Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rubbish Ancestry Trees

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

  • Rubbish Ancestry Trees

    Hiya

    I've just joined up recently and have spent many a long hour reading all the great threads on this forum. I've especially loved the threads talking about how bad some of the trees on Ancestry are and they've given me a good laugh. However on my own tree tonight I've come across one which is surely up there for one of the best lol.

    My 6 x great grandmother has apparently lived to the ripe old age of 130. She married a man 110 years younger than herself and had many children all throughout her long life the youngest being born when she was 151 years old - 21 years after her supposed death!

    Oh well, it's given me a laugh if nothing else but why bother researching your family history if you can't be bothered checking your work? I've sent her a short note but she hasn't logged in for over a year so it's unlikely it'll get changed.

    I've just come back to doing my tree after a break of several years but I've been at it for over 30 years now. TBH I've now managed to do more in the last 3 months than I managed altogether in the previous 30 years lol.

    Hippychick x

  • #2
    Welcome to the forum Hippychick, good luck with your tree.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hiya,

      There are so many more collections out there now [compared to 30 years ago] that you can access online now, [tbf the internet as we know it now didn't EXIST 30 years ago...lol]

      hoping you continue to flourish with your investigations.. and yes you do see some howlers 'out there'

      :smilee:
      Julie
      They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

      .......I find dead people

      Comment


      • #4
        I dont even see why they would have to check their work, surely anyone can know its very unusual to have a baby at 151

        Comment


        • #5
          another thing always makes me smile, born say 1785 and in the death space ,just says Dead.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Val wish Id never started View Post
            another thing always makes me smile, born say 1785 and in the death space ,just says Dead.
            That will be so that they show up. I keep reading that unless there is a date of death, even though we can see that they are 200 years old, Ancestry assumes they are living .... so type something in the death date box. Not sure how true that is, I've not really investigated.
            Caroline
            Caroline's Family History Pages
            Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think Ancestry's cut off date is about 100 years and then they assume the person is deceased. Unfortunately some people will put that a person is 'dead' and then they would be visible to others even if it was less than 100 years.
              Like you Caroline I haven't tested it sytematically but it is what I have noticed in passing.
              Anne Edit to say .... If you put 'unknown' then Ancestry makes them private whatever the age
              Last edited by Anne in Carlisle; 02-04-18, 15:32.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Anne in Carlisle View Post
                I think Ancestry's cut off date is about 100 years... Edit to say .... If you put 'unknown' then Ancestry makes them private whatever the age
                Oh that's a b*mm*r! I have just last week gone and updated my direct lines tree to give more info than plain old name and year. In the date and place fields for every BMD that I haven't found yet, I added the word "unknown". I intended to let folks know that I hadn't missed an entry, I just do not currently know those facts.
                Looks like I will have made things worse.

                Comment


                • #9
                  My great aunt and her husband were "acquired" by another Ancestry member who thought they were his ancestors, born around 1800, emigrated to the US around 1825 or so, and then had children.

                  Names were similar, both had emigrated from Lancashire to New Jersey ........... but my gr aunt and husband were born around 1875, and emigrated in 1902. Plus they never had any children

                  I will grant the other member this ............. I left a message on his page explaining why mine couldn't be his. He had removed them from his tree within 3 days. But didn't apologise or send any other message to me
                  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


                  • #10
                    Thanks for the welcomes :-)

                    I didn't realise that those without a death date don't show, I have loads of those in my tree particularly the ones from 1700s and early 1800s before statutory registration where I simply haven't been able to find that info at the mo.

                    I made my tree private about a month ago as I don't want great chunks of my hard work added willy nilly to trees such as the one I mentioned. Don't get me wrong - if someone contacts me I'm more than happy to share what information I have if I can see they are genuine. It's the name gatherers and such like that I'm wary of. I'm in the process of making a bare bones tree of direct ancestors which I will make public just to see if I get any contacts from it.

