Ancestry family trees full of lazy errors

[Jackiemh]

Just another one for you.
I am looking into Rose Overton who married Cornelius W Murray (or William C) in 1904 and found a tree on ancestry that has one b1517 Clerkenwell, d1579 Clerkenwell but married 1853 in London!
A ghostly bride perhaps?
Jackie

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

It's not just trees, it's registering DNA kits, I have so many male name/female icon matches and vice versa I created a group called 'gender query' which now has around 200 names from a match list of around 20,000. I can go for a week or two without a new one to add then five turn up in a couple of days, as the frustration grows the comments I add tend to become more sarcastic. It does little to inspire confidence knowing they can't/won't correctly register a kit to look at any potential tree that my exist.

I had a really odd one earlier, an existing female match said to be 'self' to a new male match who appeared today. If they have identical DNA they can't be different genders so someone is telling porkies somewhere.

[valk]

We know what to expect with a hint from an Ancestry Family Tree but it is the hints relating to Geneanet that really annoy me as  they are made to sound like an official source when they refer to the usual ragbag of poorly researched trees.  Equally annoying are the one name studies and 'xxx family' associations which sound more official than they are.   I have people in my tree for whom I disagree on their parentage with literally hundreds of other trees.  I just continue to give my reasons in the small space provided and ignore everyone else.  Today, I ignored 40 trees and went with my own research because of the name of a sister given in a will. 

[coombs]

If I have an illegitimate ancestor, ancestor sibling or cousin, or a direct ancestor who had a baseborn child before marrying, often Anc trees will have the man the mother married a year or two, or even more, later as the father of the child. It is possible of course but only DNA may reveal or deny that, or any documents such as bastardy bonds/maintenance orders etc.

My ancestor's sister born 1833 had a illegitimate child in 1851 in Braintree. In 1857 she wed 30 miles away in Great Burstead, South Essex, and the new husband was a few years her junior, he was born 1838. Yet many other trees on Anc have the man she married in 1857 at the bio father of her baseborn child born 1851. Highly unlikely, he was only 13 in 1851 and was born and raised 30 miles away from Braintree. Of course he was a father figure, as he wed his mother when her son was a child.

[tillypeg]

  I have people in my tree for whom I disagree on their parentage with literally hundreds of other trees.  I just continue to give my reasons in the small space provided and ignore everyone else.  Today, I ignored 40 trees and went with my own research because of the name of a sister given in a will.

Well said, Valk, I totally agree with your comments.

[Wexflyer]

It's not just trees, it's registering DNA kits, I have so many male name/female icon matches and vice versa I created a group called 'gender query' which now has around 200 names from a match list of around 20,000. I can go for a week or two without a new one to add then five turn up in a couple of days, as the frustration grows the comments I add tend to become more sarcastic. It does little to inspire confidence knowing they can't/won't correctly register a kit to look at any potential tree that my exist.

I had a really odd one earlier, an existing female match said to be 'self' to a new male match who appeared today. If they have identical DNA they can't be different genders so someone is telling porkies somewhere.

Just watch Chinatown! (the movie)

[Jebber]

I don’t usually bother looking at the hints unless they are very close relations, so many are ridiculous.

 Today I did view several as they were for my paternal grandfather’s first wife and one of their six sons, one relating to his wife who is clearly married on my tree, was supposed to be  her death the other her probate. Both hints were for someone with the same common maiden fore and surnames. The probate even states  the deceased was a spinster.

The first hint for the son had him listed as a house holder at one year old. The other was was for someone with  a similar name  sent to prison for Larceny when Henry would have been only six years old. 

Most of the  hints I find are just as illogical,. When you reject hints Ancestry want you to explain why.  I dread to think how much time I would waste  if I followed them all  up.

[coombs]

I have to laugh sometimes at the ridiculous hints. TBF some of the hints are accurate but many are not. A hint that was accurate took me to finding out my Oxford born great gran spent time in a Hackney convent.

It is the hints for an 1851 census entry for an ancestor who I know died in 1831. Or a burial hint in London for an ancestor who I know full well died in Suffolk.

[Biggles50]

It's not just trees, it's registering DNA kits, I have so many male name/female icon matches and vice versa I created a group called 'gender query' which now has around 200 names from a match list of around 20,000. I can go for a week or two without a new one to add then five turn up in a couple of days, as the frustration grows the comments I add tend to become more sarcastic. It does little to inspire confidence knowing they can't/won't correctly register a kit to look at any potential tree that my exist.

I had a really odd one earlier, an existing female match said to be 'self' to a new male match who appeared today. If they have identical DNA they can't be different genders so someone is telling porkies somewhere.

It would be good for us if during the Kit Registration Process they were presented to complete a Basic Family tree of the Person supplying the sample for the Kit, their Parents and Grandparents.

It would give us a fighting chance of linking to them.