Excited then suspicious

[quiffdo]

Hello everyone

Last night i finished work about 2.30 in the morning and when i got home i checked GR as i had some matches on there i wanted to check.
Anyhow to people had replied to my messages about one of my lines.

They had all the information i had on that line but with info i didnt have, they also had gone back to 1575 and i was well chuffed.
I checked both their tree's and i went from being happy to dubious as there was only vague info on there and no occupations.
Ive politely asked them how they obtained their info and am now waiting on their reply's.

They seem to have children for all these marriages going back to 1575 but no hard evidence.

Danny

[MarionH]

Will be interested to see if you get any replies with sources - anyone I have contacted on there either regarding sources either hasn't replied (if I have asked for their sources) or tell me they found it from another connection on GR!

[quiffdo]

Fingers crossed they do have sources (not all from IGI)
I have checked on GR for other matches with new info and one lady does match and ive seen some of her earlier posts and she seems to be accurate so i have messaged her to check it out.

Danny

[MarionH]

Have everything crossed for you - hopefully it will all be sourced and lead to one of those happy breakthroughs

[Rachel Scand]

How many people do they have in their tree ?


If it's tens of thousands, they're probably not worth bothering with

[quiffdo]

One has 692 and the other has 351.

However i did have a contact from about a year ago and he has some of the same people in his tree with same spouses but different fathers etc.... and he seems the most reliable.

I dont think ill take any of there info and carry on researching the line myself and see what i come up with.

Danny

[Christine in Herts]

I tend to make a note of the info that's there, but not actually include it unless it's at least plausible - particularly if it would have meant any amount of other stuff depended on it. In any event, I make very sure that the source of the info is noted!

Then I can go back over the same ground on my own account, if necessary to prove/disprove it.

Christine

[Mary from Italy]

I wouldn't worry too much about the lack of occupations - they're not shown in early parish records.

[KiteRunner]

Sometimes if you upload your tree as a GEDCOM to GR, some of the info may not make it into the right places, so it could be that the original tree had occupations on but they got lost in the upload process?

[quiffdo]

Ill copy down the info as you suggest and carry on and see if i can prove/disprove.

However im not going to take it as gospel.

Danny

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

I was rather annoyed when a GR contact told me some info on my tree was wrong.

I have the certs and census records etc etc. He got his info from some individual's website, which just said X was married in 1880 (wrong year) to Y (wrong bride) and they had four children (one of the four listed was actually the child of X's brother!). No sources on that website, so why should it be right and me wrong? Oh, apparently because someone taking the bother to put the information on their website would have gone to the trouble to check what they said was correct, wouldn't they??? The evidence I had was of no consequence!

Rant over!!

[BC]

This is a ' regular ' I found one on Ancestry - wrong marriage partner. The bride had the same name as one of mine but a slightly different d.o.b. Sent message telling tree owner he was wrong and had given the bride ' my ' person's parents etc. resulting in him muddling 2 trees. Result - NOTHING! Incorrect info: is still there.

[Margaret in Burton]

I've just had a contact via Ancestry. She has two brothers marrying the same woman on the same day. One guy who married two different people in the same era when in fact they are two different men and the right one died in 1846.
She also has places of birth down as a place in UK and a place in USA, the same name for the town, all at the same time as though they kept hopping across the Atlantic.

I have pointed out only one of the errors but have yet to hear back from her.

Her tree looks like a lots of merged trees that haven't been checked at all.

It's an open tree on Ancestry full of living people and children