Find A Grave biographies

[smithkei]

I’m seeing more and more hints on Ancestry from FAG, which is good for information from the headstone. What I also see though are biographies with baptism, marriage and other information.

As I understand these are put together by the person who maintains that memorial.

Inexperienced researchers might then put that info to their tree even though it could be wrong.

I’m surprised Ancestry and FAG allow this. My view is that FAG should limit itself to what it says on the tin, or the grave.

[KGarrad]

So, not very different to Ancestry Trees?
Especially those built on Hints!

[aghadowey]

It's really more like Wikipedia than Ancestry in some ways in that anyone can add a comment or more details to a memorial (this is in addition to contacting owner with corrections or additional information).

[smithkei]

So, not very different to Ancestry Trees?
Especially those built on Hints!

Indeed. Problem is they self perpetuate and clog up your hints. The Ancestry through matches in DNA are the same, built on errors.

[martin hooper]

I don't use FAG any more. I was doing some research at one point and there was a lot of what I thought was new information for a person I was interested in. Well, it was new information but as far as I could see it was made up. No sources or references and I couldn't verify any of it.

Martin

[smithkei]

I don't use FAG any more. I was doing some research at one point and there was a lot of what I thought was new information for a person I was interested in. Well, it was new information but as far as I could see it was made up. No sources or references and I couldn't verify any of it.

Martin

That’s exactly my point. Ancestry own FAG now. I think they should stick to the primary source ie the grave and what is written on it.

[candleflame]

I regret I have found errors on so called biographies on FAG too. It’s a shame as it could be very helpful.

[Nick_Ips]

I don't use FAG any more. I was doing some research at one point and there was a lot of what I thought was new information for a person I was interested in. Well, it was new information but as far as I could see it was made up. No sources or references and I couldn't verify any of it.

Martin

That’s exactly my point. Ancestry own FAG now. I think they should stick to the primary source ie the grave and what is written on it.

Where do we stop though?  The information in the MI itself is not necessarily accurate (I've seen many errors over the years), and not necessarily even proof the person in question is buried in that location.

I find the FAG biographies fascinating and would miss them if they were removed.  On the other hand I treat the information as I do with anything similar on the internet... i.e. a starting point for my own research, not proof of anything.

[Biggles50]

Trust No-one.

I only trust my own research, if I have doubt I place a note in the digital profile explaining further.