When you find an error on someone else's tree, do you tell them?

[BevL]

Hi,
I have seen errors in some people's tree and know that I have the papers etc to prove the mistake and sometimes I get a nice letter thanking me, but then when I look it up they haven't changed a thing so I have given up.   I know mine is right and if they think there is correct, so be it!
Kind regards
Bev

[BristolClark]

It's happened to myself just recently.

This woman has placed the completely wrong person in her tree. It doesn't bother me so much, but after I wrote to her nicely to point it out, she didn't reply but started copying photos of my close relatives that aren't her relatives at all.

Odd people in the world. 

[ggrocott]

Yes, I tell people if I find a mistake in their tree and am grateful if others return the favour; although I do not allow access to my tree itself unless I am sure of a link and feel that the researcher is 'genuine'.  Nevertheless I am aware that large chunks of my tree, early mistakes and all are out there in the public domain because someone copied it and made it public.  That I am afraid is life. Most people are grateful and respond well but I had the most bizarre experience recently. 

I have transcribed a large number of the records for Easthampstead in respect of names in my tree.  (Giles and Bowyer).  Another tree had one of the Giles men married to a lady, in a different parish, when there was a marriage in Easthampstead that made more sense.  I pointed this out (nicely I thought) giving details of the marriage and asking if there were any facts that I had missed and was rewarded with a request to send him the GEDCOM of my tree so that they could 'add it to their tree and check it out'.  I replied to say I was not willing to do that but would happily let them have my transcript - cue a demand for my GEDCOM and no interest in the transcript.  Needless to say they have neither and their tree still shows a marriage and therefore ancestors that I strongly suspect are wrong.   A pity because I am sure we could have helped one another but I am not going to just hand over 15 years of work to someone who has not even said thank you for my interest.

[Shirleyjjj]

i recently pointed out a mistake that at least five people had copied the name of a lady who had acutally been widowed - and people didnt know until i dug it out.

i also dug deep on somthing else and when everyone thought another couple had got married quite old and perhaps living togther having children (now this is what the archives told me they would have been living together  but i didnt agree and decided to dig deeper) found another earlier marriage for the fella his wife died and the first lot of children were to the first wife - what a find !!

what i would say is - dont follow suit with everyone else and do your own research -

as for copying pictures of your relatives - not very nice unless they ask first - i think that there should be a link to provide the person who wants the picture to ask the tree owener if they can have a copy and expalin where they are related so that the tree owner can decide if its ok or no

[halhawk]

I have contacted a few people about errors on their trees, with varying responses. Some have sent thanks, and made the corrections, while others ignore the corrections, although at least one sent thanks!  I have  now begun to add comments to some of these trees, so at least anyone looking at them in the future might spot the error!

I would be glad to hear from anyone spotting errors on my tree, although it has only happened once, and I made the correction straightaway.  I do try to note where information is unconfirmed, or leave it off completely, while keeping a note of it in my paper files.

The most recent comment I added was because I could not find a way to contact the owner - might that be because their subscription has lapsed?  They had included a marriage which at first sight looked right, but had in fact confused an aunt and niece who had the same first name and middle initial.  Since the GRO only gave middle initial the confusion was understandable, I had identified it from the county BMDs which are thankfully online.  The aunt was the 12th of 15 children, while the niece was the daughter of the 2nd eldest, so the relative ages made the marriage a possibility for either.

[joboy]

I don't take Ancestry Public Trees at all seriously ...... they are interesting,often laughably large,with royalty and coats of arms and flags and so on but not to take offence with what is 'cooked up' from other trees by dreamers.
Look for the serious subscriber to Public Trees ... they do exist and compare notes with him/her and it is most rewarding.
Just within the last 2 months I came in contact with a Public Tree researcher who had one only name of a common ancestor born 1780.
Our dialogue initially was very cautious but gradually warmed ...... she,like me,found about seven Public Trees that had claimed this 1780 person and, like me,was influenced by the sheer number of claimants and put it on the backburner.
Together we dug and scratched at what evidence was available until finally we found that our 1780 common ancestor married in 1817 and his wife died in childbirth 1817 and that the widower father remarried in 1819 had two more children plus the surviving child of his first marriage who left his home town and married in London proven by 1851 and 1861 censuses. 
joboy

[BevL]

Hi again,
It is a pleasure when you get a person who is quite willing to listen - and change if they think it has been shown to be correct, or the other way around - but when everything is correct in a particular public tree and the other person has been able to go on to find out much, much more about your family, it is quite a temptation not to copy it!!!
Kind regards
Bev

[Viktoria]

 Just ( tactfully I hope), corrected some errors on  a family tree involving my mother and her sisters.
 The person I sent correct details to has been very generous, with photographs etc for which I am very grateful and I would not want them to be insulted. I did not say they had names, ages and death dates  wrong so just gave a list of dates and ages with corrrect names and causes of death  among other info. They can put two and two together and correct their tree themselves . I gave a lot of details they did not know so I do hope they aren`t upset but they have done so much research it seemed a pity they had included  so many errors. Anyway we will see. Viktoria.

[Duodecem]

I'm responsible for errors on a few trees. When I started I hoovered up 18th century BMD facts -same name different places and put them all , with evidence, on my first attempt at a tree.
2 Years of research have taught me that if individual J is married and baptises his children in village A he is most likely the J who was born in A 25 years previously; not the J born in W-who also married in W. I'm now going through and correcting my tree.
 Sadly all my errors have been duely copied and appended to several other trees. Do I contact them all and tell them -or hope the "hints" system will lead them to the correct information?
I suspect quite a few trees are first drafts, it's easier to put possibilities on a tree and amend it later than it is to make notes on paper.