Ancestry family trees full of lazy errors

[dowdstree]

Yes, many of the tree owners just copy each other without searching for their own proof.

One of my great aunts supposedly went to Australia, married and had a family there. Details of her parents and siblings and their families were correct. When I politely contacted the tree owner who originated this misinformation I was told in no uncertain terms that they had the correct information. Great Auntie had never married or had children.

Oh dear I must have been at the wrong funeral with the rest of her family 

Only one example

Dorrie

[coombs]

I have seen hints that I have dismissed on my hints for my tree that have been accepted by others who share the same ancestors. Shows how complacent people can be, they are just name collectors or just take hints as gospel if it is the same name and age group.

[pharmaT]

I honestly cannot bring myself to be bothered about other trees on Ancestry.  If someone contacts me and I feel they have a mistake I will tell them.  Otherwise I don't bother.  Although I frequently get annoyed with Ancestry the state of contributors trees isn't one of them, I'llstik to getting annoyed at them for poor transcription and assigning documents to places that are not mentioned on the original documents.

I had 1000s of sources for my tree but for years I didn't have any of them attached to my Ancestry tree.  A lot of it was laziness but I did take criticism on board from previous similar threads and started the task of logging them on my tree.  As more than 50% of my sources were not from ancestry it is a time consuming task.  I got a bit bored and frustrated (yes I know that is selfish and lazy) so took a bit of a break but I will need to get back to it soon.  It will take months even when I do restart as i have multiple boxes of sources to work through.

[AntonyMMM]

On-line trees can, just occasionally, provide a valuable hint or piece of information that a family member has that can really help further your research. Sadly that is quite rare and it is so disheartening to see your own direct family members connected to the wrong ancestors when you have spent years establishing the correct line.

The problem is that your painstakingly researched and verified  tree may be competing against numerous incorrect ones, each copied from each other, sometimes by people using a free 14 day trial, accepting every hint they see and then having "done" their family tree they never log in again (and certainly won't respond to any messages).

There is a saying, supposedly originally said about wartime propaganda, that ..

"repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth” .....

that is the real danger in these trees.

[coombs]

On occasions I have contacted a tree owner to ask where they got the info from as I myself cannot find any confirmation of these people being the right parents, and often they do not respond to messages, even after it says they have read them. Oh well it is their loss. Perhaps they do not like it when someone is possibly questioning their work.

[davisd]

Sometimes it's so laughable that I get great amusement from it. Some real howlers out there. One encounters careful researchers as well as careless researchers.

If I think they are serious and I have clear evidence they have made an error I will occasionally send a message. I've found people to be polite on the whole.

[coombs]

Yes sometimes they accept blatantly wrong Ancestry hints for someone who died in 1780 aged 65 as being on the 1851 census. Unless the enumerator enumerated his remains in his grave. 

[DianaCanada]

Just yesterday I got an Ancestry hint - the marriage of a 3x great grandfather to his first wife.  I’ve known for about thirty years that her name was Margaret/Peggy but now I have her maiden name and their marriage date.  His second wife was my ancestor, would love a hint that revealed her parents.

[coombs]

I have 2 ancestors who were not born in county (Middlesex and Oxfordshire) in 1841 and died before the 1851 census, one had a very common name. The other one I found a possible marriage to her first hubby in 1810 but the original says she was a widow, and as she would have only been about 19 or 20 then, she'd have to be a young widow if it is the same marriage. If it isn't then I cannot find any other likely marriage, and she had her last child in 1828 so I have no evidence of her maiden surname or origin. I have plugged away but still found nothing, apart from her witnessing a marriage a month after her eldest son married. I am thinking it will be impossible to find her any other way but autosomal DNA testing, which may give a clue. Sometimes it can be frustrating not being able to get back any further, as you are so curious as to where they were born if they said not born in county in 1841 and died before 1851.

A mere name collector would put the 1810 marriage as gospel, due to it being the only likely entry.