television claiming "I typed in my name and date of birth" ...... And suddenly a family tree appears before them. Sorry for the sarcasm :P but it just doesn't happen like that.
I've spent 100's of hours on line and reading every word on certificates, (some illegible) and even when frustrated, the elation of finding something is what has kept me interested for some years
-
They make it sound so easy when in reality it can be a very frustrating past time, but then you get pointed in the right direction (usually by a Rootschatter) and off you go again. :D
The discoveries are what keeps it interesting and you learn along the way.....
-
3sillydogs, all the genealogy sites are good as a guide if you can see past the transription errors, but this, roots chat, is the best thing I ever used for getting me past the brick walls.
But there are people in my tree which would never be suggested because they were kept secret at the time. Those are the ones I love to find :)
-
I have to agree with you that this is the best forum. The sleuths here are amazing.
I too have found folk in my tree that I didn't know I had until I started searching, I have two new cousins as a result but they were the best kept secret and probably would have stayed that way if I hadn't started doing the family tree.. ;D ;D
As you say they are the ones that are the most fun to find..... ;)
-
RootsChat is a virtual ancestry database now as we probably have found out info on hundreds of thousands of people, handy for newbies. This is probably the best ever site for breaking down brickwalls.
I know people who have copied my tree and my photos, and if they are correct in the general info on an ancestor I dont mind, as these people are also other peoples ancestors as well as mine.
I find it annoying when others have a person who is living in 3 places in 1881, all different areas of the country.
-
I have to agree, I'll never get answers on one part of my family because records are missing. I only found out by asking for help on here. But anyone else looking for the same part of that family will be saved a lot of time and frustration because the conversation relating to them is searchable on here.
As for photos, I've shared with people and got some in return that might not be my direct line but a sibling of, still very much wanted,
And my relative was in 2 places in 1871, but he'd left his wife and children, she for whatever reason, put him on the census when he was actually in a different county, probably hiding from her ;D she was a bit of a wildcat.
-
I began my researches with a small section of tree from an uncle, which contained several errors. This alerted me to the pitfalls. I seldom look at other trees now, they are so disapointingly full of assumptions. I have spent the last 6 months buying certificates to prove my connections back to 1837. Before that, everything seems a bit more open to error. I do, however put speculative ancestors on my tree, to see what hints come up. If they prove to be wrong, I correct them. I put maybe and ??? on entries I'm not certain of.
-
I also started with a tree from family that although "good in parts", did prove to have errors - spent ages finding out the correct partners / dates / children etc., and can't see how the "Lemmings" enjoy what they're doing.
It's vital to check everything out. People here are brilliant at helping, and it gives you such a glow when in turn you can be a little help to someone else. Long may it flourish! (Someone once said to me "Oh, that's a quiet, boring, solitary thing to do, rootling out ancestors" - how wrong can it be? All the help, chat and natter on here? Meeting "real registers and records, as well, of course, and, yes, there are real people there at Record Offices etc, and you get chatting to them, too.....) But - who would be a lemming? That's close down your tree in a hurry, as you vanish over the cliff.....
-
I've spent 100's of hours on line and reading every word on certificates, (some illegible)
It's only actually illegible when all the rootschat pundits have declared it as such ;)
-
Maggyanne I have bought so many certificates over the years. Not only to prove a connection, but the extra info like witnesses which can throw up unknown family, but death certs are my favourite, having a couple of ailments myself, I know who to blame now :)
-
Threlfall Gorky the worst lemmings of all ate the ones who just collect thousands of names and don't even have a real connection to the people they add. I've had a big part of my tree added to another by someone who wasn't even related to me. That's the reason I took mine off line. ::)
-
Josey, next time I get one, I'll give the pundits a call lol :-)
My first attempt at reading them is a magnifying glass, the final go, when steam's coming out my ears ??? Is to go over the writing very lightly with a fine pencil to try and get into the style, that works sometimes ;)
-
Sometimes looking at the whole page can help you too, H-G. By looking at other entries, you can start to see the style, and the letters become legible (sometimes ::) ).
