Author Topic: Ancestry tree rubbish  (Read 77585 times)

Offline bevj

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,095
  • Robert Paterson 1866-1909
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry tree rubbish
« Reply #414 on: Wednesday 12 June 19 21:19 BST (UK) »
Slightly off-topic, but am I the only one who thinks that their latest banner phrase hawking DNA kits 'BRING YOUR DAD'S BACKSTORY TO LIFE' is really horrible?
It just sounds awful to me.


Bev
Weedon - Hertfordshire and W. Australia
Herbertson, Congalton, Paterson - Scotland
Reed, Elmer - Hunts.
Branson - Bucks. and Birmingham
Warren, Ball, Jones - Birmingham
Fuller, Bourne, Sheepwash - Kent
Brittain - Beds. and W. Australia

Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,226
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry tree rubbish
« Reply #415 on: Wednesday 12 June 19 23:31 BST (UK) »
My Irish grandmother's date of birth is different in baptism register to civil birth registration. D.o.b. in baptism register was a few days before baptism so I consider that is more likely to be correct than the birth registration several weeks later. Her father probably registered her birth when he was in town for the market and was likely more concerned about the price of pigs than the particular date his daughter was born. One of her younger sisters doesn't seem to have been registered. He also neglected to buy a dog licence and was fined.
I was looking at baptism and birth registration of the only one of her sisters whose birth was registered. Different dates of birth in baptism register and civil register. Birth of youngest sister wasn't registered.
My GM married a man whose 1st wife had same 1st name as her and was born in same month of same year. I put all the correct births, marriages and deaths on my Ancestry tree. However, when I looked at the Life Story, 1st wife had been resurrected for the census after she'd died.  ??? 
Cowban

Offline BashLad

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry tree rubbish
« Reply #416 on: Thursday 11 July 19 17:57 BST (UK) »
Records are only as reliable as the people writing them. I came across a death certificate with a date of death of the 13th and letters of administration dated 31st today. And this is here in computerised 2019.
WHITEHOUSE- Bromsgrove, WANE - Eccleston, TOWERS - Blackburn & Ribble Valley, COLLINGE - Rawtenstall, THOMAS - Penzance, Whitehaven, Haslingden.

Offline steve100

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry tree rubbish
« Reply #417 on: Sunday 01 September 19 11:51 BST (UK) »
I recently came across an Ancestry tree, from a lady in America with my grandfather in and a word document I had written about him attached to his name, when I looked they have his sister in the tree three times, her name was Harriet Agnes, but they have her as, Harriet, Agnes, and Harriet Agnes plus a brother under two names! Also they have my great grandfather married to the wrong woman, with a correct photograph of my great grand parents  headstone, which clearly shows her maiden before marriage, not the one in her tree! All part of the thousands of names she has in her tree.
Census Information Crown


guest189040

  • Guest
Re: Ancestry tree rubbish
« Reply #418 on: Friday 13 September 19 12:25 BST (UK) »
Ancestry Trees are only going to get worst and worst by a huge margin.

We get the hints and potential Fathers and Mothers which are very dubious.

Most of my hints bear zero relationship to the person the hint is about with many being before or after their actual birth or death.

The potential F and M’s are just from other Ancestry Trees which in most cases are unproven.

If a careless Tree builder accepts these questionable hints these in turn will be presented to others as hints who will also accept them.

The less you have on Ancestry the better.

Offline dowdstree

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,785
  • Mary Malcolm - 1860 to 1945 - My Great Granny
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry tree rubbish
« Reply #419 on: Friday 13 September 19 12:38 BST (UK) »
That's why I have my tree private and have the hints turned off.

Happy to share information with anyone who is serious about their research but am wary of giving access to my tree.

Dorrie
Small, County Antrim & Dundee
Dickson, County Down & Dundee
Madden, County Westmeath
Patrick, Fife
Easson, Fife
Leslie, Fife
Paterson, Fife

Offline bevj

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,095
  • Robert Paterson 1866-1909
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry tree rubbish
« Reply #420 on: Friday 13 September 19 20:47 BST (UK) »
I don't have a paid sub for Ancestry but do have a tree on there.
Yesterday I saw I had no less than 14 new hints for a distant relation called John Selwyn Lloyd.  Despite the surname, he had not a drop of Welsh blood in him, he lived all his life in Birmingham.  His middle name Selwyn was his mother's maiden name.
Not one of these 14 hints was even close.  I had a couple of John Henry Lloyds, some John Lloyds born in Lancashire, some on the census in Wales and one Henry Lloyd in Wales, with not even a John in his name.
Needless to say I gave the negative feedback for all 14 hints   ::)
Bev
Weedon - Hertfordshire and W. Australia
Herbertson, Congalton, Paterson - Scotland
Reed, Elmer - Hunts.
Branson - Bucks. and Birmingham
Warren, Ball, Jones - Birmingham
Fuller, Bourne, Sheepwash - Kent
Brittain - Beds. and W. Australia

Online BushInn1746

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,740
  • George Hood, born Selby, Yorkshire 31st Jan'y 1847
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry tree rubbish
« Reply #421 on: Thursday 19 September 19 15:51 BST (UK) »
email from Geneanet ...

"Are you sure that you don’t have any errors in your family tree?

Are you sure that you don’t have any errors in your family tree? No individual whose date of marriage is later than date of death? No woman whose date of death is before the date of birth of their child?


Offline Forfarian

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,845
  • http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ruz/
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry tree rubbish
« Reply #422 on: Friday 27 September 19 17:07 BST (UK) »
Cumberland and Westmorland no longer exist except as historical entities.
True.

But as almost all the records you need for family history were made before the abolition in 1975, you need to use the historic counties, not the trendy new boundaries.

Banff is in Banffshire. Not in Aberdeenshire. End of.
Never trust anything you find online (especially submitted trees and transcriptions on Ancestry, MyHeritage, FindMyPast and other commercial web sites) unless it's an image of an original document - and even then be wary because errors can and do occur.