RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: LeedsHipPriest69 on Saturday 07 August 21 15:20 BST (UK)
-
Having taken a significant time away from tracing my family tree (young family etc), I've found that covid, resulting in me working from home and therefore giving me back two extra hours a day through not having to commute to work, has given me extra time to get back into family history.
My gripe however, is those sites, Find My Past and Ancestry etc, that make serious money out of us through subscriptions, having their sites full of unsubstantiated nonsense.
As we go back into the 17th and 18th centuries, research obviously becomes more and more difficult, the big plus therefore, when we hit brick walls, should be the fact there are so many hints to other family trees, which should help when searches throw up no results for any number of reasons, spelling errors, poor transcriptions etc
Ancestry does at least offer the chance for us to make suggested amendments to transcription errors, but what about the number of unsupported entries in family trees ?
Personally, I use the "verified" tag when I am 95-100% sure of any cited ancestor, but far far too many trees just have no supporting sources of evidence. I've suggested to Ancestry on a couple of occasions they add a facility to filter such entries but to no avail.
Anyhow, apologies for the long moan, just wanted to get it off my chest, and if anyone knows of a way of filtering out such entries I'd be grateful
Cheers
-
Not sure why you are blaming Ancestry, FindMyPast or any other site offering such facilities - they are NOT responsible for whatever nonsense some people wish to upload or broadcast.
MOTTO - do your own research. :-* :-X
-
I agree with BumbleB
It’s the owners of the trees who are to blame for posting poorly researched FH. It is not the job of the pay sites to check the accuracy of it
When I encounter errors on a tree - I message the owner (politely). You will find numerous posts like yours on Rootschat - all with the same replies - Do your own research ;D
-
I would suggest that most researchers use either Ancestry or Findmypast etc. for the images of the records they hold rather than the user trees on the sites. The companies allow users to upload their trees to the websites as a service to the users giving them a place to host and share their trees.
If other users are silly enough to copy such trees without vigorous checking then such users deserve all they get in my opinion.
Cheers
Guy
-
I’ve often thought it would be useful to be able to post public comments upon peoples obvious mistakes.
-
if anyone knows of a way of filtering out such entries I'd be grateful
Cheers
When the 'hints' are to family trees you have the option to review and discard them or just ignore them completely?
It only takes a second.
Family trees are last on my list for looking at when researching, I prefer to use the records and come to my own conclusions and then look to see what others say.
Sadly some trees are inaccurate and if I disagree but it otherwise looks like a well researched tree, I sometimes, but not always, send a message and say what evidence I have found that has led me to a different conclusion and ask if the tree owner is willing to tell me what they have that led them to 'their' conclusion.
I wouldn't dream of saying I am right and they are wrong , we are all capable of taking a wrong turn from time to time.
The outcome varies, from no reply, or 'I got it from an ancestry tree' and now and then it results in a really productive, for both sides, exchange of information - to be reviewed and checked out by the other party to either stick to their original theory or, in view of the new info, change their minds.
Boo
-
I’ve often thought it would be useful to be able to post public comments upon peoples obvious mistakes.
You can post public comments on other people's trees, the trouble is that most people don't note the blue indicator against a name that someone has left a comment. When I do look at other trees, I always look to see if a comment has been left by anyone, but very few are made. Occasionally a tree owner has left a response to my comment, but that is also very rare.
-
I have to admit it used to driver me nuts seeing all these trees with my ancestors on, with incorrect dates, people having kids at 99 years old, as was the case of my GGG grandmother on one tree. I did message a few people to politely tell them that the information they had for my 5x G Grandfather was incorrect as there is no father on his birth certificate, but they just ignored me - the lineage they selected took them back to someone who apparently fought alongside William Wallace, and its totally incorrect.
I no longer stress myself about it, I just laugh and move on. I have made some very good connections with 2nd and 3rd cousins on my Anderson side, and we have helped each other with information sharing which has been great. Always a bonus to connect with family members. but I never take anything on Ancestry as fact, I always do my own research and back up and documents. Some people just don't care, but that's a them problem.
-
Even the unsourced trees are worth looking at. More than once I've found useful tips in them. Just because someone doesn't note the source of their information doesn't mean that there was no source.
-
I agree with Erato. My tree on Ancestry does not include sources but I have them all in my personal records and would be happy to share the sources with anyone who contacts me.
-
When the 'hints' are to family trees you have the option to review and discard them or just ignore them completely?
It only takes a second.
That is something I find annoying about Ancestry hints. I like to get rid of any that I don't need or are wrong for the person they are attached to, which is easy for individual resource hints.
The family tree hints however, are all or nothing: you can't single out any particular one to keep in case you want to refer to it later, and also discard any that are useless for one reason or another.
-
The family tree hints however, are all or nothing: you can't single out any particular one to keep in case you want to refer to it later, and also discard any that are useless for one reason or another.
I think if you click on the name of the tree that you might be interested in, then Bookmark it/add it to your Favourites, then you can refer back to it later. I've done that with several to check some of their "facts" for myself.
-
Thanks for that. I might find it useful, but I wish Ancestry would just let me ditch the wrong ones without me having to make special arrangements to keep the ones I'm interested in. I'm sure they could if they tried.
-
I like the Ancestry hints. Stuff that is wrong or implausible, I discard straight away. But it is the hints that aren't a hint that I find valuable. The little throw away items - that he had children, or siblings that I knew nothing about. Or sometimes the very specific place of death - "No 37 Hurn Crescent, off Talbot Road, Flat 4c.
I like them and long may they continue.
Regards
Chas
-
What annoys me most about the hints is that they presume everyone is linked to America. The number of times I have had hints suggesting that my ag labs or labourers whipped across to USA for some significant event then back again to England or Australia for the next event amazes me. One of these days I’ll get caught by someone who did do that, but for now I just delete all American hints.
-
I find that almost all hints are useless!
I gave up looking at hints a few years ago - currently 9112 hints in my tree ;D
-
I was made an Editor of an Ancestry tree years ago following contact with the owner but have never taken up that role. Looking at the tree now, there are 9,817 people on it, with hints of 33,869 for 7,595 of those people. The owner of that tree obviously doesn't bother looking at the hints at all. ;D
-
I like the Ancestry hints. Stuff that is wrong or implausible, I discard straight away. But it is the hints that aren't a hint that I find valuable. The little throw away items - that he had children, or siblings that I knew nothing about. Or sometimes the very specific place of death - "No 37 Hurn Crescent, off Talbot Road, Flat 4c.
I like them and long may they continue.
Regards
Chas
I agree, some of the hints are useful. I found a 2nd baptism for my Oxford born great gran, in London, she lived in a convent for a short time. The details on the baptism confirmed it was her. Her mother was called Thirza, a rare first name at the time.
-
Yes, many of the tree owners just copy each other without searching for their own proof.
One of my great aunts supposedly went to Australia, married and had a family there. Details of her parents and siblings and their families were correct. When I politely contacted the tree owner who originated this misinformation I was told in no uncertain terms that they had the correct information. Great Auntie had never married or had children.
Oh dear I must have been at the wrong funeral with the rest of her family ??? ???
Only one example
Dorrie
-
I have seen hints that I have dismissed on my hints for my tree that have been accepted by others who share the same ancestors. Shows how complacent people can be, they are just name collectors or just take hints as gospel if it is the same name and age group.
-
I honestly cannot bring myself to be bothered about other trees on Ancestry. If someone contacts me and I feel they have a mistake I will tell them. Otherwise I don't bother. Although I frequently get annoyed with Ancestry the state of contributors trees isn't one of them, I'llstik to getting annoyed at them for poor transcription and assigning documents to places that are not mentioned on the original documents.
I had 1000s of sources for my tree but for years I didn't have any of them attached to my Ancestry tree. A lot of it was laziness but I did take criticism on board from previous similar threads and started the task of logging them on my tree. As more than 50% of my sources were not from ancestry it is a time consuming task. I got a bit bored and frustrated (yes I know that is selfish and lazy) so took a bit of a break but I will need to get back to it soon. It will take months even when I do restart as i have multiple boxes of sources to work through.
-
On-line trees can, just occasionally, provide a valuable hint or piece of information that a family member has that can really help further your research. Sadly that is quite rare and it is so disheartening to see your own direct family members connected to the wrong ancestors when you have spent years establishing the correct line.
