Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An example of how not to build a family tree

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

  • An example of how not to build a family tree

    A few days ago a distant cousin of my husband (her father and my husband or second Cousins)contacted me to see if we could 'share' information. Once I had managed to establish that she and my hubby were actually related I looked at her public tree on ancestry. It looks like she had done it all on guess work, wrong word of mouth and other peoples trees. Needless to say on the branch that she shares with my hubby there were so many errors. Her grandmother's maiden name was wrong and on the basis of this the branch which she had established for this mythical lady was fiction. On her grandfathers side of the family (her grandfather and my hubby's grandmother were brother and sister). The information was correct for a few generations (with the exception of one census which she had two different census' for the same person and the combined children of both census' as siblings) until we get to Sarah Britland wrong year wrong parents. However, because the Britlands stayed in the same place for several generations, four generations back and her tree is correct again (assuming that mine is correct of course).

    I contacted her told he where I thought she had gone wrong and why and backed this up with evidence form the public domain. She has never bothered to respond with any thanks for the help I gave her. She did however, make changes to her tree. Her Grandmothers maiden name is now correct but we now have another inaccurate branch which is completely wrong. If she bought her Grandparents marriage certificate this would be proven - I think her Grandmothers uncle married her husbands sister.

    I am not sure whether to contact her again and share my concerns regarding the inaccuracy of her tree or just let her play her own game by her rules.

    Sandra

  • #2
    Then the rest of the blind faith followers too will have the same errors if they are not put right by her when they start adding her mistakes to their unchecked trees.
    Share your concerns I say and get her to put it right if you have the proof.

    Edna

    Comment


    • #3
      Is it worth the aggro, you should ask yourself. Or should you just bask in smug satisfaction that your tree is right (of course it is, isn't it?).
      Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Uncle John,

        I have certificates to prove parentage and where I don't have certificates I have documentary evidence from freereg. I am also in contact with this girls Aunt and Uncle as I have helped Pam and Frank with their trees. They were able to give me a lot of information which I could cross reference.

        I can't and don't need to prove the Grandparents marriage - that's her job but I know where and the year they married.

        Sandra

        Comment


        • #5
          I wouldn't bother let her go her merry way , she doesn't seem grateful anyway??? I had a couple like that , I smirk now when I see their mistakes sorry but I do.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think you just have to plough your own furrow and not let works of fiction distract you, otherwise they can swallow up so much time that could be better spent elsewhere.

            Comment


            • #7
              I found a couple of ancestry trees copied from mine, early on when I made some mistakes. I send them a message long ago to correct them, but some people have never corrected them. Now I check whether the tree owners log in to ancestry regularly, anyone who has not logged in for over six months, I just leave a comment on the entry that is incorrect, because I know others will see it, even if the tree owner does not log in anymore.

              I found the marriage of my great-great-grandfather's sister and worked out her desecendents (and found trees on ancestry) - but none of them have gone back beyond her to find her father and link her to her family, she is just an "orphan" at the top of her tree - it was so easy to find, her death registration jumped out at me, even without knowing her married name, so others should be able to find her parents with minimal research - but no, I m not going to tell them, because the tree has sat there for over a year, without additions, so they are not really interested.

              If they searched ancestry or familysearch, they could take her family back another six generations. So like Val, I look at their tree and smile at my extra knowledge. If they contact me, I would gladly share my family research, as it is their family too, but I am not going out of my way to share.

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

              Comment


              • #8
                well you could let her know, and hint strongly she needs the certs. but is it likely she will bother? when i first started the tree, i didn't have money to spend on it, but i did scour through census and bmd's weighing up all the options, and looking at other trees for the iformation and adding it all to mine as a template. when i did have money to spend on it, all the certificates proved what i was thinking. all maiden names and occupations added up. it's only in the parish registers where i see my previous thinking and add up likelihoods- these days there are more avenues for their research with transcripts and the major sites adding images, and cd's to buy. maybe she just needs the money or wisdom to realise proof is what matters. i send out corrections with my family in them. some take heed and change it, a lot don't don't respond and i guess don't do the tree anymore.

                and some are reluctant with the right information, insisting it is right because a family member told them what they had. my aunt did the tree in the 80's, and was given 2 families in westminster to 'choose' from- that of a 'waterman' or a 'coach trimmer'. she picked the waterman, which puzzles me to this day. the researcher she used had seen the marriage of her great grandfather, as she had the date and place, but the entry clearly states the father was a coach trimmer. so why she picked the waterman i have no idea. and she refused to believe when i corrected her. she had the right grandparents of her great grandfather though!! she's gone now, but she was pleased to see i was carrying on with it, even though i havn't much further!

                Comment


                • #9
                  I too get fed up with "mangled" trees. These people are my rellies as well as theirs and I feel that if you're going to post on the web about individuals, it is disrespectful not to take as much care as possible to get it right.
                  We CAN all make mistakes - sometimes it is difficult to work out who is who from census returns alone, because of misinformation. But most problems CAN be teased out by tracking individuals forwards and backwards, by using a range of sources and by investigating others with the same name.
                  My Claxtons of East Yorkshire were prevalent in one small village. In 1861 there were two Johns, first cousins, born 1851 and 1853; there was John William born in the village in 1871 and also his cousin John William born nearby in 1876 and living in the village in 1881. There were also two first cousins named Richard Henry, both raised in the village - one born in 1881 and the other in 1884. Loads of "wrong" connections on these online trees. IF the tree owners had bothered to investigate and plot all the children of each set of parents/grandparents and the communal great-grandparents, all might have become clear.
                  To make it even worse, one line has been given parents who were born and subsequently died in Norfolk - even though later census returns record the real parents alive and kicking in East Yorkshire.

