RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Romilly on Sunday 23 March 25 11:14 GMT (UK)
-
I know that lots of Public Trees on Ancestry have errors, - but it's particularly annoying when you've messaged people pointing them out, and they reply saying they'll correct them, - and don't!!!
Especially when it's your direct ancestors, i.e Great Grandparents and Grandparents, - and not only are the dates wrong, but some of the surnames are incorrect too!
I don't suppose there's any point complaining to Ancestry?
What do people on here do in these circumstances?
Romilly >:(
-
Although it's hard best just to ignore them as long as you know you have the correct information
I normally make a comment to the person on their tree pointing out they have the wrong information
Rosie
-
Thanks Rosie.
I know that you’re right, and it’s best to ignore it, - but it’s still extremely annoying!
Romilly
-
Thanks Rosie.
I know that you’re right, and it’s best to ignore it, - but it’s still extremely annoying!
Romilly
Agree with you it is very annoying >:(
Rosie
-
Ancestry should take some responsibility here and put a marker against blatant errors in trees. otherwise it further spirals out of control as others copy the data.
I've come across trees with errors where people have used some ancestors as part of their tree but with different parents, then when you look at their source its to the correct information with the correct parentage, but these fools have used as evidence for their tree, these are basic errors or worse laziness.
I've messaged a few people in recent months, and you do sometimes get grateful thanks back, whilst others ignore, but it's not always bad.
The other week i contacted someone, not to point out an error but to ask for the source of a photograph, anyhow as a result of this contact I've been able to share newspaper report of a shared ancestor that suffered a tragic death, along with another which was a comical death, and its not just the sharing of info but the fact she was then able to give that info and copy a photo I had on my tree to her own mother who is suffering as a result of memory loss and rekindle her memories.
-
According to 2 trees my father was 8 years old when he married someone who was not my mother ::)
I have pointed it out to both tree owners but it remains unchanged ::)
The 'Geneanet Community Trees Index' that show up as hints on Ancestry doesn't help either as that is also perpetuating these errors.
-
Ancestry should take some responsibility here and put a marker against blatant errors in trees. otherwise it further spirals out of control as others copy the data.
Not a chance, especially in these days (years?) of conspiracy theories and fake news. Most people continue to believe what they want to, even when you are 101% certain you are right. And that is assuming they are bothered about correctness in the first place ;D
-
A few months ago I noticed an error on a tree – not a close relative of mine, but I thought I would point it out to the tree owner.
The owner had uploaded a lovely photograph of their ancestor’s house, together with a map and an arrow showing its location.
I live in the area and suspected it was incorrect and so I checked the relevant Census document.
Their ancestor lived about a mile away from that location, in a street with a very similar name. When I want to be sure about addresses I scroll forwards and backwards in the Census to check the enumerator’s route, and so I know I was correct.
I messaged them to explain. They did acknowledge the message and said they would look into it.
They still have the incorrect address, photo and map in place.
It’s their loss I suppose – they don’t live in the area, and I was going to offer to take a photo of the correct property for them, had they shown any real interest. (Or maybe I'm being unkind and they just have other priorities in their life!)
However, because Ancestry users love photos so much, many people have copied, perhaps assuming that anyone who has gone to the trouble of uploading a photo and creating a map is bound to be correct.
So these days, if I spot something I’m pretty sure about I just add a polite note to the tree – then others might spot the note and think twice about copying the tree's information without checking it first.
-
According to 2 trees my father was 8 years old when he married someone who was not my mother ::)
I have pointed it out to both tree owners but it remains unchanged ::)
The 'Geneanet Community Trees Index' that show up as hints on Ancestry doesn't help either as that is also perpetuating these errors.
That’s dreadful Rosie!
In my case, the same wrong information has also been put onto Trees on the My Heritage Site and I’ve now turned off the ‘Smart Matches’ facility on there.
I wasn’t aware that notes can be added to Trees other than one’s own on Ancestry; I’ll have a look at that!
Romilly
-
Another Ancestry tree has a mutual ancestor who is said to have died in 1849, which is true, but is on the 1851 census according to the tree owner.
The enumerator must have enumerated the skeletons in the local churchyard. ;D
-
Another Ancestry tree has a mutual ancestor who is said to have died in 1849, which is true, but is on the 1851 census according to the tree owner.
I have a a few of them also relating to some of my ancestors :D :D
Rosie
-
I have had a few over the years and a couple of tree owners did acknowledge their error and change their tree.
Others have totally ignored my polite request and evidence to support it.
An example was a great aunt who died in the 1960's. She never married. The tree owner gave her a middle name (parents, siblings etc were correct) and had her going to New Zealand and marrying and having numerous children. I couldn't convince her that she had the wrong person even when I told her I had attended the funeral. ??? ???
Dorrie
-
I suppose people don’t like to admit that they could possibly get things wrong - your tree is totally correct, isn’t it? Which is why I gave up pointing out errors a long time ago and my only public tree expressly asks that, if anyone has reason to doubt anything it contains, they get in touch. Nobody ever has!
-
Others have totally ignored my polite request and evidence to support it.
Being charitable, it seems possible in these days of continuous electronic intrusion, that recipients may say 'never heard of this sender', or perhaps their system just blocks some messages automatically ?
-
As Columbo said "Everything is open for doubt" when investigating homicides. That also applies to through and well researched trees, everything can be open for review. Such as, for example, you have a lot of documentary evidence that a certain man was the father of your illegitimate ancestor, and the man married the mother when the baseborn ancestor was a baby, and add the man to the tree as the father, but then you later find a new piece of evidence that goes against everything what you have found, such as a marriage banns record for your baseborn ancestor's mother to another man when she was in the early stages of pregnancy, and the wedding never appeared to go ahead, and the banns record hints that the earlier man was the father, and she then met another man who likely said he was the father and said so in documents, to help the mother out in an embarrassing situation.
-
As Columbo said "Everything is open for doubt" when investigating homicides. That also applies to through and well researched trees, everything can be open for review.
That is the correct scientific approach. A theory designed to explain all known results can always be superseded by a better one. I have a chemistry degree.
-
I have an ancestor Charles Boulton baptised in 1756 and died in 1806 in Whitchurch, Shropshire
There's one hint that checks out, the rest I've ignored primarily because most are suggestions to look at a whole stack of other trees, all of which share one common theme, a death in Wem Shropshire in 1841, the only problem a simple search on GRO shows the said Charles Boulton that died in 1841 was a mere one year old, yet so many add this to death to their tree.
In this case I've not contacted any of them (yet), for one thing there are too many of them, but do wonder if they would be remotely interested.
-
I have an ancestor called Ebenezer Goodacre, nee Martin, of Bermondsey, London, and someone has accepted a hint for an Ebenezer Goodacre living in Massachusetts, America in about 1790ish. Remotely possible but likely to be 2 different people. Compelling evidence will make me accept or deny the hint myself.