Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Online trees with mistakes - now I know why!

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

  • Online trees with mistakes - now I know why!

    Last night I corresponded with a man who had my gt-gt-grandmother on his tree. I suggested that he had recorded her as born and died in a different county from where she lived, although she consistently gave the correct place of birth in each census return. He had an image of a baptism entry from the wrong county and no name for the mother, despite the images for both the baptism and parents' marriage being available online.
    Today he responded and thanked me for pointing out "errors" - and added that he would greatly welcome any more that I cared to point out, as he didn't have time to check the information on people he put on his tree, apart from his direct line. He said that if he spent time checking everything, then he would only have got about 300 people on his tree, rather than the 3,200 he now had entered.

    Perhaps he has a point - If I spend time notifying him of all the other "errors" I'd seen, then I wouldn't have time to add to my own tree!
    ;D

    Jay
    Last edited by Janet in Yorkshire; 28-04-18, 19:02.
    Janet in Yorkshire



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

  • #2
    Originally posted by Janet in Yorkshire View Post
    He said that if he spent time checking everything, then he would only have got about 300 people on his tree,

    Jay
    Yeah. my mother has a genetic match on Ancestry. The tree owner has >30000 people in it. When contacted and asked how she knew various relationships/people in her tree, she said she just adds them based on what her contacts had told her. Her tree was very useful, however with the info on her direct line/shared ancestor!

    Comment


    • #3
      Haaaaaa!

      I once had a similar response from someone who had over 28,000 people on his tree. He was, he said, far too busy to check every single name and relied on the people whose names he had accepted, to have done their research thoroughly and accurately! Yes, don't we all.

      OC

      Comment


      • #4
        Daft isn't it ,whats the point, just to say you have lots of names in your tree

        Comment


        • #5
          Good one.
          Similarly it is amazing how many researches cling on to a major personality, in this particular case an Admiral who became an MP. Despite my offers of copies of a will for the correct man, I gained from Kentish studies which disproves this beyond doubt, whilst the Admiral's provides no names recognisable in our branch, no one has taken me up on the offer. So there are pictures of marble plaques continually being shared and uploaded.
          If they took the time to follow the correct line in detail there are a wealth of interesting and pioneering people.
          Fortunately though I have also found a wealth of other people researching shared ancestors. who like myself like to follow a life lived when we can and we have a happy time sharing documents not found online and speculating on all sorts of possibilities, although not accepting this as truth unless it can be verified.
          e.g Was my Grandfather a spy?.... there you go, and before you ask it was a cousin who raised the question.
          Bubblebelle x

          FAMILY INTERESTS: Pitts of Sherborne Gloucs. Deaney (Bucks). Pye of Kent. Randolph of Lydd, Kent. Youell of Norfolk and Suffolk. Howe of Lampton. Carden of Bucks.

          Comment


          • #6
            There used to be a member on GR that I butted heads with frequently ........... in fact, he was once banned from contacting me on there!

            But he collected names, and then complained when he had trouble loading his GR tree with over 30,000 names on it.

            He was at one time convinced that we had a link ............ I refused to open my tree to him so he could prove it. I was convinced that we were not linked, and had the proof

            He finally left GR about 2 years ago, complaining bitterly that it was no longer functioning because he was having trouble accessing his tree or adding names to 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


            • #7
              At an earlier stage in my research, I included a line descended from an illegitimate birth circa 1800 which led to a family who went on the Mormon trek. In the end there was no proof of a connection and I removed that branch.
              Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

              Comment


              • #8
                I just found 18 Members Trees on Ancestry , with a family of mine, all wrong, they have obviously copied each other.

                Comment


                • #9
                  On the flip side, I had a contact a few years ago who said I had a mistake in my tree, he wouldn't tell me what he thought it was but suggested I make him an editor of my tree so he could correct me, but I didn't take up his generous offer. He's just come up as a DNA match so whatever the shortcomings on my tree we still related, lucky me.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jill on the A272 View Post
                    On the flip side, I had a contact a few years ago who said I had a mistake in my tree, he wouldn't tell me what he thought it was but suggested I make him an editor of my tree so he could correct me, but I didn't take up his generous offer. He's just come up as a DNA match so whatever the shortcomings on my tree we still related, lucky me.

                    another reason for me not to do my DNA ...... I might find that I was wrong when I thought that GR guy had nothing to do with my tree
                    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


                    • #11
                      I've been in contact with someone on Ancestry.com who has my Gt Grandfather Slade and my Grandfather too in her husband's family tree, plus lots of other of my own ancestors. I've asked several times how her husband is likely to be related to my Slades. I was told there is no blood line just lots of marriages, far too many for me to find the connection!