The problem is that your painstakingly researched and verified tree may be competing against numerous incorrect ones, each copied from each other, sometimes by people using a free 14 day trial, accepting every hint they see and then having "done" their family tree they never log in again (and certainly won't respond to any messages).
There is a saying, supposedly originally said about wartime propaganda, that ..
"repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth” .....
that is the real danger in these trees.
-
On occasions I have contacted a tree owner to ask where they got the info from as I myself cannot find any confirmation of these people being the right parents, and often they do not respond to messages, even after it says they have read them. Oh well it is their loss. Perhaps they do not like it when someone is possibly questioning their work.
-
Sometimes it's so laughable that I get great amusement from it. Some real howlers out there. One encounters careful researchers as well as careless researchers.
If I think they are serious and I have clear evidence they have made an error I will occasionally send a message. I've found people to be polite on the whole.
-
Yes sometimes they accept blatantly wrong Ancestry hints for someone who died in 1780 aged 65 as being on the 1851 census. Unless the enumerator enumerated his remains in his grave. ;D
-
Just yesterday I got an Ancestry hint - the marriage of a 3x great grandfather to his first wife. I’ve known for about thirty years that her name was Margaret/Peggy but now I have her maiden name and their marriage date. His second wife was my ancestor, would love a hint that revealed her parents.
-
I have 2 ancestors who were not born in county (Middlesex and Oxfordshire) in 1841 and died before the 1851 census, one had a very common name. The other one I found a possible marriage to her first hubby in 1810 but the original says she was a widow, and as she would have only been about 19 or 20 then, she'd have to be a young widow if it is the same marriage. If it isn't then I cannot find any other likely marriage, and she had her last child in 1828 so I have no evidence of her maiden surname or origin. I have plugged away but still found nothing, apart from her witnessing a marriage a month after her eldest son married. I am thinking it will be impossible to find her any other way but autosomal DNA testing, which may give a clue. Sometimes it can be frustrating not being able to get back any further, as you are so curious as to where they were born if they said not born in county in 1841 and died before 1851.
A mere name collector would put the 1810 marriage as gospel, due to it being the only likely entry.
-
"A mere name collector ...."
In other words, someone who has a different evidentiary standard than you do. It's sort of like accepting a 'preponderance of the evidence' as opposed to demanding proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
-
"A mere name collector ...."
In other words, someone who has a different evidentiary standard than you do. It's sort of like accepting a 'preponderance of the evidence' as opposed to demanding proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
Amazes me how you quote what others say by just quoting the phrase instead of which user typed the original post. Sad but true that several people on do just take an entry that "fits" as the right one. I always just leave it in mind but carry on until I can prove or deny it, and sometimes that is not always easy to do.
-
There's no need to waste space quoting 200 words when only four of them are the subject of the comment.
-
I have 2 ancestors who were not born in county (Middlesex and Oxfordshire) in 1841 and died before the 1851 census, one had a very common name. The other one I found a possible marriage to her first hubby in 1810 but the original says she was a widow, and as she would have only been about 19 or 20 then, she'd have to be a young widow if it is the same marriage. If it isn't then I cannot find any other likely marriage, and she had her last child in 1828 so I have no evidence of her maiden surname or origin. I have plugged away but still found nothing, apart from her witnessing a marriage a month after her eldest son married. I am thinking it will be impossible to find her any other way but autosomal DNA testing, which may give a clue. Sometimes it can be frustrating not being able to get back any further, as you are so curious as to where they were born if they said not born in county in 1841 and died before 1851.
A mere name collector would put the 1810 marriage as gospel, due to it being the only likely entry.
"A mere name collector ...."
In other words, someone who has a different evidentiary standard than you do. It's sort of like accepting a 'preponderance of the evidence' as opposed to demanding proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
Amazes me how you quote what others say by just quoting the phrase instead of which user typed the original post. Sad but true that several people on do just take an entry that "fits" as the right one. I always just leave it in mind but carry on until I can prove or deny it, and sometimes that is not always easy to do.
Surely there is a significant and valid difference that coombs had commented on. Clearly it was more than a four word sentence.
Surely it is fair and reasonable for coombs remark about the less than adequate standard they have observed from name collectors. I am sure that family history buffs do not demand proof beyond reasonable doubt, rather it is a standard to strive for, but appreciate it cannot always be achieved. However, I am also sure that family history buffs don't just go about collecting names ... surely family history buffs actually involve themselves by investigating, researching, checking if something is chronologically possible, or otherwise feasible. To me, name collectors are not family history buffs.
Family history buffs strive for quality rather than quantity in their record keeping. Who would want to share their family history papers if those papers are full of names and nothing but a collection of names.
JM
-
"A mere name collector ...."
In other words, someone who has a different evidentiary standard than you do. It's sort of like accepting a 'preponderance of the evidence' as opposed to demanding proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
No a name collector is the insult directed against genealogists and family historians by archivists who object to having to allow such amateurs access to "THEIR" records.
What many current genealogists do not realise is the struggle earlier genealogists and family historians had to go through to gain access to records. How they were put to the back of the queue so that the professional researchers were served first.
By using that word today genealogists are insulting those who have gone before them and opened the archives to what they are today.
Leave insults to the bigots it has no place in family history!
Cheers
Guy
-
Agreed Guy.
Ages ago I started a thread asking "how do you define a name collector" because I 'd seen the phrase used without any indication of its meaning. I'd wondered if it applied to someone like me who researched collateral lines (almost all after 1837/1841 where there is more evidence) becaue I'd not been able to get very far back with direct ancestors.
Discussion went on for ages: https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=698504.0 without any conclusion, except for Guy's post similar to the one above, suggesting we shouldn't use the term.
I agreed that we shouldn't, but none of the suggested alternatives took off, so people carried on using n___ c____
-
"I found a possible marriage to her first hubby in 1810 "
If that were my relative, I'd do exactly what Coombs did: make a note of the possible marriage and hope that additional records will one day become available that will confirm it or disprove it.
In fact, I have one major branch of my tree that I can't be sure of; I'm somewhere around 90% certain that it's correct but there are still those niggling doubts. It's the one thing that has almost convinced me to submit my DNA because that could potentially solve the issue. In the meantime, though, I just consider them to be likely ancestors. I keep that branch as a separate tree unconnected to my main tree. If I ever get proof that satisfies me, I'll graft it onto the main stem.
But, accepting one marriage event on rather skimpy grounds doesn't make someone a "mere name collector." It just means that their standards of evidence are different than Coombs's. Barring a tiny newspaper announcement, I have no documentary evidence that my parents were actually married but that's good enough for me. I don't need any further evidence than my own personal knowledge/experience for that event.
-
I call them grave robbers and kin thieves personally. I used to contact them, politely offering the actual information they were seeking, but most were not interested. I used to get upset that they were not interested in the truth. Now I just laugh at their lazy stupidity and move on.
-
"I found a possible marriage to her first hubby in 1810 "
If that were my relative, I'd do exactly what Coombs did: make a note of the possible marriage and hope that additional records will one day become available that will confirm it or disprove it.
In fact, I have one major branch of my tree that I can't be sure of; I'm somewhere around 90% certain that it's correct but there are still those niggling doubts. It's the one thing that has almost convinced me to submit my DNA because that could potentially solve the issue. In the meantime, though, I just consider them to be likely ancestors. I keep that branch as a separate tree unconnected to my main tree. If I ever get proof that satisfies me, I'll graft it onto the main stem.
But, accepting one marriage event on rather skimpy grounds doesn't make someone a "mere name collector." It just means that their standards of evidence are different than Coombs's. Barring a tiny newspaper announcement, I have no documentary evidence that my parents were actually married but that's good enough for me. I don't need any further evidence than my own personal knowledge/experience for that event.
Not having a paperwork trail showing a formal marriage for your parents has absolutely nothing to do with name collectors. The main reason any researcher seeks out formal marriage documents is to obtain the family history information recorded on those documents - Your own personal knowledge/experience as to your own parentage leads you back to who were your parents - whether they were formally married or not makes no difference to who were your grandparents, great grandparents, great greats and so on.
Having access to parish records, or civil registrations are a traditional tool for family history buffs in western cultures. But whether there is an extant record readily available does not change who were your ancestors... ☺
Name Collectors don't seem to be concerned with recognising that someone born in 1600 could NOT have died in 1900 ... or a female born in 1780 could not have given birth to a child in 1781 or in 1890 ... or a person born in England in 1540 could not have migrated to Sydney, New South Wales, Australia in 1788 or to San Francisco, in 1904.... Or a male born anywhere in 1820 could not have been Killed In Action in WWII...
