RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Davedrave on Tuesday 14 May 24 09:28 BST (UK)
-
Consious of the fact that I have received much generous help over the years on RootsChat, I try to offer help where I can, which is not often, since I’m not very good at the lateral thinking in family history that many RootsChat helpers are so good at.
Recently, I happened upon a family tree of Ancestry, which looked quite well-researched, and was backed up with documentation and annotations which suggested that its creator was not simply a name collector. I therefore sent them an Ancestry pm:
“Hi -, I came across your family tree containing - - who married - -. You seem to have been misled, as was I, by the records available online on his parentage. I spent ages constructing the wrong tree for him. If you would like me to let you have the correct info, please let me know, and I’d be happy to do so. The info isn’t avaiable online (only in my local record office). I’m only approaching you in this way because the annotations in your tree suggest to me that you take family history seriously, and aren’t just a ‘name collector’.
Regards, Dave”
Subsequently, I supplied images (not simply transcriptions) of the documents I had (following generous help on RC) located in the record office. The tree owner altered their tree accordingly, but has subsequently removed her alterations, and is awaiting further “proof” of my “claims”, (whatever that “proof could be, beyond the pretty-much definitive evidence I have already supplied, it is difficult to know.)
On a separate occasion recently, I contacted a distant cousin I had managed to find. I eventually heard from his sister (he had passed on my message, not himself being interested in FH). She claimed to be interested in FH, and to have a lot of knowledge of her maternal ancestry, but very little of her paternal. We had quite a long and (I thought) interesting conversation, and I offered to let her have the Google Drive link to my pretty comprehensive history pdf of my surname line, which contains her paternal ancestry. However, because she seems to be super-cautious about online security, it seems extremely unlikely that she’ll be taking me up on my offer. It seems a shame, because her branch of the family seems especially interesting, and she knows so little of it.
Why am I having such a job to GIVE my info away? It is frustrating. I have no children to leave any of my FH to, and am only too happy to share what I have with anyone with a genuine interest, and yet I can’t even give the stuff away!
Dave :)
-
It might happen in time!
Not long after I started researching my husband's tree, I sent a copy of what I had learnt so far to various family members including his mother's elderly cousin, and said I would be grateful for any other information they knew about the family.
I heard nothing from the cousin -- just put it down to he had no interest in family history.
About 15 years later, I was contacted by his nephew who had been given the papers I had sent -- the nephew had started to research his tree so was very grateful for the starting point! By this time, I had of course got a lot further with the family so was able to pass more information on. We are now in regular contact
-
It happens.
I had part of my tree well documented a few years ago as I was helping a 3rd Cousin who had contacted me and who could not resolve her tree.
I had her issue resolved in my tree so just passed the info to her and suggested she double check everything, which she did and was a happy bunny with all the docs and citations validated the branch.
Roll on 5 years and one of my new DNA matches who was already in my tree showed but the branch on her tree went down a line in east Lancashire and not down the Cheshire line as was the case.
Hence this DNA Cousin was well off the mark with her research, I am still waiting for a thank you even though I did send her images of her actual Great Grandparents and suggest that a certain person in her tree was actually born in Cheshire.
-
Dont worry, youre not being picked on!! As we all know common sense is not so common!!
Our modern society finds it easier to just say no to everything including any advice on genealogical matters. Anything else requires thought, effort and risk
-
Every so often a new thread pops up on this topic. I trained as a scientist, so I learnt the approach that while I may be happy with my own results someone else's may (one day) prove them wrong. Luckily my own tree contains mostly people with unusual surnames so I am satisfied with my searches, and try to maximise internal consistency.
Unfortunately self-righteousness seems to be an increasing trend these days, and many people prefer to believe what they want to believe, and may not happily accept others' suggestions that they may be mistaken. Usually I don't bother trying to correct those views.
-
It can be very frustrating, I agree. But ultimately I've learned not too offer too much unless and until I'm sure that the other person is actually receptive to the information.
Like you, davedrave, I've got a lot of family history documents which aren't available online (and may never be, given the nature of some of them). These didn't just fall into my lap, and in some instances they didn't come free either. Finding them, either by hard work or lucky happenstance, has added to their value in my eyes. But of course other people may not see them in the same light; and may not value them particularly if they've been handed to them on a plate by a stranger on the internet.
