Ancestry tree rubbish

[JohninSussex]

 . . .
families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
. . .

That is not impossible!
My eldest sister was born 10 months 11 days after me.

That was one of my list items.  My idea (to the extent that the list was serious  ) was that the total number of such unlikely/impossible events on a particular tree could be used as a measure of its reliability.  Another example would be where the date of baptism has been taken as date of birth, so a girl apparently giving birth aged 14 might actually be 19 or more but was baptized later not as a baby.

[Rosinish]

families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)

That is not impossible!
My eldest sister was born 10 months 11 days after me.

That has to be impossible 

Surely she must be your younger sister if she was born 'after' you?

Annie

[Maiden Stone]

families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)

That is not impossible!
My eldest sister was born 10 months 11 days after me.

That has to be impossible 

Surely she must be your younger sister if she was born 'after' you?

Annie

There's bound to be an online tree which has them as twins.

[macwil]

families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)

That is not impossible!
My eldest sister was born 10 months 11 days after me.

That has to be impossible 

Surely she must be your younger sister if she was born 'after' you?

Annie

No. I also have another younger sister, therefore the first sister is the eldest sister, but not my elder sister as that would mean she was born before me.

MS,
LOL but no doubt true.

[pharmaT]

Is it really bad that this thread has made me contemplating creating a new tree on ancestry starting with my grandfather, blindly following hints to see what happens.  ie see how bizarre a tree it creates.

That is very naughty, but I like it

On a more "serious" note should a series of new threads be started for the worst rubbish entries on Ancestry trees?

Such as (based on the list started by JohninSussex):-

persons born before their parent(s)
persons born with parent(s) younger than childbearing age
persons living to between 125 and 346 years of age
persons who married aged under 10
person whose parent is also their child
families whose children were born on different continents
families with children born at unlikely intervals (less than 11 months between births)
people who are baptised after they have been buried
people dying or being buried more than once

Edward

I do know of a few siblings born between 9 and 10mon apart. In fact I know of a set of triplets born just short of 11 mon after their older brother.  Imagine, 4 under 2. 


I did once have someone on my tree baptised in 1828 and died in 1880.  Only I made a typo when I entered the baptism and had it at 1882, oops.

[JohninSussex]

I did once have someone on my tree baptised in 1828 and died in 1880.  Only I made a typo when I entered the baptism and had it at 1882, oops.

That was where my 'died age 346' came from.  It was on one of those Web pages generated from a GEDcom file.  The person's date of death had been entered as (let's say) 1971 instead of 1671.  As it was not a person central to the owner's tree, and there were no children listed, they probably never carefully looked at the entry, but it actually said died aged 346.  Maybe still does.

[coombs]

I admit if the dates and places are OK I may take inspiration from the trees but I always double check for myself to make sure.

On the flip side I have found a few trees which have people marrying on the opposite side of the country to where they usually lived and actually checked for myself and found it was true. For instance a couple from Devon who married in Suffolk, their first child born there according to the census then they went back to Devon.

[pharmaT]

I admit if the dates and places are OK I may take inspiration from the trees but I always double check for myself to make sure.

On the flip side I have found a few trees which have people marrying on the opposite side of the country to where they usually lived and actually checked for myself and found it was true. For instance a couple from Devon who married in Suffolk, their first child born there according to the census then they went back to Devon.

Not entirely impossible.  My 3x grt grandfather was born in Ayrshire.  He met my 3x grt grandfather just outside Inverness.  He then went to India before returning to Ayrshire where he settled and eventually died.  I know this is right I have followed using birth places on census, newspaper articles, his employment records and family letters that have survived over the years.

[lydiaann]

And what about those trees that have someone marrying 3 or 4 times, having huge families with each spouse, and all during the same 30 years - more often than not, at the same address.  I cannot believe that the Mormons were alive and well and living in Lancashire in the early 1800s...