Someone (a name collector) has an online tree (unsourced) that has my maternal grandmother as born somewhere in Wales in the UK in 1811. She wasn't. She was born in New South Wales, Australia in the 1880s. I know because she told me so.
In the late 1950s she introduced me to genealogy.
I am absolutely sure she would say "Fools" and "Let them waste their energy on hogwash" "dogs chasing their own tail" ... I am sure, because she told me so.
I sent just one polite message to that tree owner, asking if they would like a copy of the bdm certificates from the Registrar General's Office of New South Wales. The tree suddenly went 'private' and I have not ever had a reply... could be 15 years or so ago... ☺
JM edited for spelling, grammar and clarity.
-
I'm just joining this party. I had intended to ask a question but it appears that some of it may be covered by this topic. My question was going to be:
I seem to have come to a dead stop in my 5 different trees...most have stopped in the 18th century and one in the 17th. I am a bit of 'an anorak' in wanting to have documentary evidence when I enter a name. In a couple of cases, after long discussion with others, I have used asterisks by a person's name in the hope that, when others read them, they will go to the comments section and see my and others' reasoning for putting that particular person there without the usual certificates etc. However, I seem to have run out of steam...not even hints or others' trees to help. There are a couple of instances where I think there may be some currency in entering a name...should I go ahead and do my usual **this may be wrong, but....**, or should I leave it for a load more records to come on line? Would there be any value in going sideways and back (if possible)? Or should I use another tack in all of this. Small branches in the main tree, but separated, if you get my drift seem to abound - although I have to say that I did manage to connect 2 of those 'branch lines' over the past year. Is this the way to go? It seems that many of us have the same predicament to a lesser or greater extent. It is very frustrating!
-
"A mere name collector ...."
In other words, someone who has a different evidentiary standard than you do. It's sort of like accepting a 'preponderance of the evidence' as opposed to demanding proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
No a name collector is the insult directed against genealogists and family historians by archivists who object to having to allow such amateurs access to "THEIR" records.
What many current genealogists do not realise is the struggle earlier genealogists and family historians had to go through to gain access to records. How they were put to the back of the queue so that the professional researchers were served first.
By using that word today genealogists are insulting those who have gone before them and opened the archives to what they are today.
Leave insults to the bigots it has no place in family history!
Cheers
Guy
Sorry Guy but how would you know who are modern genealogists and who may have been doing their FH for decades as well as you? You can never make assumptions about someone online. You do not know these people in person, and no doubt ever will.
-
I have been accused of being "just a name collector" because I have "too many people" in my tree. I like to research collateral branches of my tree (and bring them forward) for the following reasons:
1. I want to learn about the lives of my direct ancestors and I consider how many children or siblings my direct ancestors had to be part of their lives
2. IME researching siblings can help find out information on your directs. For example my4x grt grandmother was left homeless when my 4x grt grandfather died meaning they lost their tied house. At the next census she was living in a nice cottage and listed as being of private means. I only discovered how this came about when I researched one of my 4x grt uncles and found out his mum was awarded his military pension on his death.
3. I'm addicted to research and researching collateral lines gives me more to research when I hit all the brick walls in my direct line.
4. I find it fascinating to see how diverse the descendants of my direct ancestors are and selfish though it is I want to remain interested in what is my only hobby.
Disclaimer: these are MY personal reasons for the way I do MY tree, I do not ask that others do their tree the same way but would appreciate not being called names. I DO NOT research collateral lines to cause offence to others only for my personal enjoyment
This leaves me with a dilemma. I want it to be as accurate as possible but I have a lot of big families in my tree so I can't be accurate AND keep my tree to what people consider an acceptable number of people. Several times in the past i have come close to deleting my whole tree to appease proper researchers. However I have not yet been able to bring myself to wipeout over 20 years or work and expense, I realise that is selfish but it it difficult to do all that work then just discard it. As for numbers, I have over 100s of people without going to the grt grt grandparent level.
-
Genealogy for most people is a hobby. Many of us want to share what we find with our families but often they are not that interested.
My reasons for being involved in this hobby are basically the same as PharmaT’s. I love researching the collateral lines even more than going way back, just seems more personal somehow, more tangible…hard to explain. Also more sources to peruse!
If someone wants to collect names, so be it. How someone pursues a hobby is their choice. They should be careful though about sharing what they have found, being sure that it is accurate.
-
"A mere name collector ...."
In other words, someone who has a different evidentiary standard than you do. It's sort of like accepting a 'preponderance of the evidence' as opposed to demanding proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
No a name collector is the insult directed against genealogists and family historians by archivists who object to having to allow such amateurs access to "THEIR" records.
What many current genealogists do not realise is the struggle earlier genealogists and family historians had to go through to gain access to records. How they were put to the back of the queue so that the professional researchers were served first.
By using that word today genealogists are insulting those who have gone before them and opened the archives to what they are today.
Leave insults to the bigots it has no place in family history!
Cheers
Guy
Sorry Guy but how would you know who are modern genealogists and who may have been doing their FH for decades as well as you? You can never make assumptions about someone online. You do not know these people in person, and no doubt ever will.
You totally miss the point Coombs, the term was first used by archivists as a derogatory term of abuse against genealogists trying to access records that would prove their assumptions.
Records that were created, despite what those same archivists claimed to allow those very genealogists to prove their family lines.
The ignorant bigoted archivists were wrong on so many counts.
I am not making assumptions, the mere fact that those genealogists or family historians were presenting themselves at archives seeking records holding the details they requires shows they were seeking a paper trail of evidence, that is not an assumption.
Cheers
Guy
-
Oh yes Guy, I have myself had to deal with some difficult archivists in my time as well. And often have had to trawl through endless pages looking for evidence to build my family tree. One archivist at one archives said the records I was after did not exist yet the actual catalogue of their records proved otherwise.
That is why I go to record offices, to get proof of evidence, and to try to trace the lines back further.
-
I've greatly enjoyed finding "real" records, and fossicking around in various Records Offices, over the year - and I also enjoy using "Ancestry", and of course like most of us here, am well aware that many people really don't fret themselves to check sources, or even apply common sense, sometimes.
If they wish to make errors, fair enough. If I choose to try and provide the correct information, fair enough. I don't "have" to accept their errors, and they do not have to accept my "corrections". I wouldn't offer them up unless I was absolutely certain, and had proof...
BUT.... it was via an online source that I was given a massive clue to where a missing Anderson ancestor of my OH , with his mother, had emerged from. (Hev: I'm sure they won't be "yours") Names had been changed ( to protect the guilty), and people had moved around the country for nearly half a century, under a false family name. Unearthing the change of names provided myself and another, completely different family, who had "mislaid" a male ancestor at the same time. The two and child had hooked up under another name, and I was given a clue ("It might be relevant - same christian names for child, age and place of birth given online....") and we found the male concerned was actually buried under his original surname, so at least one of his sons knew it!
That helped a lot, with a very difficult line. But I couldn't accept it until I'd gone thoroughly through each stage, and traced all the people involved in both chronological directions, to make a true record.
Online sources are valuable, especially for those not able to visit record offices in person - and especially for us all, during the long lockdown. But I can not get highly worked up over other peoples' errors, nor their refusal to accept advice, or their apparent obsession with gathering huge numbers of people to their trees. (I've actually had a lot of fun moving along fraternal lines in different generations, when I'd nothing much else to do)
I think "LeedsHipPriest69" might relax a little.
-
I was wearing gloves as you normally do when handling original documents, but once got to touch the 1802 removal order for my ancestor and his 2nd wife. The removal order was repealed as his wife was too ill to travel to Redlingfield from Framlingham, Suffolk. She died in October just 3 months later. She was 62.
-
Thanks all for replies, I certainly wasn't expecting such a varied response, nor so many replies.
I take on board all the comments, and like many others use the online Ancestry community as a way into potentially solving brick walls in my own tree, not as a replacement for not doing my own research.
Cheers, Paul
-
Perhaps FindMyPast & Anc should introduce TripAdvisor-style ratings for user trees, rated by other subscribers.
Once I see trees with more than a low thousands number of names, I tread carefully.
