Ancestry trees

[Flattybasher9]

The way I see it, Ancestry is the library containing books. Some of the books are fiction, which are misplaced in the wrong section. The space available for non-fiction is limited, as is the level of staff within Ancestry. If I pick up a "fiction" book from the so called "fact" section, realising the fiction aspect within said book, I put it back and ignore it. I can go to the history section of any library, and pick out ten books all giving a different account of what happened on a certain date. Which one do I believe, none of them. Records are just information stored, based on information utilised by the recorder of said information, and available at that time. If I have not done it, I take it with a pinch of salt. I may be interested, the information may be interesting, but I don't have to believe it.

Regards

Malky

[jettejjane]

I simply treat each and every tree I look at as badly researched, which MAY offer me some hints.
If the tree is obviously badly done, or a name-gatherer, then I just ignore it.

Me too KG.

On a happier note I have just discovered 2 female 2nd cousins through ancestry, they live close as well!  I am arranging a meet, quite nervous never met a live one before! So ancestry ain't all bad

[groom]

Just a thought, but rather than several threads all saying the same thing on Rootschat about Ancestry, wouldn't the frustration and annoyance about incorrect and copied trees be better posted on the Ancestry Forum or on their Facebook page? That way they are more likely to reach the eyes of those concerned.

[trystan]

Keep your comments coming on RootsChat - get it off your chest.

You're all entitled to opinions of family trees posted somewhere or other, even if other people have posted before on the subject.

After all that's the "chat" in RootsChat.

Trystan
RootsChat Admin

[msr]

Thanks Trystan 

[iluleah]

Keep your comments coming on RootsChat - get it off your chest.

You're all entitled to opinions of family trees posted somewhere or other, even if other people have posted before on the subject.

After all that's the "chat" in RootsChat.

Trystan
RootsChat Admin

Well said Trystan

I think my concern ( concern is not really the right word, maybe frustration) is that many new researchers think looking and copying online trees is "researching" and then they hang on to and defend their tree which they gleaned from them as real and true

[trystan]

I think it comes down to people trusting what they see online as always being true or factual. Or perhaps they want to believe what they read.

I wonder how many "junk trees" there are online, where they just use them to harvest email addresses or contacts online?

Trystan

[msr]

I don't know about 'junk' trees Trystan, but the one mentioned by Mike in his opening post boasts 1/3 million people.  Over 300,000 updates every day!  Now I don't believe a single person could possibly manage that on his own so who is helping?    Of course, as usual I stand to be corrected by some expert or other.

As to trusting a tree like that to have correct info - I will reserve judgement!

Can they really harvest emails?  or would that only be after making contact with individuals who hand them over? 

[trystan]

I think many people would be more than happy to give their details out if they believed they were related to them if the online family tree showed that.

The 300,000 updates a day could possibly suggest that it's an automated thing?