So now I will happily point people in certain directions online for information; if I've a spare evening I will enjoy helping on a RC thread, if I can, just as I would enjoy doing a crossword puzzle. But I don't offer, or hand over, some of those precious hard-sought not-on-the-internet items willy-nilly. I've been burned too many times. (Though it's always good to share info with other experienced RCers whose names I recognise and whose experience and knowledge comes across on the boards - I've had some great info on here and I'm happy to offer what I can in return to such people).
And you know, if you offer someone a lot of information and they choose to dismiss it when you KNOW that it's correct, you just have to remind yourself that it's their loss! Don't invest the mental energy on people who don't deserve it! (easier said than done though, I know!)
-
Some are just as stubborn as a mule and will not accept even definitive proof that what you researched is correct. Their loss though.
-
Many people prefer to be wrong than corrected.
Mrs. Zaph
-
Who knows? Recently, I had contact with a person who is helping his cousin with her family tree. I am quite closely related to the cousin, and I have a lot of information and photos which I am more than willing to share. My contact reported that his cousin was excited and wanted to learn more. He suggested a Zoom meeting. I said no to the Zoom meeting and that I preferred email. I sent them my address, but they never got back to me. Apparently for them, it's Zoom or nothing. It's their loss.
-
Many people prefer to be wrong than corrected.
Mrs. Zaph
Isn't that the truth!
-
One of my wife's ancestors was a photographer and a collection of his glass plates is held by a museum. However this museum has attributed them to a much younger person. We have given the museum details of our research but they refuse to engage with us. The head of the museum did produce a book of these mis-attributed photos and we strongly suspect that misplaced professional pride (arrogance?) is part of the problem.
-
Many of us have had the same responses as you have Davedrave and it used to bother me but I look at it differently now. This is my thinking now -
There is no such thing as 'proof' in genealogy, just weight of evidence. Collating that evidence and presenting it to a, probably sceptical, third party forces me to re-evaluate that evidence and confirm or otherwise my view. Whether the third party accepts the evidence is their business, some do some don't.
Very occasionaly I get counter-evidence which causes me to change my tree. This is all worthwhile stuff and makes the process worth it.
However I have also learned to open the conversation with a question 'What leads you to believe that ?' or similar and see where it leads.
-
Thank you for sharing your experiences and wise advice. Clearly, I was rather naive, but once bitten…
In future, I’ll stick to RootsChat, where I know I can rely on people with the best intentions.
Dave :)
-
Also do your own research as well.
-
Whether to collaborate or not to collaborate? When I was a subscriber of the big sites I was quite proactive when it came to messaging and tree content. I was also very proactive when it came to near and distant relatives when it came to sharing research. There's pluses and minuses to being so open I did get some interesting stuff but I gave a lot more than I received. It did create work for myself and there were some disappointments. I'm glad I did it though but now I'm at the stage where I'm more happy to do my own thing and if other people have it wrong it doesn't bother me so much.
C
-
You only have to look at the number of people in a tree to know if the owner is worth contacting or not. When you see many thousands of names you know they are only name collectors and not serious researchers. I find only the latter are worth contacting, even then it is often a waste of time and effort.
-
and when you do share tree's that you know to be right,they change them to whatever fit's theirs /or do not even say thanks /get back in touch.
Mud
-
"You only have to look at the number of people in a tree to know if the owner is worth contacting or not."
Hogwash.
-
"You only have to look at the number of people in a tree to know if the owner is worth contacting or not."
Hogwash.
;D
There are many well researched large trees and probably as many badly researched smaller trees.
as to the original topic - I've offered certificates and original census entries to some individuals who appear to be researching the same lines but have been turned down "because that's not what Ancestry says" >:(
-
I agree with Erato, some people with large family trees may have spent years collating their tree through hard graft of researching, and are not just "name collectors".
-
Today, RJ_Paton said:
as to the original topic - I've offered certificates and original census entries to some individuals who appear to be researching the same lines but have been turned down "because that's not what Ancestry says" >:(
This has happened to me a couple of times -- obviously that fact that I have original certificates for several generations of the same family, I must be the one that is wrong as the reply in each case was on the lines of 'Ancestry doesn't agree with you' -- if only some FT enthusiasts looked at original sources (parish records, BMD certificates etc) instead of just 'googling' and taking the 'results' as gospel.