Zaph
-
I was wearing gloves as you normally do when handling original documents, but once got to touch the 1802 removal order for my ancestor and his 2nd wife. The removal order was repealed as his wife was too ill to travel to Redlingfield from Framlingham, Suffolk. She died in October just 3 months later. She was 62.
Yes I got conned into the turn of the century craze of wearing gloves, I am glad it is now recognised that wearing gloves when accessing old paper artifacts destroys more of them than not wearing gloves.
Best practice has reverted to washing hands before touching paper artifacts as the wearing of gloves makes the fingers less nimble and leads to a likelyhood of torn edges.
Cheers
Guy
-
I was wearing gloves as you normally do when handling original documents, but once got to touch the 1802 removal order for my ancestor and his 2nd wife. The removal order was repealed as his wife was too ill to travel to Redlingfield from Framlingham, Suffolk. She died in October just 3 months later. She was 62.
Yes I got conned into the turn of the century craze of wearing gloves, I am glad it is now recognised that wearing gloves when accessing old paper artifacts destroys more of them than not wearing gloves.
Best practice has reverted to washing hands before touching paper artifacts as the wearing of gloves makes the fingers less nimble and leads to a likelyhood of torn edges.
Cheers
Guy
Back in the days of international travel I went to London Metropolitan Archives to look at a document. It duly arrived in a tray, as a bundle wrapped in parchment. Still covered in the soot from 1795. By the time we (my daughter and I) had managed to open it, desperately trying not to spread soot everywhere, then viewed and photographed it, our hands were BLACK. Then had to be escorted what seemed like miles (as they don’t want water near documents either) with our hands in the air to a place we could wash. (It smelt like the soot from 1795 too >:().
-
I was wearing gloves as you normally do when handling original documents, but once got to touch the 1802 removal order for my ancestor and his 2nd wife. The removal order was repealed as his wife was too ill to travel to Redlingfield from Framlingham, Suffolk. She died in October just 3 months later. She was 62.
Yes I got conned into the turn of the century craze of wearing gloves, I am glad it is now recognised that wearing gloves when accessing old paper artifacts destroys more of them than not wearing gloves.
Best practice has reverted to washing hands before touching paper artifacts as the wearing of gloves makes the fingers less nimble and leads to a likelyhood of torn edges.
Cheers
Guy
Back in the days of international travel I went to London Metropolitan Archives to look at a document. It duly arrived in a tray, as a bundle wrapped in parchment. Still covered in the soot from 1795. By the time we (my daughter and I) had managed to open it, desperately trying not to spread soot everywhere, then viewed and photographed it, our hands were BLACK. Then had to be escorted what seemed like miles (as they don’t want water near documents either) with our hands in the air to a place we could wash. (It smelt like the soot from 1795 too >:().
That is actually really cool. Seeing old documents is amazing but ones that no one appears to have read for so long is even better.
-
Perhaps FindMyPast & Anc should introduce TripAdvisor-style ratings for user trees, rated by other subscribers.
Once I see trees with more than a low thousands number of names, I tread carefully.
Zaph
Love the idea of a star rating ;D
-
Perhaps FindMyPast & Anc should introduce TripAdvisor-style ratings for user trees, rated by other subscribers.
Zaph
Love the idea of a star rating ;D
Have you thought that through?
So, you have a tree (which you believe is correct and you've backed up it with sources etc to show how you arrived at that conclusion)
47 other folk have a tree that disagrees with your findings but don't supply sources.
Which tree do you think is more likely to get the most negative reviews?
Boo
-
That's a very good point boo, people could mark you down for different reasons. I mean some people on here would mark me down because I have been researching collateral lines giving me "too many in my tree". I once had a woman really annoyed with me for researching her 3x grt grandparents, apparently the fact that they were also my 3x grt grandparents was not good enough reason apparently. Another guy is adamant that my Dad is wrong on my tree, i have the original certificates on that line back to my grt grandfather not just copies that I ordered. On the flip of that coin i once had someone tell me how wonderful a tree was because it had got back to biblical times.
-
Perhaps FindMyPast & Anc should introduce TripAdvisor-style ratings for user trees, rated by other subscribers.
Once I see trees with more than a low thousands number of names, I tread carefully.
Zaph
Love the idea of a star rating ;D
So do I, but even a star rating has built in dangers. Newbies could see these trees with 10,000+ entries and give it 5*, thinking that that was the type of tree to aspire to!
We will just have to carry on, reserving judgement where needed.
Regards
Chas
-
Oops, I've got just over 12,000 on my tree - so I'm in the "one star, and if I could give you zero, I would" category.
I've been researching since the 1980's and was lucky enough to be given a tree for my maternal grandmother's line which had been very well researched by two distant cousins in the sixties and seventies. I checked it and couldn't find any errors. I could only add very small bits to it when more records came on line. That branch came from a small area in Yorkshire and the name was not common which made it easier, but nevertheless they must have spent weeks if not months in record offices.
-
I was wearing gloves as you normally do when handling original documents, but once got to touch the 1802 removal order for my ancestor and his 2nd wife. The removal order was repealed as his wife was too ill to travel to Redlingfield from Framlingham, Suffolk. She died in October just 3 months later. She was 62.
Yes I got conned into the turn of the century craze of wearing gloves, I am glad it is now recognised that wearing gloves when accessing old paper artifacts destroys more of them than not wearing gloves.
Best practice has reverted to washing hands before touching paper artifacts as the wearing of gloves makes the fingers less nimble and leads to a likelyhood of torn edges.
Cheers
Guy
Yes now I tend to wash and dry my hands thoroughly. Gloves can just hasten the demise of documents.
On another note, I have traced most lines back to 1700s at the earliest but have traced a few lines back much further. I think due to them being merchants, mayors etc. Several lines tend to get more wealthy the further back I go, and I did find my first gateway ancestor last year.
-
Oops, I've got just over 12,000 on my tree - so I'm in the "one star, and if I could give you zero, I would" category.
I've been researching since the 1980's and was lucky enough to be given a tree for my maternal grandmother's line which had been very well researched by two distant cousins in the sixties and seventies. I checked it and couldn't find any errors. I could only add very small bits to it when more records came on line. That branch came from a small area in Yorkshire and the name was not common which made it easier, but nevertheless they must have spent weeks if not months in record offices.
These threads make me feel like I have to apologise to proper researchers because i have over 7000 in my tree. I didn't start researching until the 1990s.
-
I also started researching in the 1990s. Some of my brickwalls are as old as when I started doing research.
I have been lucky to trace some lines back to the 1500s and some earlier, I have several ancestors from Suffolk, Sussex and Essex whose earlier ancestors in the 1600s were merchants and aldermen, and one was a landowner and it has taken me to Somerset, Lincolnshire and Norfolk. One ancestor owned land in Uphill, Somerset in the 1600s. Wills have been valuable.
-
Oops, I've got just over 12,000 on my tree - so I'm in the "one star, and if I could give you zero, I would" category.
I just looked and I've crept into five figures too. I honestly didn't know, I hardly ever look at the numbers. Am I a dreaded N C?
I plead guilty to researching the roots of my step-grandfather, a step-great-grandfather, and my mother's first husband's family. Well, we knew some of them, and they were interesting. If I deleted those, I'd be back in four figures I think. But I won't.
-
My Dad told me Charles Hickling born Melton Mowbray, England, who married Clara Parbery, was a Surveyor and Cement Tester.
My Dad also recalled last night his Son, Charles David Hickling having a Wireless Shop near the corner in Donnington Street, Leicester. In 1935 the business was known as ... C. D. Hickling, The Magnetic Wireless Stores, 1 Donnington Street, Leicester. Authorised Dealers for K.B. Radio Receivers. Charles David Hickling moved to Thurmaston and he died in 1977 and a modest but interesting Obituary was published in the Leicester Mercury.
The daughter of Charles Hickling and Clara Parbery, on 27th March 1920 at St Peter's Leicester, Elsie Hickling aged 23 years (her Father - Charles Hickling on the Certificate), married Albert Edward Roberts 27 years, known to my Father as Bert. Elsie Roberts nee Elsie Hickling was born 1896 (Reg'n District - Leicester).
----------
Another Elsie Hickling born 1898 Reg. Dist. Leicester, married Joseph W. F. Lisemore in 1918, but several Trees have the wrong parentage for this Elsie.
Mark
-
Found two Trees on Ancestry for Elsie Hickling 1898 to 1975 and 1897 to 1975 marrying Joseph William Fred Lisemore in 1918 with the wrong parents for Elsie Hickling.
