Are you? Why? I find my own tree has plenty to keep me busy, I couldn't give a fig what other people choose to do.
It amazes me the number of people who get all flustered over someone putting something "wrong" on a public tree. All they are doing is making themselves look silly to any serious researchers. Anyone who will blindly copy from another tree simply can not be serious in their research.
Of course if something is published that includes your living rellies you may wish for it to be removed.
Sure, I'll look at online trees - they can be a great guide, but I'll see what sources they claim and then check those sources for myself, if I can't prove it to myself then either it doesn't go on my tree; or if I'm sure but still can't prove it I'll "pencil" them in with notes and task reminders that I need to find evidence to support my theory.
Unfortunately this post shows the poster does not understand the way the IGI is compiled and would rather insult people than take the time to find out.
Submitted simply means the record has come from an individual rather than a mass extraction.
Some very careful family historians have submitted accurate records to the IGI.
To make such broad sweeping statements throws doubt on her own research methods.
To be fair not all submitted entries are accurate or trustworthy. This isn't so much a case of the the poster insulting people as it is a case of a few questionable entries pouring doubt on the rest. There is no way of knowing whose submitted entries are good and whose are questionable therefore they all have to be treated with the same caution - just in case.
Just yesterday I was looking in the PR for a particular marriage that was a submitted entry on the IGI and it certainly doesn't appear in the parish that was stated.
