Should I tell other genealogists when they have made a mistake?

[Minnesotan]

torre,
I understand why you feel like a stranger has hijacked your grandfather. I hope you will find some comfort in that your tree with properly cited sources sets the record straight. Your properly cited research cannot be disputed and anyone who comes across your tree that really cares about the accuracy of your shared family history will appreciate what you've done.

Also, if your relevant historical society or local libraries accept genealogies, I suggest you print a copy and donate to them. In the U.S. and I would think in other countries, family genealogies given to such institutions would be catalogued and available for the public to view. When mine is in better shape I plan to print copies and send one to my state's historical society plus another one to the U.S. Library of Congress

Regarding letting someone know about a mistake, I have done that once or twice using the approach others in this thread recommended i.e. btw thought you would want to know I found this document that indicates .... I did not receive a reply which does not concern me because all I can control is that I followed my own personal code of ethics for genealogy.

My rule of thumb about mistakes is to only point one out if there was some evidence the researcher cared about accuracy i.e. they had cited a few sources for the ancestor with the error plus included sources on one or two others in their tree. If there are no sources, then I don't take the time to mention a mistake.

I agree with others that on Ancestry, only a small percentage, maybe 1 out of 10 trees are carefully sourced. And probably 50% of the trees that I receive as hints have no sources at all.

[LouiseB31]

I would like to thank you all for your comments.

I don't particularly mind if people take my research and add it to their tree, good luck to them. Personally I prefer to do the research myself and if I make a mistake that is mine to bear.

I am mostly bothered about people who are near kin (say within four generations) and have made an error. They are researchers who I know are part of my family even if we have never met and are continents apart.

Having read all of your thoughts I am going to adopt the strategy that where someone has struggled (like me) to get the answer and come up with the wrong answer (like I did for a long time), I will send them a message suggesting they have a look at the material I have found and decide whether they want to look at it again. And I will be effusive and slightly apologetic as another poster suggested. Then it is entirely up to them.

For people who are researchers in the more distant past, I will keep quiet and not annoy them.

My tree is public and anyone can see any of it so new researchers will hopefully make use of it.

You are all great, that's why I like to give you my most thorny issues to look at!

[coombs]

Of course I would never say "You are wrong, he was born in 1842 not 1844" but I would say "Your tree says he was born in 1844 but I have his birth cert which says 1842. I am happy to send you a copy of the cert by email, seeing as we have mutual ancestors".

What I dislike is when I politely correct someone and they still stick to their version even when they are 100% wrong. They say for example "Oh in 1871 he was 27, so born 1844, he'd be 29 if born 1842" when we all know ages on censuses are often inaccurate.

I knew my ancestor was William Thomas Coombs, and in the 1901 census he said he was 40, born St Pancras. I had his middle name from his daughters birth cert in 1889. When I found this 1901 census info out in 2004, I knew the 1901 census was 31st March 1901. Yet the only William Thomas Coombs born 1855-1865 in Pancras was registered in the Jan, Feb, Mar quarter of 1860. That would make him 41 on 31 March 1901 so I worried as I thought ages on censuses were accurate. Then I did more research and got his 1886 marriage cert, which tied in with his 1901 occupation and 1889 occupation and the fathers name and occupation tied in with the one born in the Mar quarter of 1860, as I ordered the birth cert before the marriage cert. I then knew ages on censuses may not always be accurate.

[Gone]

LouiseB31 I sympathise with you. My post "lemmings" is about the very same problem. For the last couple of weeks I've contacted a large genealogy website to alert them to a mistake concerning my 2x gt grandfather. Lots of trees have his date of death at 1881 because they can't find him. I did, I have something of his he treasured from 1888. Right up to his will after 1900.
I've pointed out a few mistakes to others, one had my 3x gt grandfather dying 2 years before his son was born, I was thanked for pointing out several mistakes but it was never amended. Another had my granddad on their tree with a pic which they obviously lifted from me, but they put it on the wrong tree, again, it was left.
The shame of it is, I'd share info privately if people used it in the correct way. But there is no way I'll do that with those who don't listen......their loss.

[Trees]

An..ry trees can be awful I've even found someone gaily giving a mother's birth just months before her wedding. Having had sooo many replies "I borrowed the fact from another tree" and the like I no longer look at any tree with out sources shown. But in the past I found two huge unforgivable mistakes. One was a professional "Genealogist" offering her services to the public for large fees . She gave her tree as an example of what the potential client could expect and on that tree I found an ancestor of mine had been confused with his cousin I was 100% sure of the facts so I politely wrote with the correct facts and cited my source did I have a reply ...no so I wrote again and said I had been happy to share the correct information with her free and did not charge unsuspecting clients for poor research. No reply
The second is for all to see in a book published by the Kidlington History Society and again concerns mixing two cousins I pointed out that in the same book they had correctly identified the grave of the gentleman they had gone on to marry to his cousin's wife after his death! A thank you from the author or the society....well of course not to think I paid for that book hoping to get more background to the place the family were from.
My advice is  be sure you have left nothing to chance and are prepared to take a second look as more information becomes available, and record every source you have used carefully so you will always be able to check things out. Rant over.

[BW252]

I would certainly welcome any advice/comments if others feel I have made a mistake and I most certainly would make every attempt to find the facts and if necessary amend my tree.   Usually if I am in doubt and cannot be absolutely sure, with evidence to back it up, I would not put the details on my tree.

[Tomscot]

 After reading some your comments, I for one would very much appreciate anyone on RootsChat telling me of any mistakes that I have in my tree, we all make mistakes. How ever I have noticed on Ancestry they make a lot mistake with dates, and locations.
  I hope that I have not taken ancestors from another Genealogist Tree and added it to mine, if I have I apologise.
                                                      Regards,
                                                                  Tomscot.

[Gone]

Tomscot, perhaps I'm just a synic but ancestry are more than happy for us researchers to correct their mistakes. Its cheaper than checking all records, which there are many, for the howlers I've found

[pharmaT]

Tomscot, perhaps I'm just a synic but ancestry are more than happy for us researchers to correct their mistakes. Its cheaper than checking all records, which there are many, for the howlers I've found

I found an ancestors of my husband's born in Birmingham West Riding, Yorkshire.  When I contacted ancestry they told me that over the years here was some movement of boundaries.  Well that would be some movement