The GRO Death Index image on 'Free BMD' for Elsie Lisemore dying Registration District of Louth in 1975 gives her Birth "13 Ja 1898"
Free BMD
Joseph William F Lisemore born 1901 Registration District - Leicester, England.
The 1939 Register
2 Thorpewell, Leicester
Joseph W. F. Lisemore, Birth 31 April 1901, China Dealers Asst.
Elsie Lisemore, Birth 13 Jan 98.
The Mother's M. Surname of Elsie Hickling born District of Leicester, in 1898 is Wyatt - GRO Index at gov.uk
Added:
Hopefully, the 1918 marriage to J W F Lisemore would name Elsie's father and the Elsie Hicking 1898 Birth Certificate would confirm her parentage.
-
Errors do creep into online Family Trees.
No matter how careful one is a link is broken, a new person disappears before you finish entering their details, you have a birth date only to find an earlier baptism, a record of their location has no date etc
I use Roots Magic as an Ancestry backup, its Tree Share feature lets you download the whole tree and media, then you can run the tools to check for errors, to check for duplicates, to check for any floating trees. Then there are Database checks, checks on the use of standardised place place names.
-
Good Evening Everyone. It's that time here in OZ,
Now having just read every post on this thread I am still wondering about this term and what it actually describes and what era it is referring to. Now or decades ago?
I have used the term "name collector" for those people who simply copy whole tree sections to their trees without any thought to accuracy or whatever.
Where dates do not add up , are not able to be substantiated etc etc.. Often names are those for someone else entirely. and so forth. Every one of us as seen these whether they have been researching for decades or just several years.
To me it appears like a race to see just how many names can be acquired. It's careless and thoughtless as it can become accepted for right or wrong. As many have pointed out then, they are just adding Names to their Tree.
Recently I received a hint from Ancestry telling me that XYZ was a relative and that they had found 47 people that I could add to my tree. It was correct in the connection but the 47 extra names were not of value unless I was counting numbers. That's "name collecting" in my view as it stands now in 2023.
Like some or many of you I do the lateral research, often coming from the need to try to establish a link or just to add that extra depth to my tree and research. That's where it is enjoyable.
At present I am researching a DNA match that does not have any obvious connections to me. Those names will not go on my tree probably ever. However the four generation tree I have complete with siblings in each generation is a different kettle of fish. But it's not going on my tree . And that research, done at least 8 years ago for a specific reason, has recently been very useful with a DNA match.
I hope you all get my drift on this . :)
Essnell
-
Thank you Biggles50, never knew or used Roots Magic.
My Grandmother remarried and died Scotland last Century and the family information given on her Certificate named Husband 1 exactly, by Husband 2 (Informant) including his parentage and then says my Grandmother's parents were Charles Hickling and Clara Hickling M.S. Parbery, born in the previous 19th Century!
Even though my Father knew this and more, it was brilliant to have it corroborated and Certified by her 2nd husband too and other paperwork.
I like to check all the actual paperwork does match up too.
Added:
Yes Essnell, I get your drift.
-
Good Evening Everyone. It's that time here in OZ,
Now having just read every post on this thread I am still wondering about this term and what it actually describes and what era it is referring to. Now or decades ago?
I have used the term "name collector" for those people who simply copy whole tree sections to their trees without any thought to accuracy or whatever.
Where dates do not add up , are not able to be substantiated etc etc.. Often names are those for someone else entirely. and so forth. Every one of us as seen these whether they have been researching for decades or just several years.
To me it appears like a race to see just how many names can be acquired. It's careless and thoughtless as it can become accepted for right or wrong. As many have pointed out then, they are just adding Names to their Tree.
Recently I received a hint from Ancestry telling me that XYZ was a relative and that they had found 47 people that I could add to my tree. It was correct in the connection but the 47 extra names were not of value unless I was counting numbers. That's "name collecting" in my view as it stands now in 2023.
Like some or many of you I do the lateral research, often coming from the need to try to establish a link or just to add that extra depth to my tree and research. That's where it is enjoyable.
At present I am researching a DNA match that does not have any obvious connections to me. Those names will not go on my tree probably ever. However the four generation tree I have complete with siblings in each generation is a different kettle of fish. But it's not going on my tree . And that research, done at least 8 years ago for a specific reason, has recently been very useful with a DNA match.
I hope you all get my drift on this . :)
Essnell
Completely agree.
I have my main tree on Ancestry but also I have a basic tree on My Heritage which is a pain due to their questionable hints for adding whole branches to my tree.
I have been researching for 15 years and my tree people number is 7,500 and whenever I see a tree with 10,000 plus I immediately put on my “number collector” attitude to their tree. That said there is nobody in my tree that has not been individually researched, where there is doubt then there is a Fact listed as is their header image which shows a question mark.
-
Biggles, I have more than 10k names in my tree and I am definitely not a name collector! I am also more than willing to reply and engage with anyone that connects with my tree. I am constantly reviewing and updating, even the best of us make errors sometimes and new data can open up all sorts of can of worms!
That said, I have discovered a newer version of a name collector!
a DNA COLLECTOR!
My husband's maternal line is a thorn in my side... dead ends everywhere. DNA isn't really helping much beyond what we already know. I searched my mother in law's name again (as I do regularly) and found that a tree had different maternal grandparents for her, I went to check out the tree (nearly 63K worth of names), the tree owner has done a DNA test and has merrily added DNA match to my MIL's niece... she doesn't match my husband, his sister, or any of the 3 other cousins from this line.! She has put a nice Irish flag avatar against my MIL's mother which is correct as she was born in Ireland but then the tree owner put her birth place as Lancashire with different parents. I have all the certs baptisms, etc., and a wealth of family knowledge to know she didn't originate from Lancashire!
I messaged the tree owner as I thought the DNA connection was very misleading for anyone without FH experience to understand/recognise the mistake! Hardly surprising, no reply and she has been online every day since I messaged her. note, she says she has been researching since 2004! ::)
I am guessing she is trying to match up her DNA matches to anyone in her tree with a similar name irrespective of where they are in the world or checking facts!
I don't normally comment on name collectors as there are a variety of reasons why it happens, I just check what they have in the area of my interest, if it's a load of rubbish, I just ignore the tree.
Rant over, but be wary! ;D
PS... I have also notified the cousin who the tree owner say's she is connected to, hopefully she will check if her name appears in the match list anywhere.
-
I try not to look at Trees, because I like and have acquired additional archival documents, Wills, Copy Deeds, Tax records, Military, newspaper snippet scans, Quaker burials (not online), etc. Some of my ancestors attended the Manor Court re Copyhold property, that also back-up my line and Certificates etc.
-
My ancestor James Smith said "not born in county" in 1841, (Oxfordshire). He died 2 years before the 1851 census and he was a tin plate worker in Oxford. No idea where he came from originally as no known trace of him before his 1819 marriage. The witnesses to his marriage was Andrew Carney and Hannah Hawkes who I am working on though. Hannah Hawkes was born 1800, her father was Jonas Hawkes originally of Marsh Gibbon, Bucks. Hannah had an aunty Elizabeth Hawkes who wed a Joseph Smith in 1786 in Marsh Gibbon, Bucks. And I found a Thomas Smith aged 70 (age probably rounded down) in Marsh Gibbon in 1841 "not born in county" as a tin plate worker. But a settlement examination says he was born in Islip, Oxfordshire, and no trace of a brother Joseph Smith. So again, it shows that especially with a name like Smith, it is easy to assume a link. Tin plate workers were quite common I think, and a witness to James Smith's marriage having an aunty who wed a Smith, again likely coincidence.
Nan always said there was Irish descent on that side of the family. And Andrew Carney, the other witness to his wedding sounds like he was of Irish descent due to the names. Andrew was born in London originally and was a gilder. Maybe DNA will be the key.
-
I've just been going through my MyHeritage DNA links before my subscription runs out (I've no intention of renewing) and have just noticed a tree containing 214,294 names. :o
It must go back to Adam & Eve. Or something in the primordial soup. ::)
-
My tree is quite large (15,000+ individuals) but that's because I do a lot of descendancy research. So not just my direct ancestors and their children, but cousins across multiple generations, including their spouses. I've also done research for the in-laws of my aunts and uncles, and a few of my friends, which I have all connected back to my main tree. That causes the tree to grow quite quickly. Despite this my tree doesn't go any further back than 1540 and most ancestral lines fizzle out in the early 1700s.
