Terrible Trees On Ancestry

[coombs]

Firstly I am not expressing a view in this following comment, just pointing out a few things. Sometimes when I find a tree that has tens of thousands of people in it, I think is that person obsessed, or just copying other records, or possibly committed and well-organized. In another thread, I was saying that I recently realised that to make sense of some of the bizarre names I find amongst my 8000 matches on my heritage, I realised that I need to know all of the 5th generation descendants of my ancestors. At my age, a mere 62 I might add, I realise that it is impractical to discover all of these fifth descendants of my 5th great-grandparents. If I find somebody who has done a lot of research into the descendents of one of my ancestors, there is a strong argument for accepting their research.

I'm not trying to put the cat among the pigeons, just expressing two sides of a discussion.

Martin

I always carefully examine timelines and any sources. As said, some of them just blatantly accept hints without checking them, a dangerous game. It starts people copying the trees and it leads to a vicious circle of erroneous trees. For example your ancestor was baptised in rural Cornwall as Joseph Bloggs, son of James and Elizabeth Bloggs in 1780, and an Ancestry hint has a James Bloggs wedding in 1790 (after the children's baptisms) to Elizabeth Smith, 300 miles away in Newcastle, and the tree user says "that is the best fit so it must be true.". And then a thorough researcher finds a marriage in 1775 in Cornwall in a nearby parish to where James' had his baptism in 1780.

[pinefamily]

That's a good point you have made, Martin. However, even a tree with sources needs at least some checking, as has been suggested. Otherwise, all of those trees linking the Dowdeswell family of Guiting Power to that of Temple Guiting would be correct. Most of them give the baptism as a source, they just haven't looked any further to find a corresponding burial, which rules out that child as their ancestor.

[Andrew65]

Some of the gross errors in trees (plenty of examples from previous posts) really are quite inexcusable.
Over the years I have become far more discerning about the information I put in my tree. I used to get quite frustrated with the errors, but then considered that it shows interest in maintaining and knowing ones history (even if it is wrong!) - and that cannot be all bad.
However I agree with Martins view that looking at trees with huge numbers of entries can sometimes be quite useful.
I have found that when reviewing and comparing trees on Ancestry, one little element of fact, or potential link I did not know, can send me down rabbit holes that ultimately lead me to changing details in my own tree that I had been convinced were correct, or to whole branches I was not aware of.
That is part of the joy and experience of this hobby.

[Jill Eaton]

I have found that when reviewing and comparing trees on Ancestry, one little element of fact, or potential link I did not know, can send me down rabbit holes that ultimately lead me to changing details in my own tree that I had been convinced were correct, or to whole branches I was not aware of.
That is part of the joy and experience of this hobby.

This has happened to me and I pleased that I'd followed up on what originally looked like an error on someone else's tree.

This however, can be a two-edged sword. There is a tree on Ancestry that has a potential ancestor which we share. They have been thorough and added their sources. But one troubles me. It's a link to the 1861 census. The name of our ancestor is correct as is his wife and the ages are pretty close. However, there are two and potentially three, children that should also be there. They aren't.
The 1861 entry has his town of birth in Ireland and his occupation as a soldier-pensioner living in St Pancras, London. All this information would be a gift but I don't feel confident to follow it up. It's
possible that the children were left behind in Ireland but the youngest would be 2 years old at most. With no 1861 Ireland census to check, whilst there is a definite possibility that this might be my ancestor, spending time checking Kinsale parish registers and military records could lead me seriously astray.

[coombs]

When there is an "alternative Birth" in a tree, that sets alarm bells ringing. I always check for myself anyway, especially when someone has a tree going back to kings and queens or links to famous people. It can still be peeving when you find the tree is erroneous and you are not related to your fave historical figure etc. It is natural to be excited when you think there is a link to historical figures but get miffed when it is disproven.

[Rosinish]

I've come to the conclusion in the last few days...people don't only copy from others' trees but they don't know where to put the people they copy...

I found a tree y/day with a chap in my line who apparently had 3 wives...

I know the 2nd (supposed wife) was a wife of a son of said couple but I haven't had time to work out who the 3rd (supposed) wife was but I know for sure there was only 1 wife & I have all the certs.

Why on this earth if they don't have the interest needed, do they bother at all then wonder why they have 'brick walls' 

Annie

[Gadget]

Not sure if this is the correct thread, but I've just done a tree search for a possible sister of a 3 x grt grandmother.

I entered

Sinah Tannat  - match slider to middle for surname
Born 1759 in Montgomeryshire, Wales - exact to place and +5 for birth date
I also included her husbands name  (Peter Foulks)

They gave me:

Pierre Antoine Dhondt
Born 1758 in Hem
Spouse - Amelie Joseph Bayart

[RJ_Paton]

Not sure if this is the correct thread, but I've just done a tree search for a possible sister of a 3 x grt grandmother.

I entered

Sinah Tannat  - match slider to middle for surname
Born 1759 in Montgomeryshire, Wales - exact to place and +5 for birth date
I also included her husbands name  (Peter Foulks)

They gave me:

Pierre Antoine Dhondt
Born 1758 in Hem
Spouse - Amelie Joseph Bayart

That would be close enough for some of them 

[pinefamily]

So it would seem it's not just the trees that are terrible.
Interestingly, every time I check the "exact" box I get zero responses, even when I know there is one there.