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

[JBee]

Recently visited my great aunt's grave in the US and noticed she'd taken 8 years off her age lol. Must run in the family cause my Mum knocked 2 years off hers lol.

[PhotoFamily]

Recently visited my great aunt's grave in the US and noticed she'd taken 8 years off her age lol. Must run in the family cause my Mum knocked 2 years off hers lol.

Seems like a lot of my ancestors, usually the women, but not exclusively, took years off their declared age. And the next census, it would be a few more!

[Sylvia C]

My mother's parents added years to their ages when they married in 1902 :D

I'm not quite sure why, 'cos they were still underage with the adjusted ages! Grandmother said she was 20, and Grandfather said he was 19 ;D

Grandfather also celebrated his birthday on the wrong day ........... he said it was December 25th 1884, and we always had to go to their house to visit him. That wasn't easy after we moved to the other side of town. It took 2 buses, one into town and then the other out on the other side .......... but they often didn't run on Christmas Day so we had to walk.

After he died, we discovered that his birthday was actually January 9 1885

All I can think of is that his parents had moved his birthday back by 2 weeks so they didn't have to buy 2 lots of presents!

[ahavita]

My mother's parents added years to their ages when they married in 1902 :D

I'm not quite sure why, 'cos they were still underage with the adjusted ages! Grandmother said she was 20, and Grandfather said he was 19 ;D

Grandfather also celebrated his birthday on the wrong day ........... he said it was December 25th 1884, and we always had to go to their house to visit him. That wasn't easy after we moved to the other side of town. It took 2 buses, one into town and then the other out on the other side .......... but they often didn't run on Christmas Day so we had to walk.

After he died, we discovered that his birthday was actually January 9 1885

All I can think of is that his parents had moved his birthday back by 2 weeks so they didn't have to buy 2 lots of presents!

But,you have to remember, in XIX c they used 2 calendars, gregorian and julian ( I'm not quite sure in english is the same names).... It was ca 2 weeks between....
Maybe your grandfather was right Joanna

[Olde Crone Holden]

ahavita

There was only one calendar in existence in the 1800s in the UK. The two calendars were merged in 1751/2.

One reason for the discrepancy in the birth dates is that there was a fine for not registering a birth within six weeks, so if the registration was late, the parents often adjusted the birth date to avoid a fine, so his birthday may well have been 25th December! Buying two lots of presents wouldn't have been a factor in the 1880s.

OC

[ahavita]

If he was born in UK, ok. But Sylvia is from Canada and her grandfather was born .... Were he was born? :/ Joanna

[Olde Crone Holden]

Oh, I had no idea Canada operated two calendars, sorry!

OC

[ozgirl]

Interesting page giving all the info of when countries changed calendars (including why Sweden once had a 30th February)

http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/gregorian.php

[Anne in Carlisle]

But none of the calendar changes have any relevance to people allegedly claiming to be ancestors born in 10AD!
Anne

[Olde Crone Holden]

As you were everyone! Canada didn't operate two calendars in the 19th century.

OC

[atanerk]

Thank you, Sylvia C

Yes, in retrospect it's quite apparent that other people's trees have led me astray. Thanks for your prompt, helpful response.

[atanerk]

You haven't traced your family members, you have copied other people's trees and that is not research. All tree hosting sites have a wide selection of rubbish trees on them and that is because it is impossible for the host to verify every tree submitted to them.

No professional genealogist would ever copy someone else's tree.

OC

But I am not a professional genealogist. And I have not made my tree public - it exists solely on my own computer. And, as AntonyM suggests, I never intended to present my tree to even my own family until I knew what was verifiable and what was not. So all is well.

[atanerk]

... I haven't just scooped up someone else's tree.
OC

"scooped up someone else's" sounds a bit like "pilfered". Surely you're not suggesting that I am somehow taking credit for someone else's work, or doing anything dishonest, unethical, inconsiderate or rude, are you?

[Sylvia C]

My grandparents were both born in Lancashire, as was I

and Canada was far too much British and French back in the late 1800s and early 1900s to be anything other than in line with one or other of those countries!



OC ............. you may be correct about the 6 weeks. I've just checked his birth certificate, and the birth was registered on the 21st February

I hadn't thought of that as a reason until you mentioned it. DOH!

[ahavita]

Ok,sorry 25 Of December is much better as another dates. But.....less gifts;) Joanna

[Olde Crone Holden]

ahavita

You are taking offence where none was intended!

