Ancestry tree rubbish

[Edward Scott]

I spent a few days 'correcting' place names so that firstly Ancestry recognised them and that they also fitted their requirements.

So Westminster (of political infamy) needs to be shown as" Westminster, Middlesex, England" as one needs to go back to the historical county. Same reason that the Ridings are irrelevant and the county is Yorkshire. Cumberland and Westmoreland, amongst others, also reappear. Some places are 'moved' back to their former counties so Bournemouth goes from Dorset back into Hampshire

[Finley 1]

for Hinckley Leicester/ Warwicks read America -- why not

xin

[Edward Scott]

for Hinckley Leicester/ Warwicks read America -- why not

xin

Which we all know should be Hinckley, Leicestershire, England

The probability is that someone just typed Hinckley

[BumbleB]

for Hinckley Leicester/ Warwicks read America -- why not

xin

Which we all know should be Hinckley, Leicestershire, England

The probability is that someone just typed Hinckley

Yes!!!  And if you type Cowes - you might get Cowes, Isle of Wight, or Cowes, Phillip Island (Australia).  Howick =  Northumberland, Kwa-Zulu Natal, or New Zealand?  Melbourne, Derbyshire, or Australia.  Etc, etc, etc, etc.

We all know what WE mean, but how do we ensure that the internet knows? 

Unfortunately not everyone is a mind-reader, and we shouldn't blindly blame Ancestry or any other on-line facility

[Edward Scott]

for Hinckley Leicester/ Warwicks read America -- why not

xin

Which we all know should be Hinckley, Leicestershire, England

The probability is that someone just typed Hinckley

Yes!!!  And if you type Cowes - you might get Cowes, Isle of Wight, or Cowes, Phillip Island (Australia).  Howick =  Northumberland, Kwa-Zulu Natal, or New Zealand?  Melbourne, Derbyshire, or Australia.  Etc, etc, etc, etc.

We all know what WE mean, but how do we ensure that the internet knows? 

Unfortunately not everyone is a mind-reader, and we shouldn't blindly blame Ancestry or any other on-line facility

Ancestry are not at blame, they needed a standard. Perhaps making their expectations a little more obvious would have helped, however as I said a few posts back "it is the lack of thinking “is this possible?”"

Offline in FTM everything looks fine, it was only when I looked at my tree online that the place name issue became apparent. It is quite likely that other FTM users never look at their trree online and wouldn't see the odd results.

[Finley 1]

In the earlier days of my tree making on Ancestry --- I did just put a quick Leics.. to suit me.. never thinking it would be any bother... Until I discovered the History Pages and found half my ancestors swimming across the channels.. .. I wrote about it on here  some time ago -- I gathered them up as best I could (still working through ) and now I havent got strange people in A.N. other country.


but as for my Shenton area of Wykin and Hydes Pasture  Hinckley.. it changed borders once upon a time hasn't always been Hinckley Leicestershire..
they pushed it over a bit... I think  -  so  some of my Hinckley people were born in Warwickshire.. all helps of course...




xin

[pharmaT]

for Hinckley Leicester/ Warwicks read America -- why not

xin

Which we all know should be Hinckley, Leicestershire, England

The probability is that someone just typed Hinckley

Yes!!!  And if you type Cowes - you might get Cowes, Isle of Wight, or Cowes, Phillip Island (Australia).  Howick =  Northumberland, Kwa-Zulu Natal, or New Zealand?  Melbourne, Derbyshire, or Australia.  Etc, etc, etc, etc.

We all know what WE mean, but how do we ensure that the internet knows? 

Unfortunately not everyone is a mind-reader, and we shouldn't blindly blame Ancestry or any other on-line facility

Ancestry are not at blame, they needed a standard. Perhaps making their expectations a little more obvious would have helped, however as I said a few posts back "it is the lack of thinking “is this possible?”"

Offline in FTM everything looks fine, it was only when I looked at my tree online that the place name issue became apparent. It is quite likely that other FTM users never look at their trree online and wouldn't see the odd results.

I partly disagree.  Whilst any algorithm to generate hints will throw up hints that are wrong I think there should be something programmed into the algorithm to discard hints that are completely impossible such as someone marrying at ag greater than 150, buried before they die, having children before they are born etc.  I'm not trying to suggest that researchers shouldn't double check and verify because absolutely they should but the number of absurd hints is ridiculous

[pinefamily]

I agree with Pharma T. A while back, Ancestry's hints and suggestions in the records weren't too bad, now even there you get ridiculous possibilities sometimes. So while we can talk of algorithms, I think the algorithms have gone backwards instead of improving. A lot like their site in general. Does anyone else suddenly get taken to ancestry.com instead? I do in the middle of a search, quite randomly.

[Treetotal]

Yes I have had the site change to Ancestry.com...most annoying.
Carol