-
"I do a lot of descendancy research"
Ditto. I don't go deep but I go wide. It's more interesting.
-
Not sure why but I tend to be more biased towards my direct line ancestors, and use their siblings as a stepping stone to see if I can get back further on the direct line. I never skimp on buying certs for direct line ancestors but also do like buying certs for their siblings as well, and marriages, and occasionally death certs for ancestor siblings but always primarily focus on the direct lines.
-
My tree is quite large (15,000+ individuals) but that's because I do a lot of descendancy research. So not just my direct ancestors and their children, but cousins across multiple generations, including their spouses. I've also done research for the in-laws of my aunts and uncles, and a few of my friends, which I have all connected back to my main tree. That causes the tree to grow quite quickly. Despite this my tree doesn't go any further back than 1540 and most ancestral lines fizzle out in the early 1700s.
I have the same approach. I find myself curious about anyone with a connection to my family.
I have some horrible brick walls which don't even go very far back, so if I focused solely on direct ancestors, I'd be extremely frustrated.
-
I do tend to research siblings now too. You can easily rack up 1000 names in that way. If your direct ancestor is one of ten and most of those siblings themselves go on to have 8 to 10 kids, you've soon got a huge tree.
-
"I do a lot of descendancy research"
Ditto. I don't go deep but I go wide. It's more interesting.
That is exactly what I explained to our Family History Group when I did a recent Presentation to them on DNA.
Having a wide tree gives a much better chance of linking to DNA matches which in turn helps to prove the validity of that branch of your tree.
-
I’ve found a few ‘lost’ people when they’ve turned up on Censuses as lodgers or visitors in the home of some distant relative somewhere… perhaps a transcriber had mistakenly given them the same surname as the family they were staying with, so they didn’t turn up in searches. I love those ‘found you!’ moments! :)
-
I’ve found a few ‘lost’ people when they’ve turned up on Censuses as lodgers or visitors in the home of some distant relative somewhere… perhaps a transcriber had mistakenly given them the same surname as the family they were staying with, so they didn’t turn up in searches. I love those ‘found you!’ moments! :)
I've had that too.
I also find that's really useful for understanding probate records as well. There have been a few times I've been scratching my head about who the person it is that a relative left their money to, but when I've built my tree sideways I've realised it's a niece or grandniece, who got married and therefore has a totally different name.
-
"Having a wide tree gives a much better chance of linking to DNA matches"
Yes, although that is not my motivation. I have not done any DNA testing.
I have taken a different approach to family history than most RootsChatters. Rather than trying to dig ever further back in time, I have tried to trace forward all of the descendants of my immigrant ancestors who came to the United States. The result is a large tree, so I am a quite admittedly a name collector although, since I have no online tree, my collection is not a public nuisance. I have gg-grandparents who came to the New World in 1834, in 1840 and in 1844, as well as a bunch of more distant ancestors who arrived from 1630 to 1680ish. I am interested in what became of these different groups of people. I think of it as sort of an evolving panoramic 'landscape' view of the people in my family as they moved west or didn't, got off the farm or stayed there, became urbanized or remained in their small towns, moved up or down the social ladder, got richer or poorer, got religion or lost it, and so on.
-
I have not done any DNA testing yet, but it may help for 3 ancestors who said "not born in county" in 1841 (those counties they lived in 1841 were Essex, Oxfordshire and Middlesex) and died before the 1851 census. But that is the thrill of the chase, wondering where these 3 came from originally.
-
My tree is quite large (15,000+ individuals) but that's because I do a lot of descendancy research. So not just my direct ancestors and their children, but cousins across multiple generations, including their spouses. I've also done research for the in-laws of my aunts and uncles, and a few of my friends, which I have all connected back to my main tree. That causes the tree to grow quite quickly. Despite this my tree doesn't go any further back than 1540 and most ancestral lines fizzle out in the early 1700s.
I don't have quite as many people in my tree but it's big because I do the same thing. I also have my husband's various family lines in the same database. I don't have any trees online.
I document everything I can. If I can't find (or afford) to get source documents when I'm adding someone to my tree, I'll make a note of where I found the info (from a descendant, in a book, an online tree of someone who appears to actually be related to the line in question, etc.) with TO BE PROVEN in all caps.
-
Re. the DNA name collectors.
I was contacted by someone who has a distant DNA connection to my brother (I manage my brother's DNA page). This man saw my extremely basic tree but, because I've shared my various trees with relatives who've turned around and put them all onto Ancestry, this man has copied and pasted both of my parents' trees and all of their relatives' trees into his own.
The weird thing is that this man is probably related to me through some shared ancestor from the late 1700s on my mother's English side but he doesn't know how and I haven't been able to figure it out. He doesn't need my mother's Scottish trees and he most certainly doesn't need my father's ancestry at all but he's been a very busy beaver, copying and pasting like mad, and for what? It won't help him solve the question of how we are related! This is inexplicable to me.
-
According to a tree on Ancestry my father died sixteen years before he did! Looking at the tree I don't think the owner is a relative just a connection and I haven't got the energy to correct her. I tend to use Ancestry trees as hints if I'm at a loss but always seek evidence before adding to my research. There are so many errors out there.
-
You don't have to contact the owner - just add a comment to your father's record, giving the correct information, with some corroboration. I've done that loads of times. The onus is then back in their court. :-* BUT others can then have an alternative.
-
FindMyPast Fridays has released a bunch of Westmoreland records which will be helpful for those with ancestors from the county.
As we know you can get errors in the original records such as one ancestor of mine said he was a native of Dent, Westmoreland, but it was far NW Yorkshire at the time and near the border of Westmoreland. Those very handy Barrington registers for Co Durham are good, as it showed my previously suspected Scottish roots as well as the Dent ancestor.
I have occasionally seen instances of Haverhill, Essex instead of the correct Haverhill, Suffolk due to being near the border of Suffolk and Essex.
-
Just curious, what's the general feeling about letting others know about glaring errors in their Family Trees when you come across them ?
Looking on Ancestry today, and it really is a pit of errors, and came across one such Tree with an apparent family connection. My ancestor Charles Boulton was born 1756 (verified with Parish Records) and buried May 1806 (again verified with Parish Record). The other tree howeve had the death as being July 1841 (per GRO), however a quick look on GRO reveals that said death in 1841 was of a Charles Boulton aged 1.
Personally I'd welcome any such corrections, but it does seem that many seem to see their Trees as more of a numbers game, I even came across another today that was baptised two years before he was born.
-
I also would be glad to know if I had made an error. Unfortunately, no matter how politely you inform someone that they may have made an error, you are invariably ignored or get a rude response. I recently sent a message to someone politely pointing out that they had mixed up two families of the same name, one in Essex and the other in Dorset.
I supplied all the correct details and directed them to the correct parish records, to which they obviously had access, some images were already on their tree. There has been absolutely no response although they have been on Ancestry almost every day since. They also state they are willing to collaborate and help others. ::)
-
I even had one who said their professional researcher confirmed it is the same guy, when I have found my own evidence to strongly refute it, and it is another guy with the same name, living 30 miles away.
-
I would welcome corrections, but since my trees are private this is unlikely to happen! :-) I think some errors are almost inevitable and I admit to having a few where the baptism appears to be before the birth. This is because I have taken a birth year from a census, before finding a baptism, and have not always done the necessary correction. If I find a tree with errors I put a polite note to that effect in the hope that other people might think twice before copying.
-
I even had one who said their professional researcher confirmed it is the same guy, when I have found my own evidence to strongly refute it, and it is another guy with the same name, living 30 miles away.
Early on a cousin paid a professional researcher. He shared it with me. It took me a while but I eventually disproved that research, with help of Rootschatters and DNA.
-
The only time I employed a “Professional “ researcher was many years ago, I wanted to find information on my maternal grandfather, mainly about service in the Boer War. I had a photo of him wearing the Queen SA medal with clasps. I supplied his full name, date and place of birth with full names of parents. His number, rank, date, place and cause of death and place of burial, including a photo of his grave.
In return I received information relating to another man who, apart from having the same name and also serving in the Royal Engineers, bore no relation to any of the information I had supplied about my grandfather. He had a different wife and was still alive after my grandfather had died. When I disputed the researcher’s findings, the response was, what he found was correct and my grandfather must have been a bigamist. And he never served in the Boer War.
