Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Ancestry.com for real, or just a scam?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    The thing I'm thinking is at least on Ancestry the tree is yours and can't be edited by anyone else. I am intending the put my trees on there publicly when I get round to it so they are there for posterity (maybe!!) and people can look at them and use them for hints or rubbish them, whatever they like. The tree will stay just as I made it.
    Anne

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Anne in Carlisle View Post
      The thing I'm thinking is at least on Ancestry the tree is yours and can't be edited by anyone else.
      Anne
      Yes, it remains as you made it, or at least by the standards that Ancestry.com has today (who knows what they may change in the future).

      But it's only available to Ancestry members. I came to the conclusion a while ago that one of the features that Ancestry sells are the trees that you and I develop. I found that very irritating.

      Now that Ancestry owns FindAGrave, people speculate that it could disappear. I doubt it - that's another feature that Ancestry includes for its members that the users do the development work.
      Last edited by PhotoFamily; 31-05-15, 14:19.

      Comment


      • #43
        I have not yet got any material on the internet at all so I would be treating Ancestry as a hosting facility to go public with my trees. I'm not asking people to agree with them! I just don't want all the years of work I have done to be lost when I'm not around any more. I know I could make a website of my own but it would disappear when I stopped paying the hosting fees. By that time I won't be bothered who "steals" my family and plenty of folks can tell a duff tree from one which has a lot of work in it.
        Anne

        Comment


        • #44
          It isn't so much that I mind people stealing my work (I do), it's more that I am trying to do my tiny bit towards keeping up the standards of research. I have several trees which are works in progress and are corrected and added to as facts arise. That's not a problem. What I do have a problem with is the trees which are simply blindly copied, rubbish and all, not a single hesitation or even the most rudimentary online checks. That is not family history research and I don't want to do anything to add to that laziness. No, it doesn't matter to ME if other people have complete fantasy trees but - as the OP on this thread has shown - new researchers tend to believe that everything on the internet must be true and that is the danger of rubbish trees. You soon learn, but in the meantime, it can take you down some winding paths to nowhere. Waste of time if nothing else.

          OC

          Comment


          • #45
            But what do you hope to happen to all your work when you shuffle off this mortal coil??? Or maybe you would rather have it all lost than mixed with rubbish?
            I keep asking these questions and not getting many suggestions! I'm not planning to go soon (LOL!!) but I do think (like making a will) we need to give it some thought ..... even if its just "That's OK it can all go in the bin"
            Anne

            Comment


            • #46
              Anne

              I've left instructions that my paper tree - which is the real, full tree - is to be offered either to SoG, or if they don't want it, to the County Records Office. That's if my family don't want it, of course.

              I think I'd rather it were lost than meaninglessly mixed with some rubbish tree, which is the same thing as losing it, really.

              OC

              Comment


              • #47
                Basically, if you see a tree on Ancestry and all it has is sources from other trees, ignore it.
                If it has sources that are actual records etc, contact them and collaborate.

                As for worrying about poor trees, that is what research is about, sorting the chaff from the wheat

                Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                It isn't so much that I mind people stealing my work (I do), it's more that I am trying to do my tiny bit towards keeping up the standards of research. I have several trees which are works in progress and are corrected and added to as facts arise. That's not a problem. What I do have a problem with is the trees which are simply blindly copied, rubbish and all, not a single hesitation or even the most rudimentary online checks. That is not family history research and I don't want to do anything to add to that laziness. No, it doesn't matter to ME if other people have complete fantasy trees but - as the OP on this thread has shown - new researchers tend to believe that everything on the internet must be true and that is the danger of rubbish trees. You soon learn, but in the meantime, it can take you down some winding paths to nowhere. Waste of time if nothing else.

                OC
                Avatar is my Gt Grandfather

                Researching:
                FRANKLIN (Harrow/Pinner 1700 to 1850); PURSGLOVE (ALL Southern counties of England); POOLE (Tetbury/Malmesbury and surrounding areas of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire (1650 to 1900); READ London/Suffolk

                Comment


                • #48
                  Trevor

                  I'd argue with you there. Research isn't about sorting the wheat from the chaff, it's about consulting original records.

                  Yes, of course look at published trees if you get stuck. My rule is: the first two pieces of info which are not backed up by any source, I check. If I cannot find any evidence then I abandon that tree as being of no use to me.