-
The online trees are a useful tool though, errors and all. Sometimes when I'm stuck, I will browse online trees, Ancestry and otherwise, to see if anyone has my missing ancestor. Even if only to rule out something, I sometimes find an avenue to explore that I hadn't thought of. Just the other day, stuck on a collateral ancestor, I typed his name into the Public Trees on Ancestry. Lo and behold, he appears on several trees as going to New Zealand! A couple of trees had him as a direct ancestor, so using them as a guide, I looked at records for myself, and it is indeed my missing man. So I have more relations across the Tasman apparently.
So the online trees, as bad as some are, can still be a tool in our research.
-
Pinefamily yes indeed! I've looked through a few trees in the past, no-one seems to be tracing the ones I really want though.
I haven't started on NZ yet but I heard I had rellitives there somewhere, sheep farmers. I'm a way off looking for them. I did trace a very distant family member that moved to Australia though, mid 1850's. She and her husband started a dynasty ::) I contacted the person who'd put a tree on all the way back to this couple but he was only interested in the male line.
-
But are you sure you got it wrong, and not everyone else? ::)
RE : John Greenslade of Exford, and my solo lemming adventure ...
Oh no, pinefamily :-[ I truly got it wrong.
I was out in my generations and parishes too. When I ventured into the Stoate / Sidifin / Greenslade / Wheddon world of Selworthy I found another Greenslade researcher who descends from William b 1716 brother of my John b 1714.
I salute this generous person who shared transcriptions he had made of leases and wills. I was able to understand how John's son Thomas got leases in Cutcombe and Exford because of the marriage settlement he and his folks signed, or put their mark to. 8)
And of course I went shopping at Somerset Heritage Centre for my own copies of these beautiful and fascinating documents.
-
The online trees are a useful tool though, errors and all. Sometimes when I'm stuck, I will browse online trees, Ancestry and otherwise, to see if anyone has my missing ancestor. .... <snip> .... A couple of trees had him as a direct ancestor, so using them as a guide, I looked at records for myself, and it is indeed my missing man. .... <snip> .... So the online trees, as bad as some are, can still be a tool in our research.
;D I have found a tree with my 5 x great uncle Simon Warren, and stating he was married to Eliza Hawkins. Scary as that would be his sister. I politely pointed this out, got a thankyou and promise to fix that, with the interesting news that Simon b 1814 descends from John Henry b 1856 (that is the son is father of his father ???) and so I enquired again and was told that there is grandpa J H as well, didn't ya know :-X
I thought this furphy can't be in the tree, just in the conversation, but alas, and unless he and his wife are time travellers, hmm
-
And my relative was in 2 places in 1871, but he'd left his wife and children, she for whatever reason, put him on the census when he was actually in a different county, probably hiding from her ;D she was a bit of a wildcat.
My 2 x g.grandmother was on the 1861 census twice. Once in Boston as head of household and dressmaker with her 3 children, and then with her husband in Staffordshire and their 3 children. She is shown as a visitor dressmaker. I have no idea how that happened. Either she filled in the Boston census and then left to join her husband in Staffordshire, where he then filled in the Staffordshire census, or like your ancestor, my 2 x g.grandfather just filled in his family even though they lived apart.
-
I have one who managed to cut himself in half in 1861 and was in two villages. Thomas Musgrave, born Croft, Yorkshire, aged 66 living with his wife in Evenwood Barony in Durham, and visiting a married child Henry in Coundon. Coundon and Evenwood are 8 or 9 miles apart.
Not as bad as 1911 when householders filled in themselves and put children who had left home and had lines cross through them as they were not with their mum anymore.