Years later when the medal rolls were available on Ancestry, I found my grandfather listed as having the Queen SA medal along with the various clasps.
Because he died in service his Army records were destroyed, but I have managed to build quite a detailed record of his service, including time spent in Ireland and the years he spent in the War Office in London before being posted back to South Africa where he died in 1916.
I much prefer to rely on my own research.
-
I also would be glad to know if I had made an error. Unfortunately, no matter how politely you inform someone that they may have made an error, you are invariably ignored or get a rude response. I recently sent a message to someone politely pointing out that they had mixed up two families of the same name, one in Essex and the other in Dorset.
I supplied all the correct details and directed them to the correct parish records, to which they obviously had access, some images were already on their tree. There has been absolutely no response although they have been on Ancestry almost every day since. They also state they are willing to collaborate and help others. ::)
I appreciate being notified if any legitimate error/s are found in my branch of the tree. Mistakes happen in all family trees, especially when records are scarce for a particular family. I’d much rather be informed and correct the error - plus it can occationally help break through a brick wall by pointing toward the right information.
-
Although I don't have my tree on Ancestry, there are other trees about my families.
I contacted one tree owner through the message system and shared some accurate and well researched informatiion, my own verified work, which corrected a good many errors in theirs.
The reply actually made me burst out laughing!
" Well", they said," Thanks, but that's not what Grandma told us, so it's wrong "
::) ;D
I just let it go.
Who can argue with that brilliant style of research?
Sue
-
One thing the modern world teaches us is that people will believe what they want to, in the face of logic, reason, evidence and proof, particularly if said in a loud enough voice by a populist with pseudo authority. Whatever they started out as, Ancestry has become that populist that many people believe absolutely for family history.
We just have to accept that and continue to struggle to separate the grains of wheat from the tons of chaff, and also to continue to hope, without expectation, that reason will return, both to family history and the world.
That's my thought for the day this Epiphany Eve.
-
One thing the modern world teaches us is that people will believe what they want to, in the face of logic, reason, evidence and proof, ...
I am a long-retired research scientist. I learnt to regard all 'results', not with scepticism, but on the basis that it is not necessarily certain. I have worked alongside some others who have developed a theory and done experiments intended to prove it. We all hear of some in more public life who think that way.
There are so many ways for the information that we are 'certain of' to be incorrect. Tales handed down can suffer 'Chinese whispers', especially if they date from one's own childhood (I have one or two like that). My mother-in-law invented some tales to avoid telling her children unpalatable things, as recent meetings with relatives have revealed. Facts recorded on birth or marriage certs or censuses are often distorted or just plain wrong (for instance one of my great-uncles (aged 21) was allegedly born in Jamaica while his twin sister was born in Anglesey - I have her original birth cert). I think death certs may be more reliable ;). At bottom I think we must assume that nearly all our records could be wrong, and we have to keep open minds. Our aim is to build trees which are as internally consistent as possible - inconsistencies are there to be investigated !
-
I often look at Ancestry trees when stuck -- some have some reasonable possibilities that I always check out thoroughly before adding extra people to my own tree.
Others I disregard due to anomalies in time, place etc.
One particular tree that I recently looked at just made me laugh in disbelief. The compiler could not have actually looked at the info they had added.
They had an extra wife for the person I was researching.
This poor woman had apparently given birth to over 20 children over a period of 100 years, the first birth being 50 years before she herself was born !!!
-
Not sure why you are blaming Ancestry, FindMyPast or any other site offering such facilities - they are NOT responsible for whatever nonsense some people wish to upload or broadcast.
MOTTO - do your own research. :-* :-X
Yes, you can't beat D.I.Y.
Also, one thing leads to another (if you have an enquiring mind) and you find lots of additional information, that often nobody else found out.
Grandma dropped surnames etc., but some have been found to be relatives in the wider family through marriages.
Now, I have researched a wider 19th Century Tree, I can see where Robinson and Stephenson fit. Regarding Morley, only two Morley witnesses at an 18th Century marriage so far, so unresolved.
But I am not really directly descended from any of them, they were in my wider family.
-
I long gave up trying to help others where tress are wildly incorrect. I often find that these tree's are people just following hints and not reading much into censuses and either never respond or never update.
There was one tree with a DNA match to my wife where they made the wrong turn at their great grandparents resulting in Thrulines being completely wrong and impossible! That was very annoying as it was several generations deep before we clocked that we could not replicate their information as we worked our way down! Tried to help unpick it with them but they just threw up walls because they could not possibly be wrong!
I just concentrate on my own tree and use others as a guide and help in other ways where I can (IE I contribute a lot of photos and transcriptions on find a grave, or upload details from BMD certificates onto FreeBMD as postems's).
My tree is hidden. I have been in 2 minds over the years if I should leave it closed, or if I should open it up to aid collaboration.... but dare say most will just 'copy/paste' stuff into their own tree without much thought leading to new problems. My other thought was to export the tree and upload it as a tree without the evidence/documentation, but not sure if that would be much help and means I need to keep repeating the steps frequently! Also it would be difficult for somebody yo understand the reason my tree on one branch suddenly changes from Harding to Dourass where the basis information is missing and the clues are within DNA and a couple of newspaper articles!
-
Have I really been following this thread for three and a half years?!
In my experience, some people simply accept what they like to believe and ignore the truth. I have a prime example of this.
My G.Aunt emigrated from the UK to the USA and became the third wife of a man from the same UK town. By that time, he was practising as a doctor although prior to leaving England he had worked as a hatter and a herbalist. i.e. he was a complete charlatan. One of his descendants (a current researcher) has posted a copy of his “obituary”, which is completely fictitious, but refuses to accept this despite my having produced documentary evidence in support.
In view of this, I decided to publish a tree outlining his “real” life prior to the US clearly requesting that anyone finding fault with it should let me know. In the several years since, many bits of the tree have been copied but nobody has come forward to dispute any of it.
-
I gave up trying to help people correct their inaccurate Family Trees when I sent a message to a 2C2R DNA match nicely pointing her to our version of the Family Tree and explaining that my Grandmother had told me all about her parents who are our mutual MRCA pair.
Her tree was wildly inaccurate and she had gone back hundreds of years on the wrong family line.
6 years later I am still waiting for a Thank You.
Why bother !
-
"One of his descendants (a current researcher) has posted a copy of his “obituary”, which is completely fictitious"
The life story told in his obituary might be fiction, but it is a fact that it was published. It was an obituary, not an "obituary." That tells you a lot about how he (or the family member who supplied the information) wished to portray his life and perhaps how he was perceived in his community. The lies and exaggerations people told are part of the story.
-
This poor woman had apparently given birth to over 20 children over a period of 100 years, the first birth being 50 years before she herself was born !!!
That's some feat
I can't understand the point of these people adding names for the sake of it without doing some checks to at least try to verify information
-
I even had one who said their professional researcher confirmed it is the same guy, when I have found my own evidence to strongly refute it, and it is another guy with the same name, living 30 miles away.
Early on a cousin paid a professional researcher. He shared it with me. It took me a while but I eventually disproved that research, with help of Rootschatters and DNA.
I think we all can make a mistake, even professional researchers. There is the saying of "those who never made a mistake never made anything".
Someone had done some genealogy on the infamous gangsters, the Kray Twins and found they also descend from the same Auber/Obey line as me in Shoreditch and Whitechapel in the mid 1700s. I proof read it for myself and all seems good, seems I am their cousin about 9 times removed, providing there is no hidden NPE somewhere. Some say the twins were not as bad as claimed, and others say they were the scum of the earth.
-
"One of his descendants (a current researcher) has posted a copy of his “obituary”, which is completely fictitious"
The life story told in his obituary might be fiction, but it is a fact that it was published. It was an obituary, not an "obituary." That tells you a lot about how he (or the family member who supplied the information) wished to portray his life and perhaps how he was perceived in his community. The lies and exaggerations people told are part of the story.
Problem is that the detailed facts contained in the obituary must have been supplied by the man himself prior to his demise. The researcher, I referred to, has based their research entirely on the obituary, accepting it as “fact”, whereas most, if not all of it, turns out to be fiction.
