I am so upset .....

[Erato]

"I don't see it as collecting ancestors which I then possess, I see it as shedding light on my ancestors. "

I agree.  Moreover, we do not own our ancestors.  They are historical figures, albeit usually minor, unsung figures.   Anyone is quite free to investigate them for whatever reason.  My grandmother is somebody else's great aunt or second cousin twice removed.  Or maybe someone just finds my grandmother to be an interesting person.  In fact, her life has been used as an example of the evolving attitudes of female missionaries.

[MollyC]

The root of the problem lies in the conventions of academic research.  Family history research is just that, although many enthusiasts are unaware of it, and have never brushed up against the "rules" which govern it.  Researchers are expected to review what has been published previously, present their own findings and draw conclusions, then include a list of sources.  The sources should include primary sources, which family history is generally good at, and also secondary sources - i.e. other people's work in the field, which Ancestry never explains, and has allowed it to become a free-for-all.

In the academic world you would not get far by behaving like this, and most people expect better manners, but there are those who do not understand it and Ancestry does nothing to educate them, so this is the result.

[Ruskie]

It’s not Ancestry’s job to educate. They don’t care what people put in their trees, as long as they get subscribers.

[MollyC]

Exactly.  Which is why I do not subscribe.

[sprintexec]

It’s not Ancestry’s job to educate. They don’t care what people put in their trees, as long as they get subscribers.

Seriously. Is there no validation on Ancestry?

[Steve3180]

Seriously. Is there no validation on Ancestry?

None that I've ever seen. It appears to be some sort of whoever shouts the loudest wins process.

Unfortunately it's too useful to not subscribe. I used to have to go to Edinburgh and into the depths of the City Chambers to access Cemetery records, I can now do it sitting at my desk, this alone is worth the subscription.

I just have to accept that along with the usefulness is all the cr*p we have been discussing here. The only people who can fix this are Ancestry but money rules there these days so it isn't likely they'll do anything.

[ggrocott]

The root of the problem lies in the conventions of academic research.  Family history research is just that, although many enthusiasts are unaware of it, and have never brushed up against the "rules" which govern it.  Researchers are expected to review what has been published previously, present their own findings and draw conclusions, then include a list of sources.  The sources should include primary sources, which family history is generally good at, and also secondary sources - i.e. other people's work in the field, which Ancestry never explains, and has allowed it to become a free-for-all.

In the academic world you would not get far by behaving like this, and most people expect better manners, but there are those who do not understand it and Ancestry does nothing to educate them, so this is the result.

Which is partly why as someone who has done 'proper' historical research in other, non related but historical areas, I always attach my sources, shove stuff in the comments and notes sections and don't at this stage make my tree public, quite apart from the fact that I don't want pictures copied and ascribed to the wrong person.  Always happy to help other people with their research and very grateful for the assistance I have received over many years of trying to expand the tree but very wary of promulgating incorrect information - I have seen enough of it widely copied in other areas I have researched.  When sharing information with other people I often say 'I believe' and the equivalent of 'this is why' rather than 'this is fact'.


[/quote]

Seriously. Is there no validation on Ancestry?
[/quote]

As far as I can see Ancestry do absolutely nothing to validate any of the information they publish - why would they? The old adage of 'caveat emptor' applies to any information on there - they are simply selling a product after all. I agree it is too useful not to subscribe, when I can afford it, and the hints, which seem to have got better are useful.  I just check them all, against the originals and the information I already have, before accepting them.

[jaywit]

Yes Ancestry are only in it for the money but I don't think we have got to the bottom of how any one can easily grab a whole tree and add it on to their own.

This what is so annoying when you have spent years, probably some when there was so much less information online and checking everything to find someone who obviously not done the research grabbing it without even asking your permission.

[Biggles50]

Yes Ancestry are only in it for the money but I don't think we have got to the bottom of how any one can easily grab a whole tree and add it on to their own.

This what is so annoying when you have spent years, probably some when there was so much less information online and checking everything to find someone who obviously not done the research grabbing it without even asking your permission.

We have certainly not bottomed out how a whole tree can be copied verbatim.

I have no idea how that could be done, well I do, but that is outside my technical capabilities to create a program to copy the whole tree like for like.

I have had images borrowed, which is a tad annoying as I have the original photo album.  The really really annoying thing is that some of them have applied them to the wrong family members in their tree.