                  Jay
                  Janet in Yorkshire



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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I have given up my crusade to correct rubbish trees on the internet. I can't do it all, there's only one of me, lol. I will offer the info that something is wrong on their tree. If they show interest, I give them the info, if they don't then I don't bother.

                    However, wherever possible I leave a comment on Ancestry trees, with my g-mail address. I have found this by far the best way to "correct" an incorrect tree as 9 times out of 10 the tree holder removes the tree in a huff, which suits me fine.

                    I agree with Janet, these people are my close relatives and they deserve to be recorded correctly or not at all.

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This seriously annoyed me some weeks ago when someone took my photos & info from my tree & attached them to the totally wrong family. I did inform her & asked her to correct the information but she's ignored me. I have now made my tree private after years & I notice she has now done the same.

                      I also noticed a several trees with the wrong info on, Chap died in 1868 & was then listed on the 1871 & 1881. several people must have copied this without thinking "hang on a minute"??

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm beginning to think people don't even bother to read (let alone scrutinize) internet trees and census images or to pay any any attention to dates or places.
                        I realise family treeing is very popular and so if you really want one there are loads out there to snaffle, but why on earth would you pay for an Ancestry sub to display it on the internet when you're not really interested in the first place???
                        And the sheer arrogance of some people who don't even know what a primary source is, let alone never having consulted one, who then tell you that all the sources must be wrong, beause they saw such and such on another internet tree!!

                        Jay
                        Janet in Yorkshire



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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The ones which annoy me are those whose ancestors are suddenly transported to the USA ... I think this is because of some sort of autofill on place names. The person who started it doesn't notice and then loads of "sheep" follow on and copy the error!!!!

                          Anne

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I love the ones that just say Dead????

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I found something that "Vlad the Pedigree Slayer" wrote. It was composed quickly, when I was asking if a child born in St Mary Aldermanbury was probably the same one that died 5 years later. Here are his rules:

                              1) It's easier to disprove than prove
                              2) Don't believe relatives
                              3) Consider ALL of the evidence, negative/positive
                              4) If it's too good to be tree - you're right
                              5) <sorry, can't read it all, will work on it>
                              6) End game when ancestor died before married <my addition: or before ancestor became a parent>
                              7) This isn't easy, no matter who tells you it is/was
                              8) I want it to be right, whether it's true or not
                              9) "I want it to be" --> see #4

                              Most of the examples give in this thread have one or more of these rules that apply!

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Janet

                                I trot this out every time this subject is discussed, because it literally made my jaw hang open.

                                "There is no need to buy certificates" he said pompously "Because certificates are very often wrong".

                                Ah yes...but of course census returns are 100% accurate as we all know.

                                OC

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I was told once not to waste my money on certificates. The person who told me this is married to my hubby's cousin and he had gone wrong on the tree at her grandfather. The person he had got as the grandfather was born 6 months and later and a lot further north than the real grandfather. In fact he and his family (the wrong one) emigrated to America when he was 11, but hubby's cousin grew up in the same town as the real grandparents. I tried to explain that he was wrong, citing information from birth, marriage & death certificates to prove my point, but he still insisted that I was wrong and he was right. That was when he told me buying certificates was a waste of money.

                                  Linda
                                  LindaG

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    My uncle bought his grandfather's death certificate, and it was full of errors. He's the one that got me started researching, so his rule of "don't buy certificates" created guilt for me when I purchased them, and slowed my initial progress!

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      When I first set out on my journey, I only bought the birth and marriage certs for my direct ancestors.
                                      However, at that time, as all my rellies lived in very small villages and had uncommon surnames, I worked extensively with parish registers. The marriage entries should have been exactly the same as the GRO certs and bp registers usually gave me dob as well as date of bp, names of both parents (sometimes the vicar had added maiden name of mother, date & place of a marriage and ,if I was very lucky, the reputed father of a child born to a single woman) abode at time of bp and occupation of the father.
                                      Burial reg often gave date of death as well as burial, age and sometimes added gems such as "found dead in hen house" or "thrown from his horse."
                                      I then "filled in" several certificate gaps, purchasing one a month. (£3 . 50p at that time, I think.)

                                      Of course, that was all pre-internet, when research progressed very slowly because you had to travel to the appropriate county to read local PR AND census, (unless you were able to research in central repositeries in London.)
                                      Just imagine what it was like "in the olden days" with no instant access to either nationwide census (1891 + hadn't been released) or the GRO index! BUT whilst at the record office or large library, one consulted other sources - local newspapers, church magazines, school records, directories, court records etc.

                                      Jay
                                      Last edited by Janet in Yorkshire; 06-08-12, 09:57.
                                      Janet in Yorkshire



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

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        we are very lucky to have so much available online now.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X