Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taking tenuous to extremes...

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

  • Taking tenuous to extremes...

    Hello ;)

    I just noticed a public member tree on Ancestry which listed my father, including dates & places of birth, marriage & death, & occupation (slightly incorrect but no matter). I sent a quick email to the tree owner asking how she was related and got a very vague reply about him being a distant relative of her grandmother.

    A couple of emails later on I got the impression she had no clue whatsover what the link was, so after a half hour study of her tree with the help of FTM 2011 & a pencil & paper, I worked out that her grandmother was the 1st cousin 1x removed of the husband of the 3rd cousin 1x removed of my mother, and as such no relation whatsover to my father.

    I guess some poeople just like to fill in whatever blanks they can, but I still think this takes it a bit far.

    Liz

  • #2
    And why would she bother to enter that information on an ancestry tree. A relationship so remote and through a marriage. One wonders!!??!! Maybe it is the equivalent of vacation photos on Facebook. Some people download everything with no editing or comments. She must have downloaded another tree with no weeding out of unconnected bits. Is it laziness? or ??
    Donelda

    searching for the Berkshire Hobbises, Rowles, Staniford, Rogers, Parkers, Thackhams, Gouts, LeBouviers, Heaphys and Wilsons

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you for replying, I was starting to feel as if it were just me!

      Anyway, I emailed back thus:

      Oh I see, I have worked it out now. Your grandmother is the 1st cousin 1x removed of the husband of my mother's 3rd cousin 1x removed, which is why you have my father attached to your family tree!

      In case you are interested this makes you the 2nd cousin 1x removed of the husband of my 3rd cousin 2x removed...

      Kind regards etc...


      She has not replied, but I think I got my point across lol!

      Liz

      Comment


      • #4
        I think people just upload a gedcom they've downloaded from someone else's tree, without even looking at it, never mind checking any of the data.
        And if one should be foolish enough to point out an error - well!!!
        I've recently messaged an Ancestry treeholder because they've attributed the wrong set of parents to an individual. I've given them details of the lady's bp and of her two marriages, pointing out that each record gives the name of her father (not the name on their tree.) As the events took place in Norfolk, I've given them the link to the appropriate website and instructions on how to access the images of the PR. Seems they prefer to have an incorrect tree, however!!

        Jay
        Janet in Yorkshire



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

        Comment


        • #5
          In my database I have details of the second husband of my husbands great great great uncle's second wife, and of my sixth cousin three times removed, but I don't think I have put them on ancestry or GR (better go check, hadn't I?). Why do I have them ? Because I could find them, I guess. One day when idly wandering out among the branches of my tree I was just filling in blanks from the BMD records and whatever I could find in the newspaper archives. But it is my own work, and I can tell you the relationships. The only reason I would include them on my semi-public trees would be in the hope that someone else might be researching that part of the family as well.

          Di
          Diane
          Sydney Australia
          Avatar: Reuben Edward Page and Lilly Mary Anne Dawson

          Comment


          • #6
            I have found two people on Ancestry, one on OH's side, one on mine, who have added our grandparents and other family members to their trees, with huge errors and they are no relation at all to either family.
            I have emailed them both several times pointing out the fact that they are not related to our families, but they have ignored me, so now I just add comments to their trees, letting other people know that they are just name collectors.

            Comment


            • #7
              i once had a lady add my tree to hers, she added a line going back to the 1600's, but she was only related to a spouse in the late 19th century, this spouses grandmother in fact! so when i pointed out she wasnt related to the family she added, she clammed up pretty quick.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dicole View Post
                In my database I have details of the second husband of my husbands great great great uncle's second wife, and of my sixth cousin three times removed, but I don't think I have put them on ancestry or GR (better go check, hadn't I?). Why do I have them ? Because I could find them, I guess. One day when idly wandering out among the branches of my tree I was just filling in blanks from the BMD records and whatever I could find in the newspaper archives. But it is my own work, and I can tell you the relationships. The only reason I would include them on my semi-public trees would be in the hope that someone else might be researching that part of the family as well.

                Di
                I think I'm a bit like that with my recording. Sometimes that can mean I find things I would not otherwise have done. I don't think any of the very remote connections have themselves contributed to any of my trees.

