errors on trees

[Jebber]

[quote author=smudwhisk link=topic=712239.msg5558543#msg5558543 date=1423310114

I have several trees with thousands of names, but they HAVE been properly researched with the necessary evidence to backup the research.
[/quote]

I doubt you have researched thirty or forty thousand names like  the trees I am referring to

My own tree, which I do not have on line,  contains several thousand names, and I have also spent a considerable sum on microfiche, certificates, wills, other documents, not to mention travel for research, running into four figures over 25 years.

[smudwhisk]

I doubt you have researched thirty or forty thousand names like  the trees I am referring to

53 and a half thousand in total over numerous trees (one per family name, so that's the combined total)   And yes it has been properly researched, there are two of us doing the research.

I have to admit they did grew quite a lot once the census, London parish registers, and subsequently other counties, went online but a lot of it has been researched from Wills and parish registers from other counties where we've purchased microfiche copies of the fiche and paper copies of Wills, plus numerous visits to Records Offices.

[Guy Etchells]

[quote author=smudwhisk link=topic=712239.msg5558543#msg5558543 date=1423310114

I have several trees with thousands of names, but they HAVE been properly researched with the necessary evidence to backup the research.

I doubt you have researched thirty or forty thousand names like  the trees I am referring to

My own tree, which I do not have on line,  contains several thousand names, and I have also spent a considerable sum on microfiche, certificates, wills, other documents, not to mention travel for research, running into four figures over 25 years.
[/quote]

Why not there are many people who have inherited a large pedigree from parents or grandparents who were interested in genealogy. They have then caught the bug and added further names to the existing lineage.
Why assume that these people who have pedigrees showing tens of thousands of names have only begun in the last few years or even have only been researching for 30 years.

To me anyone who has not been researching family history for at least 40 years is a newbie.

Numbers mean nothing.
You may be lucky and have a family who perhaps farmed land and lived in the same parish since records began. With such a family it is relatively easy to quickly build a vast pedigree.
On the other hand you may come from a family of farm labourers who were all know by a common name and who never lived in any parish for more than a season at a time. In that case it may take a lifetime to prove a pedigree three generations back.

I can never understand people who get worked up about other people's pedigrees.
As long as my research is carried out to my standards I am happy.

I sometimes wonder if those who complain about name collectors are the very ones who want to copy others research!

Cheers
Guy

[eadaoin]

Am I a bit weird? I've never counted the people on my tree!

[smudwhisk]

Am I a bit weird? I've never counted the people on my tree!

You don't need to manually, most software packages have the facility.   I never used to bother but looked at it out of curiosity the other year ....

[snooziflooze]

I never know what to do about errors on other peeps' trees and so end up doing nothing.     

I have a private tree on Ancestry, but have never been contacted by anyone, so I'm about to delete it.  I am toying with the idea of setting up a public tree on tribal pages.  Has anyone done this and have you had any trouble with it?  I think as a precaution I will not add anybody's name who is still alive and kicking... 

[Huckleberry]

I contacted someone last week who had an extremely well researched tree with over 15,000 records  and 1900 photos -  I pointed out that the spouse of of one person was incorrect and additional info. The reply I received: 
"Thanks for the information. I was given the marriage certificate for Ellen xxxxx and William xxxxx  by a family member. Had not questioned that it was incorrect!!"...."Have now amended my tree accordingly and added the births of John William and Harry that I did not have."

There is also 21 trees with one individual who I know is wrong they they have a total of 15 records between them of this person. and the max number in the tree is 586 individuals.

So it depends not on the number in the tree for me but if the info will be welcomed.

[Hinso]

So many trees on Ancestry are there when the authors have lapsed subscriptions, died or demented.

The last category worries me.

[msr]

To me anyone who has not been researching family history for at least 40 years is a newbie.

I sometimes wonder if those who complain about name collectors are the very ones who want to copy others research!

Cheers
Guy

Really?   Well then, I am definitely a newbie but, being of a respectful nature, take exception to the assumption present in your last sentence.

Not feeling at all 'cheery'. but will leave it there.
Susan