Ancestry tree rubbish

[pharmaT]

Sounds like one smelly body!

[Top-of-the-hill]

   I don't use Ancestry, but Findmypast have started putting up "Is this the same person" suggestions, to which the answer is mainly "No".

[aalphart]

This works better anyway.

[Rosinish]

what happens to simple common sense?

I think that's been transcribed wrongly 

Once you join certain sites it...becomes nonsense 

Annie

[Flattybasher9]

If Ancestry had less of these spurious entries, would they have as many members as they have? I do not think so. The spurious entries makes the public think that Genealogy is easy, and tracing their ancestors is a cheap hobby. It's only when the curious starts taking tracing ancestors seriously, they find that it's not so easy, and can be quite expensive in time spent and financial costs. That is why, you see so many small public trees which have been suddenly left/dropped for some time. But Ancestry has had the subscriptions' so it's doubtful that they will change things. The same reasons seems to go for the "Newer" DNA side. How many accurate results can actually show direct links between family members or localised origins?

Malky

[clairec666]

Surely Ancestry could add a feature which warns you if you try to enter a baptism date that is AFTER the date of death? Just a few extra lines of code would do it...

[JohninSussex]

Surely Ancestry could add a feature which warns you if you try to enter a baptism date that is AFTER the date of death? Just a few extra lines of code would do it...

Of course that would be simple, several programs I'm aware of, including Family Search trees, have checking features for illogical dates.
But rather than simply warning someone who clearly isn't interested in reliability, what about Ancestry warning visitors to that tree?  When you click on a public tree they could put up a screen which says something like.

This family tree has been grown by user @iamanidiot, not by Ancestry.  This tree contains 787 names, and appears to feature:
* 4 persons born before their parent(s)
* 3 persons born with parent(s) younger than childbearing age
* 11 persons living to between 125 and 346 years of age
* 3 persons who married aged under 10
* 1 person whose parent is also their child
* 12 families whose children were born on different continents
* 10 families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
Ancestry does not rate private trees for accuracy but the above may guide you when reviewing the contents.

[Treetotal]

Oh Dear....One of my ancestors lived to be 127 years old according to one tree
Carol

[clairec666]

Surely Ancestry could add a feature which warns you if you try to enter a baptism date that is AFTER the date of death? Just a few extra lines of code would do it...

Of course that would be simple, several programs I'm aware of, including Family Search trees, have checking features for illogical dates.
But rather than simply warning someone who clearly isn't interested in reliability, what about Ancestry warning visitors to that tree?  When you click on a public tree they could put up a screen which says something like.

This family tree has been grown by user @iamanidiot, not by Ancestry.  This tree contains 787 names, and appears to feature:
* 4 persons born before their parent(s)
* 3 persons born with parent(s) younger than childbearing age
* 11 persons living to between 125 and 346 years of age
* 3 persons who married aged under 10
* 1 person whose parent is also their child
* 12 families whose children were born on different continents
* 10 families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
Ancestry does not rate private trees for accuracy but the above may guide you when reviewing the contents.

That would be brilliant