Genealogists' most hated phrase

[fifer1947]

I could understand if I was talking about private trees but these incidences were not.

Fair enough, but you did not make that clear.  Your opening post explicitly referred to "published family trees".

As you said you have enough to keep you busy on your own tree, why would you even bother commenting on how others deal with errors they find on public databases or trees?

Because sometimes I feel like it. 

Oh dear!  Who got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?!   

First off I do not have to justify what I posted in reply to weste.  However on the post you specifically answered above I made no reference whatsoever to published trees.

What I said in answer to weste was
"Little do they know we are usually sorting out the mess someone else has put up as "genealogy"!" 

Where exactly does that mention trees??    Please do not misquote me - thanks! 

[Just Kia]

Surely if in reference to something "someone else has put up as "genealogy"" then it's more than likely referring to public trees and not to parish register/census transcriptions on pay to view sites.

After all those kind of sites don't put things like "most likely" (to be son/daughter of or whatever), they just transcribe what's in the document.
Isn't it a general risk of pay to view sites (if by credits rather than subscription) that you may waste some by viewing the wrong transcripts/images?
If it's SP and you can show them that something is wrong and that error caused you to waste credits they are good at refunding them.

[panda40]

The parish clerk in a large parish from my home town who decided to put Samuel Austin and wife. I looked down the list and saw next to each birth entry he had entered the father detail and listed each wife this way. So no idea who any ones mother was and this went on for years.

Regards panda

[fifer1947]

Surely if in reference to something "someone else has put up as "genealogy"" then it's more than likely referring to public trees and not to parish register/census transcriptions on pay to view sites.

After all those kind of sites don't put things like "most likely" (to be son/daughter of or whatever), they just transcribe what's in the document.
Isn't it a general risk of pay to view sites (if by credits rather than subscription) that you may waste some by viewing the wrong transcripts/images?
If it's SP and you can show them that something is wrong and that error caused you to waste credits they are good at refunding them.

I was quoting/answering weste's post, not going back to the opening post.   

Not that it is any of your business but I did inform SP, had a lovely email back and yes my credits were refunded.

The other database is for a Genealogy Group for a Scottish island BMD/parish records/census data where some assumptions had been made incorrectly.  I have had a lovely email back today thanking me for sending the corrected information and looking forward to receiving the family sheet when complete and proven so they can correct and link up the census and family data.

................. and this is "The Lighter Side" board?    God help us if they ever put up a "Controversial" board.   

[Just Kia]

Hey I didn't say it was any of my business but the fact remains that you posted on a public forum which any one can read and any registered member can post too.

If you do not want to discuss things maybe don't post them? Or if you see it as a personal reply to a certain poster maybe pm them instead - that way you can avoid us busybodies reading and replying with our own thoughts and opinions

I was merely stating my observations not asking you to tell me what you did or did not do or asking for justification.
I'm not quite sure why you seem quite so offended.

[Sloe Gin]

I could understand if I was talking about private trees but these incidences were not.

Fair enough, but you did not make that clear.  Your opening post explicitly referred to "published family trees".

As you said you have enough to keep you busy on your own tree, why would you even bother commenting on how others deal with errors they find on public databases or trees?

Because sometimes I feel like it. 

Oh dear!  Who got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?!   

First off I do not have to justify what I posted in reply to weste.  However on the post you specifically answered above I made no reference whatsoever to published trees.

What I said in answer to weste was
"Little do they know we are usually sorting out the mess someone else has put up as "genealogy"!" 

Where exactly does that mention trees??    Please do not misquote me - thanks! 

Whatever 

[fifer1947]

So why pick holes??   

[aliceaevdb]

Hello everyone

I wouldn't class myself as a genealogist; I just started to research my family tree to answer some of my relatives questions (and got a touch carried away...).

The most frustrating thing someone has said to me is:

'you ONLY have *** people in your tree? I've got ************'! (before going on to suggest they as they have *************  people in their tree, they must be 'right' despite the fact I have found records suggesting otherwise)!

Alice

[matt94]

I hate the old 'Oh, I could have told you that...'

Or...even more irritating...

After spending about 5 years researching the family in great depth, spending tons on transport and certificates and copies of documents... having someone say 'Oh, so you're not finished then?'

Sadly my whole family seem to be like that....