Topic slip does occur in conversations but I would suggest that does not mean the posts are straying quite extensively from the title of the thread.
The reason I say there is a relevance is because unless the researcher understands the reason for the record being recorded one does not understand the accuracy of the record.
Most researchers automatically assume that when a person posts a tree on Ancestry or other similar sites they are claiming to have researched the tree themselves, but that assumption is flawed.
Some people post trees as a fishing exercise, wanting others to add to it.
Some post a tree so that others comment on it and make corrections.
Others post because they are proud of their research achievements or their husband’s or wife’s achievements etc. the reasons are numerous.
It can therefore be seen that the person who posted the online tree may or may not be interested in replying to comments about the tree.
They may even have abandoned the tree their object completed by publishing it in public, in which case they would not even realise that others were trying to contact them.
We, as researchers should therefore try to learn the reason for the existence of any record we discover as that will show us the relevance of what we see.
Cheers
Guy
PS I am Guy or Guy Etchells, Mr. Etchells was my dad 
I am concerned. I am based in New South Wales, Australia, and my earliest migrant family to NSW arrived back in the 1790s, and my most recent migrant family arrived towards the latter part of the 19th Century. Back in 1810 the then administrative paperwork system was improved, new general orders issued, and all this by a Scotsman, the Governor of NSW, Lachlan Macquarie. He provided express reasons for his general orders regarding recording of baptisms, burials, marriages, musters, land grants, civil court actions, property transfers, and the like. (He came to re-establish law and order after the Garrison forces had led a revolt against the then Governor, one William Bligh, yes, you got it, Bligh, he of the Mutiny of the Bounty fame)
So persons researching records held by NSW State Records Office are able to clearly learn the purpose, function, objective, of the official records, basically from first settlement, with the arrival of the First Fleet 1788. From a family history perspective surely this gives the relevance that Guy writes about.
When any person submits any family tree chart to any organisation, be it a commercial website like Ancestry, or lodges their hand written paper based documents at a Genealogical Society or publishes their family history with public libraries obtaining the books ..... surely there's a responsibility by the reader to validate rather than to just accept the information at face value. So, whether a tree chart is offered by the most experienced professional genealogist, or the least experienced newbie, the person reading the offering must understand that it is their responsibility to confirm/ eliminate/ leave in pending tray and that there's only a possibility there's a shared ancestor.
I know that the significant issue is that flaws that give in depth details noted in tree charts can be very annoying. And I am quite sure that this is compounded when the charts are uploaded to the web, so reach a much wider audience.
If you find errors in strangers tree charts, and if you can contact those strangers, then be gentle, ask for confirmation of their research and offer to share your copies of documents you have researched yourself. If they are not persuaded by your research, don't get hot under the collar. But do re-check your own against theirs, and simply accept your own findings.
If you cannot contact the submitter, accept that no-one else can either. If the error is chronological (so buried before born, or married after death, or in a census years after burial etc) .... don't panic .... those flaws are so obvious that even non family history readers would see through the twaddle.
On the other hand, when you upload your own tree chart to a commercial website, don't link a citation unless you have inspected that specific record. So, don't link the index entry for a birth/death/marriage reference no UNLESS you already have the actual record (either paper copy or digitised image, but not the transcription), and you can clearly see it is YOUR person of interest.
Well, there's my thoughts for the evening.
I trust I am not being too controversial, and that I am providing 'food for thought' .
Cheers, JM
