Show Posts
1
Census and Resource Discussion / Re: Ancestry "Hints" problem
« on: Tuesday 08 March 11 13:55 GMT (UK) »
The proliferation of family trees on Ancestry is to me a sad sign of the times, gone are the days of the hard slog that family history research used to be.
All to often the 'modern' researcher appears to think the only source of information to be found is on Ancestry. I greatly value the resources available via the site and my research has certainly progressed with the databases added in recent times but I am at a loss to understand why anyone feels the need to have a public tree that very obviously is a compilation of information sourced from other public trees. Yes we can ignore them, but in my experience there is many, many poorly reseached trees appearing on Ancestry and I can't help but feel both sad and frustrated by this.
I would love to drag (kicking and screaming if necessary) a few folk with these trees into a record office or a LDS centre to spend a few hours working their way through a film or two ....... reading of PR films puts an entirely different aspect on research and very often provides the defining clue that ties everything together, well at least it has for me!
With regard to the number of names we have in our tree shouldn't it come down to quality rather than quantity. I have no issue with a tree a zillion names in it IF if has been thoroughly researched, after seven years of constant research I only have about 2500 names and I'll admit to a not being completely confident my research has been thorough on all those people.
My thoughts anyway.
S in A
All to often the 'modern' researcher appears to think the only source of information to be found is on Ancestry. I greatly value the resources available via the site and my research has certainly progressed with the databases added in recent times but I am at a loss to understand why anyone feels the need to have a public tree that very obviously is a compilation of information sourced from other public trees. Yes we can ignore them, but in my experience there is many, many poorly reseached trees appearing on Ancestry and I can't help but feel both sad and frustrated by this.
I would love to drag (kicking and screaming if necessary) a few folk with these trees into a record office or a LDS centre to spend a few hours working their way through a film or two ....... reading of PR films puts an entirely different aspect on research and very often provides the defining clue that ties everything together, well at least it has for me!
With regard to the number of names we have in our tree shouldn't it come down to quality rather than quantity. I have no issue with a tree a zillion names in it IF if has been thoroughly researched, after seven years of constant research I only have about 2500 names and I'll admit to a not being completely confident my research has been thorough on all those people.
My thoughts anyway.
S in A
. 