How irritating is this?

[bungleberry]

Several of my forebears lived and died in Gloucestershire. One in particular has appeared in many public trees on ancestry. His death, unsurprisingly, occurred in Glos. Someone has obviously googled  Glos and deduced that he died in Calvados, France. So he/she posted it into his/her tree. An understandable error for someone who's not a Brit researcher.

But what has got right up my hooter is that the entry has been copied blindly by six other alleged researchers. I've given up trying to point out boooboos of this type - there's only a limited amount of abuse I can take.

Trouble is that, as politicians continue to demonstrate, if you repeat an untruth often enough it becomes 'true'.   

[torre]

Oh how I do agree!

I have a baptism record and marriage record for my great great grandfather's sister in Holborn, London. The witness at the marriage was her sister.

But others seem to think she married, as a single woman in Australia.

I have sent all the details I have, to three different people, who don't want to know.
I assume one person put this information on the internet and others copied.

I really think the problem is, if they delete the person in their tree, they have to delete all that person's ancestors and descendents. That can mean half a tree in some cases.

Which is why a lot of trees are at best a guess and at worse total fiction.

And why I get such a headache trying to find proof of everything.

Torre

[panda40]

Found one last night that had the gentleman dying correctly in 1889. He then got married in 1913. I couldn't be bothered to contact them, if they wanted to believe in reincarnation its up to them.

Regards panda

[buttercup2009]

Several of my forebears lived and died in Gloucestershire. One in particular has appeared in many public trees on ancestry. His death, unsurprisingly, occurred in Glos. Someone has obviously googled  Glos and deduced that he died in Calvados, France. So he/she posted it into his/her tree. An understandable error for someone who's not a Brit researcher.

But what has got right up my hooter is that the entry has been copied blindly by six other alleged researchers. I've given up trying to point out boooboos of this type - there's only a limited amount of abuse I can take.

Trouble is that, as politicians continue to demonstrate, if you repeat an untruth often enough it becomes 'true'.

It is an uphill battle isn't it, I corrected a change that someone had done on Anc. today - it WAS correct but some kind person changed it!  I think it's what passes often as history, I have a real doubt about 'the written word' when you see people who approach with a scientific evidence based scalpel and dispel a lot of myths about previous historical fact. It is frustrating for those of us who take our evidence based trees seriously - not everyone does. I don't think there's an answer either, sadly, the Internet is wonderful and maddening at the same time   

[Lisajb]

Several of my forebears lived and died in Gloucestershire. One in particular has appeared in many public trees on ancestry. His death, unsurprisingly, occurred in Glos. Someone has obviously googled  Glos and deduced that he died in Calvados, France. So he/she posted it into his/her tree. An understandable error for someone who's not a Brit researcher.

But what has got right up my hooter is that the entry has been copied blindly by six other alleged researchers. I've given up trying to point out boooboos of this type - there's only a limited amount of abuse I can take.

Trouble is that, as politicians continue to demonstrate, if you repeat an untruth often enough it becomes 'true'.

The name of your ancestor wouldn't be Stinchcomb(e), would it, Bungleberry? 

I've seen that error and have a feeling I copied it myself at one point, until I saw sense, gave myself a clip round the earhole, told myself not to be so stupid, and removed it. 

I searched for Stinchcomb and any event in Calvados-Basse on Ancestry and got about 43000 hits in public member trees.

[suey]

I've just about given up on Ancestry trees.   

Just been looking at a tree that has 3 x great grandparents.  Born in Baltimore (that's news to me )  they then nip over to London where the wife dies (no she doesn't she outlives him by 30 odd years)  he gets married again but his death date is before his supposed second marriage date ...shoot me now!

There I am wondering if I can make a connection back to the 1600's simply because the names are right, George following John etc.etc.  and they are living in the right area, dates are a bit dodgy.  I can make 'em fit but are they right.  Another lot for the maybe pile 

suey

[Jomot]

The most annoying one for me was a tree owner I recently contacted who didn't realise his GG Uncle had been married to my GG Grandmother (they were both widowed).  Being helpful, I gave him full details from the marriage certificate plus some information he didn't have about one of his GG Uncles son's. 

He duly added her to his tree - and then copied a bunch of incorrect trees to give her three children she'd never had, born in a place she'd never been, to a man she'd never met. 

[bungleberry]

Sorry Lisa, he was Capt. Edward HERBERT RN (approx 1758-1820), whose ancestry is a bit of a mystery anyway, due to extra-curricular activity.

Another aggrannoyance concerned someone who was insistent that one of mine had married at 12yrs old (and produced the first sprog two years later). I mean, I know that happened in royal and such exalted circles, but mine certainly weren't.

I could go on . . . 

[SwissGill]

I symphasize with all of you but having had some of my ancestors spirited away from their graves and reincarnated in the USA and having tried to intervene, I have to say this is the disadvantage of having a Public Tree.

The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, however. I have had many an interesting discussion with near and far relatives.

Make your Tree private. With a bit of ingeniousness, a few will be able to fathom some of it out but not all of it.

Beware, grave diggers are everywhere.