We are all amateur genealogists on here, with one or two exceptions. I was making the point that even if we are amateurs we should aim for standards of research which are laid down by the professional bodies. Otherwise we run the risk of being led astray by poorly researched trees on the internet. And if we all used the same high standards of research then there wouldn't be any fantasy trees to worry about!

"Scooped up someone else's tree" referred to MY work, not yours. I am not accusing you of anything. If I was, I wouldn't hint, I'd use the unequivocal words so that there would be no doubt.

OC

[TrevorFranklin]

I have some trees up on Ancestry.
They are MY trees, created as a way of storing information as I find it, with the target to double check further at a later date.
The tree has undertaken a number of corrections additions as I or others have provided confirmed information.
Just because someone has put a tree on Ancestry is NOT saying it is correct, so more fool anyone who takes information and does not even have the decency to contact the person that they have taken it from to share information.
I was contacted by one so called 'expert' who noticed I had an obvious error on a twig I had not fully checked, who then took it onto themselves to insult me with comments about my quality of research.

If I were publishing a book on the subject (And I am looking to do this for the Pursgloves of Southern England someday), then I would expect every single entry to be fully investigated, but Ancestry is there to HELP amateurs in the genealogy field connect to others who may be researching the same tree, by encouraging collaboration, those who expect it (like Wikipedia) to be 100% correct are fools, even transcriptions by experts have errors that I have provided corrections for.

[PDennis]

I can agree with what everyone is saying and give an example, I have mentioned in the Forum before about a great grandfather who's parents, grandparents I can't find due to lack of information on my great grandfather, but someone who also seems to have him as a relative in their tree has given him parents and grandparents, yet he is not listed anywhere within the family that they have added to their tree, I got in touch and queried it with the tree owner and she said that was who she thinks are the parents etc., of my great grandfather, (granted she did say she could be wrong) the family she has added is actually in The Peerage and although it would be nice to think that I come from these people, he is not mentioned anywhere in the information. As it cannot be confirmed, I will not add him to my tree and I have asked a genealogist to take a look at this branch of my tree for me, I am waiting to hear back from him and will pass any information on to the other family tree owner.

[Sylvia C]

My trees on ancestry are now both private, and can be seen by others only after they have contacted me, and proved to me that there is indeed a very strong likelihood of there being a connection between us.

I made my main tree private about 10 years ago ...... and even that does not have anywhere near the full complement of my father's ancestors on it, partly because I know that there is someone else building a massive tree that includes one branch of mine and she does "acquire" information willy nilly. I will share with her .......... but only under strict conditions!

However I had forgotten that I had set up a very small tree, just 2 names .......... my great aunt and her husband. She was my maternal grandmother's older sister and married at the same church the day before my grandparents. Three days later, they sailed from Liverpool to New York, and lived in Newark NJ for the rest of their lives. I'd set up the tree until I had managed to find the husband's family, and determined where the couple had lived etc etc., then forgot all about it!

She was my mother's godmother, and my mother was named for her ...... I knew her vicariously because Mum used to receive letters from this American aunt up until the mid-1950s.

About 18 months ago, I got a leaf tip that I had a match with another tree

I did ................ with my great aunt and her husband!

The tree owner had taken them without my knowledge or permission and added them to his tree ............... as the parents of some of his ancestors.

It turned out that the parents he was looking for had the same names as gt aunt and husband, were born and married in Lancashire and then emigrated to Newark NJ .............. but around 1820 or so :D

He had them as parents of children born over 75 years prior to their own births

I left a comment on his tree ......... and he was a "good guy". He read the message, and deleted gt aunt and uncle within 3 days.

That little tree is now also private ........ and I haven't got that much further with tracing back the husband's family as he has a very common name. I have all the information after they arrive in Newark, except for actual dates of death (which have to be around the mid-1950s), including the fact that they did not have any children.

[wulliam]

Looking at it from the other point of view, my tree is freely available online (with living people removed of course) so that folk who stumble across it in their own research can get in touch. Inevitably there have been some time-wasters but mostly it's been good. I got a contact last week who researches as thoroughly as I do....and between us (her looking at it from the English side of the family, me from the Irish perspective) have linked all sorts of things together, including finally proving to our satisfaction that we have a common ancestor who fought at Waterloo.

I would never have made nearly so much progress if so many kind people amongst the time-wasters hadn't got in touch.
If people want to waste their time adding details from my tree to theirs then that's their problem. My tree isn't on Ancestry though - it's on my own site.

At one time I did deliberately put a false twig on one branch so that I might catch people out...;)