                Christine
                Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

                Comment


                • #9
                  I've come across this a few times. Why on earth would anyone be interested in adding people who aren't their ancestors? It is beyond me. I found an Ancestry tree with one branch of my family but they had veered off in the wrong direction. When I told them, they were disinterested and it hasn't been updated. I have also noticed other Ancestry members have copied the wrong information too. Unbelievable.
                  Best wishes, Polly

                  Begley - St Helens & Liverpool & somewhere in Ireland; Foster - Liverpool & Yorkshire (Ripon & Leeds); Pendleton - Huyton & Liverpool; Milnes - Leeds & Ripon; Banister - Preston; Wales - Liverpool & Cumberland; Ireland - Prescot; McDonough - Liverpool; Quirk - Liverpool; Hunt - St Helens; Tickle - St Helens

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Why on earth would anyone be interested in adding people who aren't their ancestors?
                    Knowing who the sidelines are on a tree has helped me to find a number of ancestors, in my own tree and in OH's tree. I don't expend a lot of effort on backing them up, but I try to get them right if I can, and correct them if errors show up. Sometimes they help to make sense of info - identifying a marriage witness, for instance, or making it easier to identify someone who's at another household for the census.

                    In one case, I've followed up quite a lot of detail on sidelines: if I manage to find one of them researching, they may be able to give me information that has been impossible to acquire in any other way.

                    Christine
                    Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I sometimes wonder what goes on in peoples minds when they compile their trees. I have recently made contact with a distant cousin on Ancestry who had a whole family in his tree who have no connection with us. When I challenged him on it he said he added them thinking he would soon find a connection!
                      That reminds me, I must go back & see if he has done as he said & removed them.

                      I had a msg from a cousin on FB saying she had a msg from a D Connolly who thinks cousins brother is related to an M Connolly & could I confirm that we didn't have this person in our tree! Note she asked about male cousin N not female cousin A, how could she claim one without the other!
                      No, the name Connolly doesn't figure anywhere in our tree & I have no idea where this person gets the idea from. There are some strange people out there.
                      Last edited by Vivienne; 26-01-11, 22:43.
                      Vivienne passed away July 2013

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Christine in Herts View Post
                        Knowing who the sidelines are on a tree has helped me to find a number of ancestors, in my own tree and in OH's tree. I don't expend a lot of effort on backing them up, but I try to get them right if I can, and correct them if errors show up. Sometimes they help to make sense of info - identifying a marriage witness, for instance, or making it easier to identify someone who's at another household for the census.

                        In one case, I've followed up quite a lot of detail on sidelines: if I manage to find one of them researching, they may be able to give me information that has been impossible to acquire in any other way.

                        Christine
                        You have a point Christine; I know that I have gone off on a tangent tracking someone, and found them living with their in-law's family and then I've followed those people trying to track them. I know I've got myself in knots following people I don't really know the lineage of. But... the point I was making is I can't understand why researchers would want people in their trees who they either haven't searched for themselves, or are not remotely related, in fact just copied from another researcher's tree. That's what I don't get. I know it can be useful to look at distant relatives trees but you need to check and double check the info, not blindly copy! Gosh it's a complicated business!
                        Best wishes, Polly

                        Begley - St Helens & Liverpool & somewhere in Ireland; Foster - Liverpool & Yorkshire (Ripon & Leeds); Pendleton - Huyton & Liverpool; Milnes - Leeds & Ripon; Banister - Preston; Wales - Liverpool & Cumberland; Ireland - Prescot; McDonough - Liverpool; Quirk - Liverpool; Hunt - St Helens; Tickle - St Helens

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          In my early days I took a somewhat remote cousin's gedcom at face value and uploaded it. I've been fishing the unproven bits out of this curate's egg ever since.
                          Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thank you all for your interesting and informative replies. I too have added a family which I hoped but had no proof were somehow connected, and was overjoyed to find some time later that one of them did indeed marry my Dad's Great-Aunt, but I didn't post it online, and dug around privately to find that proof.

                            Liz

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              What I cannot understand is why any serious researcher would think it strange to not record anyone no matter how distant the relationship.
                              Others record all instances of the same surname whether related or not.

                              Some of us actually research people who have no blood connection but have a connection by way of the village or area they lived in.