                  OC

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                    Trevor

                    I'd argue with you there. Research isn't about sorting the wheat from the chaff, it's about consulting original records.

                    Yes, of course look at published trees if you get stuck. My rule is: the first two pieces of info which are not backed up by any source, I check. If I cannot find any evidence then I abandon that tree as being of no use to me.

                    OC
                    Same here OC. Some of my family flagged up as hints on someone else's tree a couple of years ago. I had a look and was taken aback to see that they had copied a lot of members of my tree into theirs, including my photos. I did contact her in the hope of helping her to correct the mistake. I've just had another look and she's mixed even more of my tree into hers.

                    While amused, I'm also annoyed that it could set someone else off on the wrong track.

                    Now, if she's very wealthy and wants to leave me some of her millions, then that's a different matter.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Yes that's what I hate is knowing that someone has gone wrong because they've just copied someones tree and when enough people have done that then the wrong tree information is deemed correct when it isn't.

                      I have found on ancestry my own bfather died when he was 6 in the US - ERM he never went to the US and lived until he was 79 and had 4 children.

                      I have quite a number of private trees on ancestry and when I see a mistake connected to any one of them I try to help by providing information so they can correct their trees. With one person I wished I hadn't but still, another has partially corrected his tree but still left parents and siblings that I've not found any connection to.



                      Researching Irish families: FARMER, McBRIDE McQUADE, McQUAID, KIRK, SANDS/SANAHAN (Cork), BARR,

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        I find this care-less approach extremely disrespectful to those who have gone before. If one takes it upon oneself to post in a public place life events and details of people who are deceased and cannot respond for themselves, then I think that the very least one can do is GET IT RIGHT. Otherwise, it's like spreading gossip, or just as unproductive as playing Chinese whispers. Responsibility, courtesy and consideration spring to mind.

                        Jay
                        Janet in Yorkshire



                        Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          I agree, Jay, getting it right is so important. I am specially concious of this when entering the details of infants who died. I feel that by adding them to my tree they are still being remembered.

                          I know there is a huge amount of rubbish out there but I try to think as I would have done as a novice family historian. Even then I would have wanted to "get it right" and I don't think even for a moment I would have been mislead by the rubbish. Even a moment's thought shows it is unbelievable! My attitude will be (when I take the plunge and go public) that at least my information, in which I am pretty confident will be there, alongside the others for those who come after me and want to "get it right". Of course they may consider my work incorrect and if they have the proof I would be happy about that.

                          I have noticed that public Ancestry trees which have plenty of sources listed usually come at the top of the list when you do a search, so there is some hope there. the vaguer ones are further down the list.

                          Anne

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            Anne

                            I've been researching for more than 45 years now and I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone spotted that I had made a mistake and told me about it! Or even wanted to discuss it.

                            Mary Trafford died aged 4. It is on the internet. It's on familysearch, next to her baptism it says "died blah blah, daughter of blah blah". I have seen the original register. Yet more than 20 people claim to be descended from her. None of them can tell me where and when she married, all say "about 1751". One lady at least had the decency to discuss it with me but DOUBTED MY FINDINGS because, she said, the person whose tree she had copied, is a very good researcher. I cannot tell you how furious that makes me, when people don't even need to get off their backsides to check information, but don't. Now of course, it's 20:1 - who will the new researcher believe, the 20 or me?

                            OC

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              Ho hum. No easy answers!
                              Anne

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                Originally posted by Anne in Carlisle View Post
                                I agree, Jay, getting it right is so important. I am specially concious of this when entering the details of infants who died. I feel that by adding them to my tree they are still being remembered.


                                Anne
                                Somebody once told me that there are three stages in dying. The first is when you take your last breath. Second is when your body is laid to rest and the third is the last time your name is ever mentioned.

                                Comment


                                • #56
                                  I've told this story before, but it is a cautionary tale!

                                  My 2nd cousin D and my brother worked together in the mid- to late 1980s to research our mutual grandfather's family. Cousin spent many hours at Somerset House and at the Parish Churches in the 3 villages that were the "family home", poring through records, churchyards and parish registers.

                                  My brother kept me posted as to their findings right up to his death in 1990. I kept those letters.

                                  Cousin D eventually put together a 20 page booklet detailing all the family members descended from the joint ancestor who married in 1740. I was given a copy of this booklet by another of my cousins in Australia who had been able to visit the ancestral village on a trip back to England. She was actually D's aunt so had spent time with him. No-one has since managed to get further back, nor have they corrected very much of his work, it is amazingly accurate.

