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

[mofid42]

My tree is already private and has been for a couple of years because of tree scrumpers.

The person who has taken my grandfather and his family must have acquired the information and photos from other public trees with whom I've shared in the past. As they haven't actually taken anything directly from my tree I can't really ask them to remove anything, just persist in trying to point out their error by leaving comments on their tree. Hopefully anyone in the future seeing those comments won't make the same error.

What I am finding difficult to understand is the mentality of these ancestor stealers. They simply just don't seem to care whether they have got it right or wrong. When someone in the past questioned my research, insisting I had got it wrong, although I was 100% certain I was right as I had documentation etc to back it up, I still spent half the night double checking everything just in case I was wrong.

Researching my family history is important to me, and its accuracy even more so, I certainly would not be able to take any pleasure or pride in a tree that is total nonsense!!!

[Roger The Hat]

I have done, in the past, but having been told quite strongly that I'm wrong (despite having the relevant documentary evidence), I probably wouldn't in the future. Unless they were an RC'er, of course!
 

The view I take now is that it is a hobby, for my own personal interest, and if someone else wants to have my great grandmother's family living in the USA when she was actually born in Dorset, well, that's up to them, and no loss of mine.

I actually find it quite funny, and I certainly don't worry about it.
 

'Hat.


    

[groom]

Researching my family history is important to me, and its accuracy even more so, I certainly would not be able to take any pleasure or pride in a tree that is total nonsense!!!

I think that sums up the difference between people who genuinely want to find out about their family and those who just want to be able to boast that they have their tree back to 1066 and have found 50,000 relatives. It doesn't matter what evidence you give the latter, they will never change their tree.

I have some one who added a middle name to my grandfather in order to make him fit her tree. When I pointed it out, she admitted that is what she had done, but I see it is still there. That is her problem, not mine.

It is annoying and in the case of "stolen" photos upsetting, but apart from making your tree private or never putting any information on to the internet there isn't a lot you can do. 

Jan

[buffhunt]

I would want to know.

[Foehn]

One of my cousins added an English line to our family because he got frustrated trying unsuccessfully to make headway with our Irish line. He applied the "fiddle factor"  to make this seem correct. I find this very annoying as all the younger generation will grow up believing something that is not true.
Hopefully they will have the wisdom to check the details and eventually remove the spurious family.

[baggygenes]

I would want to be told too if I had mistakes - although I have been told before and it turned out the person correcting me was wrong and they got quite stroppy when I told them (even though the person concerned was my mother and they were trying to tell me she died 3 years before I was born).

I don't really mind people stealing my rellies - although I think its a shame when they are wrong cos  they are cheating themselves of their own heritage and if passing it on to other family members theirs too.  I would mind if they were stealing my photos though .. I do think that people should ask the tree holder for permission before doing so!

There are a few trees with some of my ancestry on that I know to be wrong in parts and I have messaged them with no response - I'm guessing these people have lapsed their  subscriptions/haven't bought one so can't message which might also account for the scrumping as they wouldn't have to pay to look at the documents for themselves.   I have also noticed a tree which is obviously taken from one of mine as they have exactly the  same comments I have made about a certain gentleman who I believe had a double identity but haven't found anything solid to prove it.

I do admit I have scrumped myself though - having reached as far as I could get online with my ex husbands family I found 100s of trees through "hints" that continued right back on a famous Prideaux line that is evidently well documented but I still dabble looking for my own documentation to back some of it up and continue with more recent (1600 onwards) myself
For my OWN line I prefer to do the work, however frustrating and brickwalling it is, myself - apart from being a really interesting and absorbing hobby it does give you a more personal connection to the people you find.

[smudwhisk]

I think some people don't reply because they don't like it being pointed out to them that it is wrong.  As it's easy enough to see if the person has recently logged into their ancestry account from their profile, it's therefore possible to confirm the likelihood they've read the message. 

I've come across this several times recently as several ancestry trees have incorrectly listed our mutally shared ancestor Sarah Haydon as dying in1862 in Southwark.  Now one tree shares her second family with me, the others descend from her first marriage and don't even show the second marriage.  Therefore they have obviously just added a death hint that has appeared from someone else's tree.  Sarah actually is buried under her first married name in 1833, and therefore does not appear with her second husband on the census in Southwark which I was informed was her.  For some reason her second husband appears to have done a runner and she is buried as the widow of her first husband (although where her first husband is buried is anyone's guess).  I know this has to be the correct second marriage because firstly the death age ties in with the baptism date (and there is no other in the area), secondly she is listed as a widow marrying in the neighbouring parish but returns to her normal one to have two further children, and thirdly a grandson from her second marriage died along with one of his brothers in Australia and incorrectly listed their mother's maiden name as their grandmother's first married name on his brother's death certificate.  As their mother remarried and listed her correct father's surname, they obviously got confused.

Did I get any response to my messages, well one replied and said he was sure it was the couple in Southwark, but has failed to respond when I sent him the specific details and as far as I know his tree is still inaccurate.  The other's ignored me.  All had logged into ancestry after I sent them a message/note on their tree.  Their loss is all I can say.

Not everyone with a link back to 1066 is a name collector, I have one which has been maticulously checked by me, and not just from published pedigrees which can be notorious for errors.

Nicola

[kennett]

There seems to have been a big increase in this nonsense lately,   and  Mundia.com  seems to be the major culprit.

[baggygenes]

oh pants I just joined Mundia 10 minutes ago