Lazy Research

[ThrelfallYorky]

... and wouldn't that have served them right, PharmaT??
-How about everyone inserting "Daphne Witterington-Hope III" into their trees somewhere, as a spouse or child,  (B. 1910, died 1879) and wait and see how long it is before this back-to-front person crops up on other trees?

[StevieSteve]

So that the only trees we know for sure are wrong would be those of Rootschat members?

[ThrelfallYorky]

No, so that we'd all be able to spot where people had blindly copied.

[Guy Etchells]

No, so that we'd all be able to spot where people had blindly copied.

I cannot understand why so many people are bothered, upset, annoyed, irritated or whatever other expression one wishes to use with trees copied from other trees and trees with errors.
What is the point of getting upset, those trees will not interfere with your research will they because you will not copy them?
Or is that the problem researchers these days simply want to find an accurate tree and copy it rather than do any research?

Do new researchers really think false trees and errors only occurred with the age of the internet?
If so they are very much mistaken, heralds (you know those people paid to regulate pedigrees) were not above inserting false links into pedigrees they crafted back in the 16th and 17th centuries.
It has even been suggested that almost three centuries including the reign of Charlemagne never existed and it had been fabricated to allow Otto III and others to live in AD 1000! Now that would throw the cat amongst the pigeons.

In truth if we all do our own research and find complementing sources to validated our findings our trees will be as accurate as they can be.
It won’t make one bit of difference any other tree implies as we will know our trees have been researched thoroughly and are as accurate as we can make them.

When we get past civil registers and census use every version of parish register (some parishes may have up to 4 copies of certain parish registers or sections of parish register), check these against the Bishop’s transcripts. Check burial registers against burial plot registers (lair registers).
Use directories, and various tax roles, wills, ecclesiastical surveys, pew lists, recusant lists etc. etc to confirm your assumptions.
Search out and use manorial records for further sources for individuals in your family line.

When you have done all that pass what you have learnt to your children and grandchildren so that they can add more to the picture and in a few generations you will have an accurate tree to be proud of.

Don’t rush your research family history is an enjoyable hobby which can last many lifetimes and can never be completed in one lifetime.

Cheers
Guy

[clairec666]

I cannot understand why so many people are bothered, upset, annoyed, irritated or whatever other expression one wishes to use with trees copied from other trees and trees with errors.
What is the point of getting upset, those trees will not interfere with your research will they because you will not copy them?

I quickly learned not to get frustrated at other people's trees - I'd be wasting a lot of time (yet I still join in when there's a thread on this subject ). I don't go looking at other people's trees on Ancestry - I suppose I'm missing out on making contact with potential relatives, which is a shame. Never mind, I've already found two distant relatives via rootschat.

[coombs]

I gave up getting frustrated at others trees on Ancestry a while ago. It is up to them if they want to use possibles as gospel. I may look at them for an idea into a lead not yet known but I always like to check it for myself, I never take their word for it.

[alivin]

I'm just baffled as to why some people spend money on a subscription only to just blindly add people and events that obviously have no relevance to the individual being "researched".

Came across the craziest timeline for one of my ancestors on an online tree yesterday, that had them simultaneously married to three men and having children by all three over the same period in both the US and England, starting from age 10. Appearing in censuses in both countries only a year apart on multiple occasions, then dying in Kent yet buried in New York!

And it's not like they had just copied other's trees, they had a long list of sources. But on looking at them, these "sources" had nothing to do with the actual individual, they were for completely different people! 

Doesn't upset me that their info is all wrong, just wonder why they bother?

[groom]

I'm just baffled as to why some people spend money on a subscription only to just blindly add people and events that obviously have no relevance to the individual being "researched".

Perhaps they don't spend much money, they just use the free weekends and cheap offers. If they do that, they just add things quickly and don't bother to check.

[Renatha]

-How about everyone inserting "Daphne Witterington-Hope III" into their trees somewhere, as a spouse or child,  (B. 1910, died 1879) and wait and see how long it is before this back-to-front person crops up on other trees?

Which reminds me I got excited sometime ago in my Welsh branch when I thought we were related to David Lloyd George. Anyone famous would be good! Amazing how many others were also related. When adding on the German branch (which could not be sourced as I don't have Worldwide access, just UK Heritage - UK & Aus - though some details are shown in official hints) from others' trees (please don't read any further if you are a RootsChat aficionado) I did notice sometimes places could have an American location tacked on the end such as "Berlichingen, Hohenlohekreis, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, Jacksonville, FL" or suchlike.

I agree with what someone said earlier in this topic, for me it has been a process of learning over years as I dip back in and out of Ancestry, I am much more discerning now having deleted some branches to start over again to make sure they are sourced and the information fits. And I've made my tree private.