Ancestry tree rubbish

[guest189040]

I am so fed up with so many of Ancestry Trees being nothing more than wishful thinking that I very rarely delve into them.

Last straw was a relatives who were born, raised, married and died in the same Town, do many Ancestry Trees reflect this?  No, they have the husband as being born in a town 40 miles away from where the wife was born despite the census returns showing them both born in the same town.

I just do not get how people grab at the first search results instead of having multiple verifications.

[davidft]

I am so fed up with so many of Ancestry Trees being nothing more than wishful thinking that I very rarely delve into them.

Last straw was a relatives who were born, raised, married and died in the same Town, do many Ancestry Trees reflect this?  No, they have the husband as being born in a town 40 miles away from where the wife was born despite the census returns showing them both born in the same town.

I just do not get how people grab at the first search results instead of having multiple verifications.

In the past there have been people on here who openly admitted to putting "rubbish" on their trees so that anyone copying it would get just that, rubbish!

And these are people who are meant to have an interest in genealogy, or at least you would have thought so if they visit a site like this.

[Forfarian]

How about California in Falkirk, Ireland in Bedfordshire and Wales in Yorkshire?

Jane :-)

Moscow in Ayrshire

Calgary in Mull
Dallas in Moray
Ireland in Angus
Rome in Angus
Dundee in Banffshire
Edinburgh in Moray
Jerichos in Angus and Aberdeenshire
Perth in Australia
Aberdeen in Hong Kong
35 Elgins all over the place
At least 3 Lethams
I could go on ....

[Edward Scott]

But I think that these places do actually exist.

[pharmaT]

I am so fed up with so many of Ancestry Trees being nothing more than wishful thinking that I very rarely delve into them.

Last straw was a relatives who were born, raised, married and died in the same Town, do many Ancestry Trees reflect this?  No, they have the husband as being born in a town 40 miles away from where the wife was born despite the census returns showing them both born in the same town.

I just do not get how people grab at the first search results instead of having multiple verifications.

In the past there have been people on here who openly admitted to putting "rubbish" on their trees so that anyone copying it would get just that, rubbish!

And these are people who are meant to have an interest in genealogy, or at least you would have thought so if they visit a site like this.

I have a couple of cases in my tree where one census has husband and wife born in same town yet were actually born 30-40miles apart (can't remember exact distance and toon lazy to look).  Yes I'm sure I have the right people, they're Scottish so I was able to cross reference parents' names with birth, marriage and death records.  Cross referencing with valuation rolls also showed the family moving when they were a young child so it looks like when the census was done that they gave the name of the first town they lived in.  I have another where the child was baptised 40miles away from where the census said they were born.  In fact they were both accurate, employment records and tenancy records show the family in the town given as place of birth but the child's maternal grandfather was the incumbent at the church 40miles and it appears that they travelled for the children to be baptised there.  so no I haven't just grabbed the first record I found, I do have multiple verifications.

I have several ancestors born in Kilsyth in Scotland.  I record it as Kilsyth, Stirlingshire although today Kilsyth is controlled by North Lanarkshire Council.  I have kept it as Stirlingshire because that is what it was considered to be under at the time they lived there.

[Edward Scott]

A******y defaults to Kilsyth, Stirlingshire, Scotland. I am sure that there were some comments on this a few pages back but they do seem to go with the proper Counties rather than the modern administrative ones.

[pharmaT]

Oh and I remember, I have another one.  I have a census return that lists an ancestor as having been born in Preston, Lancs.  In this census the family were living in Manchester.  Anyway could only find in one census and had found them by searching for the birth of their son.  Could not find the Dad in any other census or a birth for him.  Anyway I eventually found census returns that fitted other details but listed him as born in Shropshire.  I then found a birth in Preston, Shropshire where the father's name matched the father's name on the marriage cert.  My current working theory is that when he said Preston the enumerator made the assumption he meant the larger, better known and closer one. 

[pharmaT]

A******y defaults to Kilsyth, Stirlingshire, Scotland. I am sure that there were some comments on this a few pages back but they do seem to go with the proper Counties rather than the modern administrative ones.

Well in the interests of accuracy I think if I were to record an even happening in Kilsyth today I'd put North Lanarkshire as that is what it comes under today.  Actually in my case Ancestry keeps trying to change all my Kilsyths to Kilsyth, Fayette Co, West Virginia

[dowdstree]

I had one guy many years ago who had my great granny married and living in Dundee - husband and kids were correct. He also had her hopping over the Atlantic to visit her "other" husband and having fictitious kids with him.

She had enough to do in Dundee with a husband who liked a drink and 13 of a family.

I know my facts are correct as the lady in question is my Avator and I knew many of the family including her son - my grandad.   

Dorrie