                                  I start researching in 2003, and discovered there was a One Name Study on the family name. Whoopee!

                                  Over the years, I had forgotten cousin's first name except that it began with D ............. the owner of the ONS was a D, so I assumed it was the same person. I contacted him, and made it clear who I was and that I had the letters from my brother detailing the work they had done together in the 1980s.

                                  I had no response from him, and just let it go after one more attempt.

                                  We went to Australia in 2006 and met up with the Australian family, who informed me that there had been a meeting of the family name in the early 2000s, organised by the ONS cousin. Somehow one cousin had been given a copy of a CD made for that meeting and given to every attendee. Her husband made a copy for me, and gave me the password to open it.

                                  When I looked at the CD a couple of years later, I discovered that my father had disappeared, my brother was "married" to my mother, and I was their child. The fact that brother was not yet 11 years old according to the birth date information seemed to have been completely missed.

                                  I immediately tried again to contact cousin through ONS, sending 2 International Reply Coupons to cover postage as required at that time, no response. I tried again, no response ............ so I emailed the Registrar of the ONS Group. He gave it 6 months (because I was overseas), then contacted the cousin.

                                  Cousin responded by removing his study from the group, and never contacted me.

                                  It took another couple of years before another 2nd cousin from that same family joined GR and got in touch with me. In "talking" together he told me that there had been a major rift between the 6 children for a number of years, partly caused by the fact that one brother had stolen all the family history work done by his older brother.

                                  Yes, they both had names that began with D, and yes, I had got them confused ...... and yes, I was the one who had the real proof that the work had been stolen and then put out by the second brother as his own work.

                                  And, yes ........... that blasted CD is still out there with my brother as my father. I've done my best to correct it, but I'm certain that I have not connected with many of the people who own it.
                                  My grandmother, on the beach, South Bay, Scarborough, undated photo (poss. 1929 or 1930)

                                  Researching Cadd, Schofield, Cottrell in Lancashire, Buckinghamshire; Taylor, Park in Westmorland; Hayhurst in Yorkshire, Westmorland, Lancashire; Hughes, Roberts in Wales.

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    And by consulting the actual records, you ARE sorting the chaff from the wheat, by ignoring incorrect information and making sure what you have is correct.

                                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                                    Trevor

                                    I'd argue with you there. Research isn't about sorting the wheat from the chaff, it's about consulting original records.

                                    Yes, of course look at published trees if you get stuck. My rule is: the first two pieces of info which are not backed up by any source, I check. If I cannot find any evidence then I abandon that tree as being of no use to me.

                                    OC
                                    Avatar is my Gt Grandfather

                                    Researching:
                                    FRANKLIN (Harrow/Pinner 1700 to 1850); PURSGLOVE (ALL Southern counties of England); POOLE (Tetbury/Malmesbury and surrounding areas of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire (1650 to 1900); READ London/Suffolk

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      I am still exploring WikiTree.com, but they claim to emphasize research, not copying. It is a wiki, so that others may edit the profile of each person - and, if disagreements exist that cannot be settled by inter-researcher-discussion, then there's supposed to be some sort of arbitration.

                                      Comment


                                      • #59
                                        Photofamily

                                        That sounds interesting, must have a look at that. There are a few major and persistent errors out there that I would love to be able to correct.

                                        OC

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          Very fed up with a line of mine that was being copied incorrectly by four others,reproduced on Ancestry incorrectly as well as some of the incorrect information in a book produced in the 1930's and which was being reproduced on Wikipedia also incorrectly, i let fly at the first "tree maker" a couple of months ago. This person then contacted me to find out what the correct information was. Well, I am in the process of doing a project on this line, and asked him to wait until I have finished it and I will send him a copy. I told him a few of the mistakes made and because we are now co-operating, he has told me a couple of things I did not know and he is finding other details himself that I already know, and is very keen to have the Wikipedia entry rectified. We have exchanged a number of e mails and hopefully all will be revealed for him when I have completed my project. This sort of co-operation can work if there us a will to do so. I tried to correct the Wikipedia entry myself, but they refused to do it as they said the information they used was contained within the 1930's book! I have the certificates, photographs, postcards and other family history to prove the lineage I have is correct!

                                          Janet
                                          Last edited by Janet; 15-06-15, 21:23.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X