Ancestry family trees full of lazy errors

[lydiaann]

I'm just joining this party.  I had intended to ask a question but it appears that some of it may be covered by this topic.  My question was going to be:

I seem to have come to a dead stop in my 5 different trees...most have stopped in the 18th century and one in the 17th.  I am a bit of 'an anorak' in wanting to have documentary evidence when I enter a name.  In a couple of cases, after long discussion with others, I have used asterisks by a person's name in the hope that, when others read them, they will go to the comments section and see my and others' reasoning for putting that particular person there without the usual certificates etc.  However, I seem to have run out of steam...not even hints or others' trees to help.  There are a couple of instances where I think there may be some currency in entering a name...should I go ahead and do my usual **this may be wrong, but....**, or should I leave it for a load more records to come on line?  Would there be any value in going sideways and back (if possible)?  Or should I use another tack in all of this.  Small branches in the main tree, but separated, if you get my drift seem to abound - although I have to say that I did manage to connect 2 of those 'branch lines' over the past year.  Is this the way to go?  It seems that many of us have the same predicament to a lesser or greater extent.  It is very frustrating!

[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.'

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

Sorry Guy but how would you know who are modern genealogists and who may have been doing their FH for decades as well as you? You can never make assumptions about someone online. You do not know these people in person, and no doubt ever will.

[pharmaT]

I have been accused of being "just a name collector" because I have "too many people" in my tree.  I like to research collateral branches of my tree (and bring them forward) for the following reasons:

1. I want to learn about the lives of my direct ancestors and I consider how many children or siblings my direct ancestors had to be part of their lives
2. IME researching siblings can help find out information on your directs.  For example my4x grt grandmother was left homeless when my 4x grt grandfather died meaning they lost their tied house.  At the next census she was living in a nice cottage and listed as being of private means.  I only discovered how this came about when I researched one of my 4x grt uncles and found out his mum was awarded his military pension on his death.
3.  I'm addicted to research and researching collateral lines gives me more to research when I hit all the brick walls in my direct line.
4.  I find it fascinating to see how diverse the descendants of my direct ancestors are and selfish though it is I want to remain interested in what is my only hobby.

Disclaimer: these are MY personal reasons for the way I do MY tree, I do not ask that others do their tree the same way but would appreciate not being called names.  I DO NOT research collateral lines to cause offence to others only for my personal enjoyment

This leaves me with a dilemma. I want it to be as accurate as possible but I have a lot of big families in my tree so I can't be accurate AND keep my tree to what people consider an acceptable number of people.  Several times in the past i have come close to deleting my whole tree to appease proper researchers.  However I have not yet been able to bring myself to wipeout over 20 years or work and expense, I realise that is selfish but it it difficult to do all that work then just discard it.  As for numbers, I have over 100s of people without going to the grt grt grandparent level.

[DianaCanada]

Genealogy for most people is a hobby.  Many of us want to share what we find with our families but often they are not that interested. 
My reasons for being involved in this hobby are basically the same as PharmaT’s.  I love researching the collateral lines even more than going way back, just seems more personal somehow, more tangible…hard to explain.  Also more sources to peruse!
If someone wants to collect names, so be it.  How someone pursues a hobby is their choice. They should be careful though about sharing what they have found, being sure that it is accurate.

[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

Sorry Guy but how would you know who are modern genealogists and who may have been doing their FH for decades as well as you? You can never make assumptions about someone online. You do not know these people in person, and no doubt ever will.

You totally miss the point Coombs, the term was first used by archivists as a derogatory term of abuse against genealogists trying to access records that would prove their assumptions.
Records that were created, despite what those same archivists claimed to allow those very genealogists to prove their family lines.
The ignorant bigoted archivists were wrong on so many counts.

I am not making assumptions, the mere fact that those genealogists or family historians were presenting themselves at archives seeking records holding the details they requires shows they were seeking a paper trail of evidence, that is not an assumption.
Cheers
Guy

[coombs]

Oh yes Guy, I have myself had to deal with some difficult archivists in my time as well. And often have had to trawl through endless pages looking for evidence to build my family tree. One archivist at one archives said the records I was after did not exist yet the actual catalogue of their records proved otherwise.

That is why I go to record offices, to get proof of evidence, and to try to trace the lines back further.

[ThrelfallYorky]

I've greatly enjoyed finding "real" records, and fossicking around in various Records Offices, over the year - and I also enjoy using "Ancestry", and of course like most of us here, am well aware that many people really don't fret themselves to check sources, or even apply common sense, sometimes.
If they wish to make errors, fair enough. If I choose to try and provide the correct information, fair enough. I don't "have" to accept their errors, and they do not have to accept my "corrections". I wouldn't offer them up unless I was absolutely certain, and had proof...
BUT.... it was via an online source that I was given a massive clue to where a missing Anderson ancestor of my OH , with his mother, had emerged from. (Hev: I'm sure they won't be "yours") Names had been changed ( to protect the guilty), and people had moved around the country for nearly half a century, under a false family name. Unearthing the change of names provided myself and another, completely different family, who had "mislaid" a male ancestor at the same time. The two and child had hooked up under another name, and  I was given a clue ("It might be relevant - same christian names for child, age and place of birth given online....") and we found the male concerned was actually buried under his original surname, so at least one of his sons knew it!
That helped a lot, with a very difficult line. But I couldn't accept it until I'd gone thoroughly through each stage, and traced all the people involved in both chronological directions, to make a true record.
Online sources are valuable, especially for those not able to visit record offices in person - and especially for us all, during the long lockdown. But I can not get highly worked up over other peoples' errors, nor their refusal to accept advice,  or their apparent obsession with gathering huge numbers of people to their trees. (I've actually had a lot of fun moving along fraternal lines in different generations, when I'd nothing much else to do)
I think "LeedsHipPriest69" might relax a little.

[coombs]

I was wearing gloves as you normally do when handling original documents, but once got to touch the 1802 removal order for my ancestor and his 2nd wife. The removal order was repealed as his wife was too ill to travel to Redlingfield from Framlingham, Suffolk. She died in October just 3 months later. She was 62.

[LeedsHipPriest69]

Thanks all for replies, I certainly wasn't expecting such a varied response, nor so many replies.

I take on board all the comments, and like many others use the online Ancestry community as a way into potentially solving brick walls in my own tree, not as a replacement for not doing my own research.

Cheers, Paul