How irritating is this?

[suey]

 

I occasionally use these trees to give me a starting point - even if they are wrong.  At lease I enjoy the process of proving they are wrong and it can even lead me in the right direction eventually.

Rishile

 

I think that sums it up beautifully Rishile - if everyone remembered those words when searching we might all have a few less sleepless nights and a few less grey hairs 

[bungleberry]

I think my point is that, yes, we are all prone to make errors, some of them ludicrous, but it's the thoughtless repetition of them that's irritating.

[relatedtoturnips]

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'.

As the saying goes "Dont bother me with the facts, my minds made up!"

[ggrocott]

Lisa, I have Stinchcombes in Hawkesbury as well but a very long way back.

[Lisajb]

Lisa, I have Stinchcombes in Hawkesbury as well but a very long way back.

We are probably connected somehow - there are quite a few of them! In Hawkesbury genealogy circles they're known as the Bloody Stinchcombes - no matter whose tree you are researching, you'll have a Stinchcombe or 10 in there!  My great grandmother was Alice Mary Stinchcombe, the mother of the lady in my avatar picture, and I'm also related to the Thompsons, Martens, Tandys, and Always, amongst others in Hawkesbury.

[Lisajb]

Found a great one today, given as a hint by ancestry - chap born in 1724, apparently his first child was born in 1717   How's that work then?

And yes, people had copied it.....

[Rosinish]

chap born in 1724, first child was born in 1717

Does this mean that unlike FTM there is no prompt to say it's wrong (on ancestry)?

[spices]

chap born in 1724, first child was born in 1717

Does this mean that unlike FTM there is no prompt to say it's wrong (on ancestry)?

I am sure I get a warning when I do typos like that.

Town, city name that are the same around the world can be problematic. Not everyone can latterly think or think to do timelines.

My findings are --Born in Dhwood NZas however the child was born at sea on the "Ann Dashwood"
Had the researcher had done a timeline they would have realised the mistake.
Port Fairy in Victoria Australia was once named Belfast. Once again had a timeline been done the mistake would have been realised.

Lastly the best was an Ancestry tree had my OH's cousin & his wife being deceased. They are very much alive. I did point this out to the tree owner to no avail. The cousin said they were sent a FH book with them being deceased.

How could you even think to send a book to a deceased person?

[groom]

chap born in 1724, first child was born in 1717

Does this mean that unlike FTM there is no prompt to say it's wrong (on ancestry)?

Yes you do get a warning usually something like "The birth of the child is before that of the parent, do you want to proceed?" So obviously the tree owner just ignores that and enters it anyway.