                              It is interesting to see how people/families in a village interact with each other over the centuries.

                              You see family history or genealogy is not a restrictive practice but combines many disciplines such as local history, family history, social history, industrial history etc. etc.

                              Those who restrict their research to a bloodline miss out on a range of excitement and pleasure and a wealth of knowledge.
                              Cheers
                              Guy
                              Guy passed away October 2022

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I agree with that, Guy.

                                I use Tribal Pages as my main online tree and I love it. You can put anyone on the tree and they don't have to connect to anyone else, but when you DO find a connection, it is so satisfying to have all the information already there.

                                From my great grandparents backwards, everyone came from small villages where they had been busily intermarrying for centuries, so Joe Robinson in 1704 undoubtedly connects somewhere with Mary Robinson in 1804 - the fun is finding the connection.

                                EDIT - Forgot to say that my tree is always private, so no one is led astray! I dole out information as it is required and no one except close and proven relatives ever get to see the whole thing.

                                OC
                                Last edited by Olde Crone Holden; 28-01-11, 22:49. Reason: proviso

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I agree with Guy and OC, I often research far and wide, and like them, I know and record why I am researching, not like some having non-relatives stuck out on far branches of the tree that I know nothing about. One person copied my GR completely, all my mine and my OH's, even though he's only related to OH. If anyone has asked about my dad or my grandfathers, he would not have had a clue ! I do hope he's found and corrected the mistakes I made in the early days, but I haven't bothered to tell him and all the others who copied from me, so I know who's really doing research and who's just collecting names.
                                  Diane
                                  Sydney Australia
                                  Avatar: Reuben Edward Page and Lilly Mary Anne Dawson

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    I suppose it's not the adding of the name which puzzled me in this instance, it was the fact that she had recorded his dates of birth, marriage and death (which was relatively recent) correctly but stated that he became a Baptist Minister in 1950, which was incorrect. If you are going to make details of people's lives public, surely you should make an effort to get it right, if only as a courtesy to their actual relatives. It appears in this case the woman had lifted an entire tree of 2,500 odd names from an equally tenuous relative and stuck it onto her own, passing it off as her own work. I just don't think it's appropriate to do that publicly.

                                    Of course the issue of bloodline is completely separate, especially for me as I have no blood connection whatsoever with a single person in my tree apart from my own children, but it doesn't stop me researching it.

                                    Liz

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      I have been doing a village study (and some extended family studies) for years and I record all the appropriate information. But, I don't add all of this to my family tree. It's a separate local history study, kept in separate files, both on the PC, and on paper.

                                      There is some overlap, with appropriate persons being added to one of my family trees. ( I have 2 - my paternal & maternal trees.)
                                      If corresponding with someone about the village, I probably wouldn't use my family tree; similarly, when dealing with a rellie, they usually wouldn't need data from the village study.

                                      Jay
                                      Janet in Yorkshire



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

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        I quite like going in "wide circles" (&, in my case, I often have to), because it can throw up some interesting things. For example, I've got a Samuel Ellliott who moved up from Somerset to Nottm sometime between 1881 & 1891. He married an Elizabeth Merrin in Nottm. A Billy Merrin from Nottm became a famous bandleader & my family always said he was a relation, so I'm looking at his family to see if I can find a connection. Oddly enough, on the 1841 census, Billy Merrin's family have got a Samuel Elliott (born Nottm) aged 15 living with them....so wondering if this was just a coincidence or if he was connected to my Somerset Elliotts. I think it would also be fascinating to check all the families in a particular village etc.

                                        But what I don't understand is what happened to a friend. She found someone claiming her family as blood relatives. She contacted them & proved this couldn't be the case (she wasn't unpleasant...she didn't MIND....just thought it would help) Despite overwhelming evidence, they refused to believe it....I could understand it if they were researching the name/"saving it", but they wouldn't budge from what they had. I could only find 2 brothers for my gggg grandmother...I found from someone's family tree that 3 or 4 siblings had been born in another village. I contacted the person & they acknowledged that we'd we were both correct & so had added brothers & sisters...but they weren't very pleased about it. Somehow miffed that they hadn't found it all out. Don't understand that attitude

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X