                      Now she's blocked me from sending messages, probably as I wouldn't tell her where my Gt Grandfather was born. I also suggested she or her husband buys BDM Certificates to prove their lineage otherwise they migh be tracing the incorrect family. Needless to say I got no reply from that message.
                      I also asked her to remove my Slade family's details as I cannot see how they are related to you husbands family. She has Slades from all over the place. 51,294 names in total for her husbands tree!

                      Now I see she has now placed a marker against my Grandfather's name which says..''I make no claim that this profile and information is correct please use with that in mind''.

                      All I wanted to do was help and see where the connection was.

                      The perils of copying other family trees..I wonder how many other have looked at her trees? Or how many other's have given her details who are connected to my tree? Mine is Private but I know people can see names etc., but they don't have the full story of their life.
                      teresa

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Playing devil's advocate here....

                        I have a tribal pages tree on which I put any Holden research I do, whether it turns out to be a genuine connection to me (rarely) or no known connection at all. I do this for several reasons:

                        It may attract a researcher who knows more and can provide further connection or confirmation.
                        It reminds me of what research I have done, even when there turns out to be no connection to me.I
                        It may be of use to other researchers, even those who are huffy when I say I have no connection!

                        I should say, the tree consists of my own primary research and is not copied from anyone else's tree, so in that respect I don't consider myself a name collector.

                        OC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I recently had a rant on another genealogy group about some incorrect trees I found, all perpetuating a line that has an ancestor who died in 1608 being the father of 4 children born between 1626-1632. His wife (whose year of birth is shown) would have been in her late 50's/early 60's at this point: surely a large indication that something isn't quite right?

                          What I can't understand is why ALL these people have blindly copied this info without someone stopping to think, hang on, surely there is a generation missing here?

                          The main problem being that, although there is a Will for the ancestor, there doesn't seem to be any record of his death or burial, and this is probably because there are no surviving records for his particular parish for that time period. So you wouldn't necessarily know to look for the Will, and thus miss out on some important family information. (Me, I love Wills so much I got copies of everything I could for this surname!)

                          Every public tree on Ancestry with this family has the same information, though with differing source details, so obviously have all been copied from one another. Some of them have made a right mess of the trees with more than this generation being mangled.

                          The original source one of them quoted is a user-submitted tree on the IGI. I can confirm the IGI data shows holds the same error: and I spotted this over 12 years ago, when it was a lot easier to distinguish between accurate records and those that were user-submitted.

                          This branch is at least connected, as there is a paper trail connecting a great grandson with the father of the man who died in 1608. It just bugs me no end that stupid errors like this continue to be perpetuated.

                          Incidentally. the primary source that most people quote for the earliest known ancestor of this line - a genealogy constructed in the 19th century - is also flawed. It's giving me a right headache trying to sort out accurate information, and establish where the original researcher may have confused 2 (or more) people with the same name, or got his generations mixed up because they were using the same set of names. But at least that pedigree quotes the sources, though most of them are pretty sketchy. And when a date is quoted he sometimes forgot to mention whether it was "alive in..." (ie gleaned from a Will or Hearth Tax or something) or "baptised in..." from parish records.
                          Last edited by Vicky the Viking; 06-05-18, 13:54.
                          Vicky

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                            Playing devil's advocate here....

                            I have a tribal pages tree on which I put any Holden research I do, whether it turns out to be a genuine connection to me (rarely) or no known connection at all. I do this for several reasons:

                            It may attract a researcher who knows more and can provide further connection or confirmation.
                            It reminds me of what research I have done, even when there turns out to be no connection to me.I
                            It may be of use to other researchers, even those who are huffy when I say I have no connection!

                            I should say, the tree consists of my own primary research and is not copied from anyone else's tree, so in that respect I don't consider myself a name collector.

                            OC
                            I see your pint there OC and good on you for adding to the Holden tree even if the individual does not connect directly to you. If there is a description attached to the tree that makes it clear what it contains, then folks have no right taking the huff.
                            However, I think what is partularly annoying Janet is the outright wrong and improperly sourced info on many trees that ends up being blindly copied by people who are not willing to accept the errors made. I bet your tribal pages Holden tree is not full of errors :o
                            Last edited by GallowayLass; 06-05-18, 16:11.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              somebody was advertising a group on FB for people that can connect to royalty. Thiks it called blue blood or something similar. Anyway thought I would take the opportunity to ask if there is any evidence that my earliest McKerrow is connected to James V of Scotland as its rumoured that he is an illegitimate child of his. I dont think there is any evidence but a few people have this on their trees. He sent me a link to a tree claiming it but where is the source? I have not yet joined. Was hoping maybe somebody else had their DNA and could connect.....

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I was having a quick look at my husband’s tree last night and one of the hints I had was for his Great uncle who died aged 5 in Cornwall, this American tree has him married and living in America. I know it’s the same person although it is a very common name.
                                Barb

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X