-
I wish you were in my family!!
-
This has happened so many times to me. Unfortunately I think some people take people contacting them with corrections, however politely put (i.e. you made the same mistake yourself etc.) as something that makes them embarassed, frustrated, etc. etc. and they simply clam up and either never look into the info you have given them, or do look into it, but then either get frustrated or perhaps simply can't be bothered to put in the correct info. As you say, people (including me!) can go off on tangents tracing lines back several hundred years and it can be very frustrating if you find out that was all wrong ::).
-
Everyone makes some mistakes. Hopefully you find them early on or someone points them out to you so you can nip them in the bud.
I've found that many of my mistakes have not been linking to the wrong person but, rather, misunderstanding an ancestor's position in society. I develop a mental picture of an ancestor, but it often turns out to be wrong. Several times I have mistakenly assumed that someone was poorer or less educated than he, in fact, was. As a result, I overlooked some sources of information. For example, I spent ages looking for cousin Charles Boyd. Finally, I stumbled upon his passport - it turns out he was a quite prosperous importer (socks and underwear) who was constantly traveling back and forth to Germany and eventually died there. I had pictured him as a low-level clerk living in a NYC tenement.
-
Hello everyone here,
have learned by disappointment what to share and what not to share and who with over many years. However there is one that I will never understand. The person has an ancestry tree and a whole family from a census record. As far as I am concerned the last name is miss transcribed or wrongly interpreted or simply doesn't belong in this family.
I diligently went through all the info on that tree and some is close to correct but needs tweaking. But the 6 or so children all given with DoB etc cannot be found with the person as mother on GRO. The all come up with two different Aunts as the mothers. I do not know how often i have re chcecked this and it is a;ways the same. Sent all the referenes and the tree is still as it was from years ago. Others have copied it !!! I gave up.
Essnell
-
A couple of times I have had to lop off a branch or two of my family tree. Makes me not want to take that leap of faith in the future, as you may find that inconvenient burial as an infant of someone you thought was your ancestor, or they married another person. Or a will which means they married a different spouse to yours. I tend to become too determined for a certain ancestor, trying to get back that bit further, but usually, as we know, FH gets harder the further back you go, especially before 1800.
-
I tend to become too determined for a certain ancestor, trying to get back that bit further, but usually, as we know, FH gets harder the further back you go, especially before 1800.
I agree and feel the rise of Nonconformism in the 18th Century has made life difficult for me!
Regarding Wesleyan Methodists, Wilberforce Morrell said ... it did not occur to them to preserve any record of their efforts.
Wesleyans numbered 444 in just one Yorkshire W.R. circuit.
Until the early 19th Century when the Registrar General collected Registers c.1837.
The Selby, Yorkshire, Baptist / Unitarian Chapel began in 1690, but records didn't survive, until the late 1790s.
This list shows how extensive surviving Nonconformist records held in West Yorkshire Archives (WYAS), are ...
West Yorkshire, Non-Conformist Records, 1646-1985
https://search.ancestry.com/search/dbextra.aspx?dbid=2268
Mark
-
I tend to become too determined for a certain ancestor, trying to get back that bit further, but usually, as we know, FH gets harder the further back you go, especially before 1800.
I agree and feel the rise of Nonconformism in the 18th Century has made life difficult for me!
Regarding Wesleyan Methodists, Wilberforce Morrell said ... it did not occur to them to preserve any record of their efforts.
Wesleyans numbered 444 in just one Yorkshire W.R. circuit.
Until the early 19th Century when the Registrar General collected Registers c.1837.
The Selby, Yorkshire, Baptist / Unitarian Chapel began in 1690, but records didn't survive, until the late 1790s.
This list shows how extensive surviving Nonconformist records held in West Yorkshire Archives (WYAS), are ...
West Yorkshire, Non-Conformist Records, 1646-1985
https://search.ancestry.com/search/dbextra.aspx?dbid=2268
Mark
I feel this is the same for my Dorset and Essex lot, and for my Oxfordshire lot. Survival rates for NC records can be quite patchy, and this can explain the missing baptisms. However NC records can often be more informative than the standard PR's.
I should be grateful that I do not have 75% Irish ancestry past 1850. Getting back to the late 1700s in Ireland is often seen as an achievement due to the lack of surviving records.