-
John Hurt's ancestor was featured on WDYTYA and his ancestor Walter Lord Brown was mentioned in an obituary I think where the obituary mentioned a rumour that he or his wife was a descendant of the Marquis of Sligo, and that his dad was a manager of the Bond Office in London. Turned out he was a mere clerk at the company and the Brown family had no link whatsoever to the Marquis of Sligo, nor did Emma Stafford. And that Walter Browne's main claim to fame was owning a few houses in Grimsby which he gave Irish names, and that he was a mere storyteller who created a false background for himself. The researchers found no Irish blood in John's family that they could prove, and John was a bit peeved that he had no Irish blood and no royal blood.
I did a bit of follow up research and found a Campbell ancestor in London in John's tree in the mid 1700s, no doubt the WDYTYA researchers may have also found this but could not trace back to any Irish or Scottish link. Campbell being Scottish and Irish as a surname.
Same as rumours that the Kray twins were of Romany and Jewish blood, when there is no known whatsoever found in their tree by genealogists, however there is likely some distant Irish blood, on top of the verified Huguenot blood. One of their London ancestors was Mary Kelly born about 1765 in London.
-
I think some errors are almost inevitable and I admit to having a few where the baptism appears to be before the birth. [/quote
I also have a few cases on my tree where the baptism is before the birth, the official birth date being to avoid a "fine"/ fee for late registration. I always make a note of this on the person's profile.
-
Hi , I recently had to delete a whole line of my family tree as the older family research had mistaken the Township from whence the line came. I have kept this as i believe there may be another connection. Rootschat was able to help here.
I have not bothered to try correcting others. it's a waste of time and effort mostly. Before Christmas 2024 i had two DNA matches appear in my list one had only some information that was reasonably accurate the other had one family set completely incorrect Help here on this forum again proved the in-accuracy I could glaringly see. ...an Irish family from Scotland mistaken for a family in Ireland originating in Dorset England. All based on one person's name.But the annoying part is that I was sent photos of the descendants all correct on the partner's side but i have had no response since informing them of the issue.
So what's the point..... they wanted to know but decided knowing was a bitter pill. I just do not understand..
essnell
-
I never bother telling others about errors in their trees anymore, if they added wrong info that is "their tickle", as Harry Grout once said to Fletch in Porridge. I have told a few people in the past and got met with silence, or a dismissive reply.
The late Guy Etchells said his family tree is always open for review, and I would agree with him.
-
I think we all can make a mistake, even professional researchers. There is the saying of "those who never made a mistake never made anything".
Yes, I dropped a clanger here, regarding comment 2a in the diagram first post.
THREAD:
I'd Be Most Interested in Family Historian Comments re Tree Diagram?
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=804155.0
Mary Ann Stephenson 2a in the diagram is only linked by association to my family (but not related).
Discussed here:- Reply # 46
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=758380.msg6515848#msg6515848
The diagram is correct, but my comment 2a seems to be the wrong Mary Ann Stephenson.
Even though my George Hood of Selby (died 1845), purchased his Malt Kiln from John Clarkson of Eastrington.
----------
However, we are related by numerous marriages coming forward and going backward down this Grubb line to Mary Ann Stephenson, born Routh, Yorkshire, who married Robert Railton Grubb in 1854 at Lund, according to Births Marriages & Deaths documents and Census, backed up by newspaper notices.
A Separate Point
My Grubb don't seem to be related at all to the HOOD of Knottingley, Yorks, who married a GRUBB. Those GRUBB don't link to my HOOD of Selby and their GRUBB link.
Assumptions are quite Dangerous!
Mark
-
I think we all can make a mistake, even professional researchers. There is the saying of "those who never made a mistake never made anything".
Yes, I dropped a clanger here, regarding comment 2a in the diagram first post.
THREAD:
I'd Be Most Interested in Family Historian Comments re Tree Diagram?
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=804155.0
Mary Ann Stephenson 2a in the diagram is only linked by association to my family (but not related).
Discussed here:- Reply # 46
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=758380.msg6515848#msg6515848
The diagram is correct, but my comment 2a seems to be the wrong Mary Ann Stephenson.
Even though my George Hood of Selby (died 1845), purchased his Malt Kiln from John Clarkson of Eastrington.
----------
However, we are related by numerous marriages coming forward and going backward down this Grubb line to Mary Ann Stephenson, born Routh, Yorkshire, who married Robert Railton Grubb in 1854 at Lund, according to Births Marriages & Deaths documents and Census, backed up by newspaper notices.
A Separate Point
My Grubb don't seem to be related at all to the HOOD of Knottingley, Yorks, who married a GRUBB. Those GRUBB don't link to my HOOD of Selby and their GRUBB link.
Assumptions are quite Dangerous!
Mark
Often with a long standing brickwall, you hold on to any hope you can find. Any slightest connection to a family of the same name, or hoping a mere friend of your ancestor or owner of their property was an uncle or married to a relative. As we know genealogy usually gets harder the further back you go. I think most gateway ancestors are rare and can be hard to find or were in the 1500s or 1600s.
With your long standing brickwall of George Hood, well you say he died in 1845, so 6 years before the 1851 census which would have given his parish of birth at least hopefully if he had lived to then. I wonder if Ancestry DNA testing may lead you to further clues as to any parents or siblings of George Hood.
-
I'm thinking of Y-DNA.
-------------
Received this message from Ancestry ...
Did you know you might be able to trace your family back to the 1400s? Start your tree now.
::) ::)
-
Crazy! Does anyone take it seriously?
TY
-
There are some lines where I have virtually given up even though most of these particular brickwall ancestors were alive in the 1841 census, but were the famous "not born in county"of residence ones and whom died before the 1851 census. There will be many other genealogists in the same boat as me for these ancestors. Sometimes it may be an idea to admit defeat, but never totally give up hope. You could be trying to chase up any potential leads and find it is just a wild goose chase.
The brickwalls tend to increase when you get into the 1700s.
I have seen many trees on Ancestry where someone was said to be born in Norwich in 1756 but was baptised in Bristol in 1757, and the same person was buried in 1819 but did not die until 1824, and their parents were born 1600.
-
and the same person was buried in 1819 but did not die until 1824
Pre-need. It's a thing.
-
Buried in 1819 and died in 1824. Maybe the Ancestry tree owner had been watching too much Kill Bill. ;D
-
Someone had my step great-grandmother dying three years before I was born. The trouble is, I remember going to tea at her house! (She died when I was 41/2.)
-
There will be many other genealogists in the same boat as me for these ancestors. Sometimes it may be an idea to admit defeat, but never totally give up hope. You could be trying to chase up any potential leads and find it is just a wild goose chase.
The picture tends to get steadily fuzzier before 1837, especially if your surnames are relatively common, increasing the chance of incorrect matches (I am lucky in having rather unusual surnames on my tree). It just means you have to be increasingly critical and thorough !
-
'There are some lines where I have virtually given up even though most of these particular brickwall ancestors were alive in the 1841 census, but were the famous "not born in county"of residence ones and whom died before the 1851 census. There will be many other genealogists in the same boat as me for these ancestors. Sometimes it may be an idea to admit defeat, but never totally give up hope. You could be trying to chase up any potential leads and find it is just a wild goose chase.'
Coombs exactly this. I have one who family stories say was from Scotland, 1841 doesn't say 'S' but just not born in county, seeing as the village he lived in was very close to the borders of 2 other counties easily possible but I can't find an obvious birth close by. Again he died before 1851. Following his wife doesn't help, she was a Smith and she had died before 1841
-
'There are some lines where I have virtually given up even though most of these particular brickwall ancestors were alive in the 1841 census, but were the famous "not born in county"of residence ones and whom died before the 1851 census. There will be many other genealogists in the same boat as me for these ancestors. Sometimes it may be an idea to admit defeat, but never totally give up hope. You could be trying to chase up any potential leads and find it is just a wild goose chase.'
Coombs exactly this. I have one who family stories say was from Scotland, 1841 doesn't say 'S' but just not born in county, seeing as the village he lived in was very close to the borders of 2 other counties easily possible but I can't find an obvious birth close by. Again he died before 1851. Following his wife doesn't help, she was a Smith and she had died before 1841
One of my lot is James Smith c1791-1849. Not born in county in 1841 census which was in Oxfordshire and he lived in Oxford city. Another one is Sarah Bradford, previously Coombs, unknown maiden surname who died in Marylebone London in Feb 1851 and "not born in county" in 1841 of Middlesex. The 3rd ancestor alive in 1841 and "not born in county" who died before 1851 was Matthew Bradford, who died in 1849 in Southchurch, Essex. I have a feeling he was from Suffolk or Cambridgeshire originally.