Ancestry family trees full of lazy errors

[Erato]

"A mere name collector ...."

In other words, someone who has a different evidentiary standard than you do. It's sort of like accepting a 'preponderance of the evidence' as opposed to demanding proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

[coombs]

"A mere name collector ...."

In other words, someone who has a different evidentiary standard than you do. It's sort of like accepting a 'preponderance of the evidence' as opposed to demanding proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Amazes me how you quote what others say by just quoting the phrase instead of which user typed the original post. Sad but true that several people on do just take an entry that "fits" as the right one. I always just leave it in mind but carry on until I can prove or deny it, and sometimes that is not always easy to do.

[Erato]

There's no need to waste space quoting 200 words when only four of them are the subject of the comment.

[majm]

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.

"A mere name collector ...."

In other words, someone who has a different evidentiary standard than you do. It's sort of like accepting a 'preponderance of the evidence' as opposed to demanding proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Amazes me how you quote what others say by just quoting the phrase instead of which user typed the original post. Sad but true that several people on do just take an entry that "fits" as the right one. I always just leave it in mind but carry on until I can prove or deny it, and sometimes that is not always easy to do.

Surely there is a significant and valid difference that coombs had commented on.  Clearly it was more than a four word sentence. 

Surely it is fair and reasonable for coombs remark about the less than adequate standard they have observed from name collectors.   I am sure that family history buffs do not demand proof beyond reasonable doubt, rather it is a standard to strive for, but appreciate it cannot always be achieved.  However, I am also sure that family history buffs don't just go about collecting names ... surely family history buffs actually involve themselves by investigating, researching, checking if something is chronologically possible, or otherwise feasible.  To me, name collectors are not family history buffs.   

Family history buffs strive for quality rather than quantity in their record keeping.   Who would want to share their family history papers if those papers are full of names and nothing but a collection of names. 

JM

[Guy Etchells]

"A mere name collector ...."

In other words, someone who has a different evidentiary standard than you do. It's sort of like accepting a 'preponderance of the evidence' as opposed to demanding proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

No a name collector is the insult directed against genealogists and family historians by archivists who object to having to allow such amateurs access to "THEIR" records.
What many current genealogists do not realise is the struggle earlier genealogists and family historians had to go through to gain access to records. How they were put to the back of the queue so that the professional researchers were served first.
By using that word today genealogists are insulting those who have gone before them and opened the archives to what they are today.

Leave insults to the bigots it has no place in family history!
Cheers
Guy

[chris_49]

Agreed Guy.

Ages ago I started a thread asking "how do you define a name collector" because I 'd seen the phrase used without any indication of its meaning. I'd wondered if it applied to someone like me who researched collateral lines (almost all after 1837/1841 where there is more evidence) becaue I'd not been able to get very far back with direct ancestors.

Discussion went on for ages: https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=698504.0 without any conclusion, except for Guy's post similar to the one above, suggesting we shouldn't use the term.

I agreed that we shouldn't, but none of the suggested alternatives took off, so people carried on using n___ c____

[Erato]

"I found a possible marriage to her first hubby in 1810 "

If that were my relative, I'd do exactly what Coombs did:  make a note of the possible marriage and hope that additional records will one day become available that will confirm it or disprove it.

In fact, I have one major branch of my tree that I can't be sure of; I'm somewhere around 90% certain that it's correct but there are still those niggling doubts.  It's the one thing that has almost convinced me to submit my DNA because that could potentially solve the issue.  In the meantime, though, I just consider them to be likely ancestors.  I keep that branch as a separate tree unconnected to my main tree.  If I ever get proof that satisfies me, I'll graft it onto the main stem. 

But, accepting one marriage event on rather skimpy grounds doesn't make someone a "mere name collector."  It just means that their standards of evidence are different than Coombs's.   Barring a tiny newspaper announcement, I have no documentary evidence that my parents were actually married but  that's good enough for me.  I don't need any further evidence than my own personal knowledge/experience for that event.

[Draith]

I call them grave robbers and kin thieves personally. I used to contact them, politely offering the actual information they were seeking, but most were not interested. I used to get upset that they were not interested in the truth. Now I just laugh at their lazy stupidity and move on.

[majm]

"I found a possible marriage to her first hubby in 1810 "

If that were my relative, I'd do exactly what Coombs did:  make a note of the possible marriage and hope that additional records will one day become available that will confirm it or disprove it.

In fact, I have one major branch of my tree that I can't be sure of; I'm somewhere around 90% certain that it's correct but there are still those niggling doubts.  It's the one thing that has almost convinced me to submit my DNA because that could potentially solve the issue.  In the meantime, though, I just consider them to be likely ancestors.  I keep that branch as a separate tree unconnected to my main tree.  If I ever get proof that satisfies me, I'll graft it onto the main stem. 

But, accepting one marriage event on rather skimpy grounds doesn't make someone a "mere name collector."  It just means that their standards of evidence are different than Coombs's.   Barring a tiny newspaper announcement, I have no documentary evidence that my parents were actually married but  that's good enough for me.  I don't need any further evidence than my own personal knowledge/experience for that event.

Not having a paperwork trail showing a formal marriage for your parents has absolutely nothing to do with name collectors.  The main reason any researcher seeks out formal marriage documents is to obtain the family history information recorded on those documents - Your own personal knowledge/experience as to your own parentage  leads you back to who were your parents - whether they were formally married or not makes no difference to who were your grandparents, great grandparents, great greats and so on. 

Having access to parish records, or civil registrations are a traditional tool for family history buffs in western cultures.  But whether there is an extant record readily available does not change who were your ancestors... ☺

Name Collectors don't seem to be concerned with recognising that someone born in 1600 could NOT have died in 1900 ... or a female born in 1780 could not have given birth to a child in 1781 or in 1890 ... or a person born in England in 1540 could not have migrated to Sydney, New South Wales, Australia in 1788 or to San Francisco, in 1904....  Or a male born anywhere in 1820 could not have been Killed In Action in WWII... 

Someone (a name collector) has an online tree (unsourced) that has my maternal grandmother as born somewhere in Wales in the UK in 1811.   She wasn't.  She was born in New South Wales, Australia in the 1880s.  I know because she told me so. 

In the late 1950s she introduced me to genealogy. 

I am absolutely sure she would say "Fools" and "Let them waste their energy on hogwash" "dogs chasing their own tail" ...  I am sure, because she told me so. 

I sent just one polite message to that tree owner, asking if they would like a copy of the bdm certificates from the Registrar General's Office of New South Wales.    The tree suddenly went 'private' and I have not ever had a reply... could be 15 years or so ago...  ☺

JM edited for spelling, grammar and clarity.