errors on trees

[KGarrad]

The other trees I'm ignoring completely as some of them have my relative dying in Selby, Illinois, USA instead of Selby Yorkshire, another tree has her dying in 1857 (correct date) in Selby Yorkshire and then reappearing on the 1881 census in Settle.

That's a quirk of Ancestry when people just enter "Selby" as a place!
Ancestry defaults to a US placename

Even if you put the county name, placenames often get allocated to similar places in USA?
E.g. Somerset in New Jersey or Kentucky; Suffolk in New York, Virginia or Massachusetts!

[msr]

Or Manchester, Jamaica!  How many of mine have been added erroneously to someone's tree?  Lost count!

To my mind that just shows the speed at which some people are dropping individuals into a family.  Why not take a moment to check everything before moving on to the next person?

It isn't rocket science after all.

[Guy Etchells]

Wow.

This one just stopped me in my tracks.

Since most people don't start family research until they are after 20 years old, wouldn't that mean then that nearly everyone under the age of 80 would have to be considered a novice?   

Or is that the point you are making - that everyone must consider themselves to be a novice? And by doing so, you are less likely to make assumptions in your research?

I'm just guessing here. I'm a bit confused and trying to understand your point. Unless you were being tongue in cheek and it got lost in translation?

Hi, msr, you were just replying as I was typing my response!

Yes of course it was tongue in cheek, I had put a smiley after the first time period mentioned to show that it was in jest, but it seems many missed it.
“To me anyone who has not been researching family history for at least 40 years is a newbie.   “

I'm trying to do the math here.

One is born; grows to the point where an interest in family history takes hold; spends 60 years learning how to do it properly; then what?    Passes over and meets the ancestors?

Sounds like a perfect scenario to me then ones ancestors can spend eternity poke fun and pointing out the false assumptions made.

That would seem to indicate that all the 'professional' genealogists are pulling a fast one, and certainly belittles all who are researching their own families.

I have over the years pointed out many myths “professional genealogists” propagate such as the lectures that claim Birth, Marriage and Burial certificates were only obtainable from 1837 ; myth.
Or the “fact” that Stillbirths were not registered until 1927 ; myth.
Or that Births and Deaths were not recorded until 1837 ; myth.

In a number of instances “professional genealogists” are the blind leading the blind.

I could go on but you get my point, many “professional genealogists” simply regurgitate what they have been taught rather than research the facts for themselves.

I fail to see why any suggestion that a person never masters genealogical research “belittles all who are researching their own families.”.
I have researched practically all my life and as every year passes I realise there is more I have to learn about the subject than I have learnt over the past 60+ years I have been doing it.
That is despite doing a number of courses on the subject and associated subjects., but then possibly that is due to the fact that I was educated in a way that told me one learns more about a subject the longer one is interested in the subject.

Cheers
Guy

[bikermickau]

I keep my tree on Rootsweb, fully aware that it parts of it will be and have been copied. I also have been contacted by relatives who have assisted in expanding our family information.

As to trees having mistakes, I try to add a note correcting explaining why.

Many years ago I contacted a person on Rootsweb, who had some of my ancestors on her tree, she had no idea or memory as to why they were included.

Mick

[Marmalady]

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

The last category worries me.

Ahh yes, the demented genealogist!

My father took up genealogy in the late 1990s
With hindsight, his dementia set in not long afterwards - although it was not diagnosed till several years later.

I have had to go through his extensive research with a fine toothcomb -- deleted hundreds of people that he had added through incorrect assumptions - and am still finding mistakes even now, some 5 or more years after taking over all his research files
My paternal tree may now be smaller - but it is hopefully a lot more accurate!

[chempat]

Just in case anyone is interested in some of Guy's assertions:

http://anguline.co.uk/myths.html

[msr]

To be honest, I think Guy is rather adept at promoting his web-sites to anyone with the slightest interest.

[BumbleB]

To be honest, I think Guy is rather adept at promoting his web-sites to anyone with the slightest interest.

That's a bit unfair!!  At least Guy has a "proven history" whereas a lot of other "historians" do not 

[mofid42]

That is interesting.... Guy's first point about the general public being allowed to view the registers at a Registrar's Office.
When I first started family history 16 years ago and had reached the point when I needed to purchase certificates I had no idea how to go about it so telephoned my local registrars office for advice. I specifically recall asking the question, did I need to visit personally to look through the registers, but was categorically told that the public where not allowed to. However I do remember seeing some of the travelling researchers on the Heir Hunters TV show being allowed to view them but it always came across as if they had been given the privilege as a huge favour.