Ancestry Public Trees

[g eli]

I have been doing a lot of work checking my tree for mistakes and inconsistencies. I have found a lot of people that have only another family tree as their validation. I don't use other family trees, I will look at them and check for ideas which I then check, I don't import the trees. The ones I have found are mostly very distant relatives.
Is this coming from Ancestry or is it individals.

[Ray T]

Other people’s trees can be useful for harvesting information providing you check that the information is correct. Unfortunately, many people don’t do this and incorrect information tends to spread like a rash from one tree to another.

The surprising thing is that many of the people who do this have no interest whatsoever in learning the truth so I’ve given up suggesting corrections.

[CaroleW]

Lots of posts on RC reporting errors in trees.  People tend to just copy them so the errors are then duplicated on numerous other trees.

Baptisms before the child is even born
Wrong parentage
Wrong BMD dates
The list is endless

Whilst some trees may be very well researched - if they are then copied and the person copying then adds incorrect info to them - you can see where that would lead

[Andrew Tarr]

The surprising thing is that many of the people who do this have no interest whatsoever in learning the truth so I’ve given up suggesting corrections.

Very true.  Usually the difficulty is deciding what may actually be 100% certain, which is partly why so many tree builders choose the truth they are happiest with ? 

[coombs]

I have found people sloppily adding and accepting hints for someone born in 1650 who is on the 1861 census, or people fathering children in infancy etc, or women having children in their 80s etc. Or a John and Mary Smith having children in rural Suffolk in the early 1700s, and someone has added an Ancestry hint for Mary dying in Dorset in 1730 because the burial transcript/record says is "Wife of John Smith". In the early 1700s there were hundreds of married couples called John and Mary Smith across the UK.

As we know once you get back to the late 1700s you start to hit murkier waters due to parents of people born around that time likely dying before the 1841 census, which was the first relatively useful census. You need to look for more compelling evidence to prove a link between families or someone is the same person. And much of the time you cannot find the definitive evidence.

[Albufera32]

The first thing I would point out is that Ancestry trees, and find my past trees, or Geneanet, or even someone's painstakingly and carefully researched tree on an offline program are secondary sources.

Rely exclusively on secondary sources and you simply amplify errors.

All too many Ancestry trees are also made by people with only a vague interest in family history, or worse still by those who are more interested in finding a "famous" ancestor than finding their actual ancestors.

Furthermore, many people don't really understand the hint system, and assume, entirely falsely, that Ancestry is performing some spectacularly clever and widespread search of the entire population and "finding" their ancestors, rather than, as it actually does, suggesting possible ancestors based on a number of factors including, crucially, other people's trees.

Another problem which undoubtably exists with Ancestry trees is the rather misguided belief that "x many people can't be wrong" which often leads people to accept a hint simply because so many other people have the same match in their trees. Many people all making the same mistake may indeed be unlikely, but if they all just copied one person's mistake, it isn't unlikely at all.

Having said all that, there are literally millions of trees on Ancestry, and whilst many are indeed sadly inaccurate, some are very well researched indeed, and sometimes even an inaccurate tree can have that one little grain of truth that helps you with your research.

The old adage "never judge a book by it's cover" applies here in my opinion. Seemingly ridiculous errors may be no more than a typo (turning a death in 1869 into 1896 for example or worse, a birth in 1894 into a birth in 1849 before the mother's own birth). Others may simply be down to lack of "tech savvy" resulting in for example a series of duplicates of the children from different census results. You may know that a couple in your tree had ten children - dismissing a tree which gives them 44 might just mean you dismiss the eleventh child you didn't know about, who is duplicated 4 times along with the ten you did. Whenever you find a tree which overlaps with your own, I would suggest taking the time to study it. If the tree seems riddled with errors, treat any new information with extreme caution, but don't just dismiss it without checking.

Ancestry trees are just one possible source - and like every source they may lead you astray or they may provide the missing clue that breaks down that brick wall. Study the tree, make the judgement call to pay it heed or leave it be. Just don't ignore it without checking.

[Andrew Tarr]

A comprehensive survey of the possible errors in Ancestry trees - but without mention of the less obvious ones in more 'primary' sources  which may appear equally often with apparent credibility !

[Albufera32]

Of course, primary sources, such as birth, death and marriage registers, are only as accurate as the knowledge (or honesty) of the informant allows.

Even primary sources may be incorrect, which is why it is normally regarded as the gold standard to have a minimum of three pieces of evidence. In an ideal world, those would all be irrefutable, but sadly when it comes to family history even the most apparently reliable sources may be complete fiction.

Quite apart from the obvious case of a father registering a birth completely unaware of his wife's dalliance with the milkman, both marriage and death registers may be incorrect either because the informant deliberately lied or made an honest mistake (which in turn may just be a lapse of memory or simple ignorance).

Primary sources are certainly not guaranteed to be accurate. In an ideal world, all sources should be backed up by further evidence, and three sources is often considered the minimum standard, but in the messy world of family history research, three reliable sources may not be easy to find. Even if you have three statutory registers of birth death and marriage they may not quite agree and there may be a question as to the reliability of an informant's information. Ultimately it is still a judgement call much of the time - do I consider these sources adequate proof that this is the correct person to fit in my tree?

The point I was actually trying to make is that Ancestry trees are sources just like any other (secondary sources, but sources all the same) and like any other source, it is necessary to make a judgement of how much weight they should carry. Whether you consider the information from an Ancestry tree reliable enough to add into your tree as valid is, ultimately, down to your judgement.

In summary of both my posts here, what I am really saying is - an Ancestry tree is a source like any other (secondary) source.  Please just don't dismiss what might be the one clue to solving that obstinate brick wall without even looking just because it comes from an Ancestry Tree. Check the source and make the judgement call.

[nestagj]

I recently spoke to someone who has a tree of over 4000 people all added in the last few months, we are trying to see our common ancestor and on stdying his tree found someone who I knew was a third cousin to me; I asked how does "Joe Bloggs" fit in your tree and the reply was who ? I don't have anyone of that name - I screen shot the section as he doesn't just have Joe but his parents and grandparents.    I got very frustrated by that.
N