-
LizzieW I found the second one by chance but it made more sense than the one where he was still with his wife. It really helped me out with several newspaper articles too that related to "Luke Hulme, Biddulph" and proved it was one of the others in the village, I think there were 4 "Luke Hulme's" in biddulph at the time. If I could go back and talk to a relative from my past, this would be the one ;)
-
Climbs I know what you mean about the 1911 census. My welsh family were keen on adding children long since gone ::)
-
Lots of people have found children that were born and died between censuses when the parents added them in error to the 1911 census. The enumerators only crossed them out, not like today where they "redact" with thick black lines.
-
I was contacted on Ancestry by someone who has Lawes in their Suffolk ancestors, like I do. My one was Mary Lawes born in 1662 in Wingfield. This contact had a Ann Lawes born in 1724 to parents Thomas and Frances and she married in Wissett, 8 miles from Wingfield in 1748. On their trees they have no info yet on where they found her baptism. She died in 1787 aged 60. Rather than just add her willy nilly to my tree I shall like to prove a link to my Lawes. I did find a Thomas Lawes wed to Frances Bungay in 1719 in Denham near Wingfield. I am sure she is connected as most Lawes came from the Wingfield area. But rather than take their tree as gospel I shall try and find myself, as they have no source of info on her baptism as yet.
-
I think that some of these may be inadvertent lemmings, you know.
I tried, for a very short while, to build and maintain an online tree; but I didn't find it a particularly helpful tool so I gave it up. I'ts still there, apparently, because I keep getting e-mails saying that somebody has added something to it!
The bottom line is, I didn't understand the programme that was running it. Every so often it would say to me "here is a match", and I would go and look at that tree, and be given the choice of "yes, it's a match" or "no, it's not a match".
If i said "Yes, it's a match", did the programme automatically import all that other person's information (egregious errors in other parts of the tree and all) into my tree?? I don't know. But if it did, then my tree (which I no longer maintain) may look like a "lemming tree" in relation to other people's research errors. But if so, it's not because I mindlessly copied their information; it's because I simply agreed with the computer that certain ancestors they were showing in their tree are the same as certain ancestors I am showing in mine (i.e. there is a "match").
Just a thought ...
-
What amuses me is that online trees never have matches to one whole side of a line I've been following and documenting for years. Am I all wrong? Or do they belong to a family totally uninterested in on-line genealogy?
-
They won't have matches if the little leaves don't tell them. ;)
-
I couldn't believe someone posted a picture of my great great grandparents on here.
I only started looking because my youngest daughter has an iris coloboma and a rare blood type.
Mentioned it to my auntie ended up finding out half my family are from Cornwall, a whole load of them are from the same tiny town my folks moved to when I was 5.
And one of my relatives got a death row pardon after murdering an aston villa player.
Telegraph did an article on that in 2014.
-
wow Ianjamsie
there is another thread running at present - infamous and famous - sounds like you could post there as well, if you haven't already :)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=739970.msg5862320#msg5862320
Hope your daughter's prognoses is good.
Salute,
Janelle
-
wow Ianjamsie
there is another thread running at present - infamous and famous - sounds like you could post there as well, if you haven't already :)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=739970.msg5862320#msg5862320
Hope your daughter's prognoses is good.
Salute,
Janelle
Hi Janelle,
She is healthy and nothing wrong. Just a strange little quirk.
Apparently her type is visible in one in 20,000 which is why I started searching.
-
When I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, the doctor asked if there was any family history of it; I said no, not to my knowledge. Imagine my surprise when starting my family history research, 2 great grandmothers had it.
-
I give up!!! ::) even a genealogy website which has false info on my 2x great grandad is being very awkward..to the point of me giving up. I can prove that he lived long past 1881. But they seem disinterested. Oh well, I tried.
Its weird though how so many people are reluctant to change mistakes.
So, anyone with a genuine connection to Luke Hulme , b 1837, Horton/Biddulph/Biddle/ Greenaway Moor. (All the same place) whether it be people searching now or in the future, feel free to contact me. You'll be missing so much if you believe he died 1881. That's when his life really started, not ended. :)
Oh, and we'd be related, but don't let that put you off ;D