                    I haven't checked back yet to see if the person has sorted out their tree - but I don't think I'll be holding my breath

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I am so excited, I've just looked at someone's tree who has my gt grandfather on it. Wow I am related to nearly all the royal houses throughout the world ,the British Monarchy, through Victoria, Lord Lucan, Julius Caeser, Robbie Burns, he Queen mother and many many more famous people!! Can't believe it he's even gone back to 1270 BC.!!!! Clever old clogs. It makes me cross to see it, especially with all the spelling mistakes in it!!!.

                      sunny r

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sunny Rosy View Post
                        I am so excited, I've just looked at someone's tree who has my gt grandfather on it. Wow I am related to nearly all the royal houses throughout the world ,the British Monarchy, through Victoria, Lord Lucan, Julius Caeser, Robbie Burns, he Queen mother and many many more famous people!! Can't believe it he's even gone back to 1270 BC.!!!! Clever old clogs. It makes me cross to see it, especially with all the spelling mistakes in it!!!.

                        sunny r

                        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


                        • #13
                          Someone I am apparently related to has the Greek gods on theirs as well. Another has their pets, including a chicken, listed as their children.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What does make me laugh sometimes about Ancestry are their assumptions they make on the trees. Even when they are correct I just leave it as I do not want them messing with my tree. However some people do seem to take these suggestions as "Must be one of them"!! One person has all the tree I gave him on Ancestry and has even gone back a further generation than me to someone born in London in 1805 with the same name. My family is from Tipperary in Ireland and confident this family is still in Ireland around 1800 I checked it out and found the same person he had found living in the same place iin London in the 1841 and 1851 Census when I have proof the family are still in Tipperary. You would think people would try that first before latching on to Ancestry suggestion! So now he has more wrong information about my family! My Great Grandfather is on someone else's tree married twice and producing a second family about 10 years after he died. I have almost given up on Ancestry trees but occasionally you do find some good information!

                            Not yet come across trees going back to BC but I live in hope!

                            Janet
                            Last edited by Janet; 04-04-18, 13:09.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The howlers, like someone being baptised before they were born, or a woman giving birth in her 70s, or marrying her own son, are obvious. The difficult ones are where a wrong - but plausible - date or place or name is given and then repeated. Worst offender is my own gt x 2 grandfather who apart from having the irritatingly common name of William Williams, had the nerve to put 5 different birthplaces with 4 different dates on 5 censuses. I think i've got the right one, but I can't be sure. I also can't find a death or burial for him!
                              ~ with love from Little Nell~
                              Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I can go one better than most of you :D I have direct ancestors with the surname Abel. Some bright spark did an online tree going back through the aeons of time to the Old Testament - yes, you've guessed. Abel's father was Adam (no surname!) his father was dust and dust's father was God.
                                My pedigree has got to be right because it's on a tree on the internet. (Can't remember the site - don't think it was Ancestry; I think it may have been part of the "Roots..." genealogy family?? It was a long time ago and I simply can't recall which free site it was, only how ludicrous the alleged tree was )

                                Jay
                                Last edited by Janet in Yorkshire; 08-04-18, 12:16.
                                Janet in Yorkshire



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

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Little Nell maybe put the details on here you never know, and while we are at it my Husband, according to a tree, is related to Diana Princess of Wales.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Jay ..........

                                    I love it! Had a really good giggle.

                                    Thank you.
                                    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


                                    • #19
                                      You are advised to visit the loo and be sitting down well away from any beverages before you read this - in case of little accidents (not just with spilling your drink) and falls to the floor while laughing!
                                      This is a transcript of a very recent conversation in a Facebook group that I have just read. The original poster's comments are in bold type. The other comments are from a moderator, apart the 2nd and 3rd last ones. Names removed to protect the innocent...

                                      New member shared first post.
                                      Thank you for adding me. I have been an active researcher for 25 years. I have researched my Mother’s side of me back to 055 BC ! I have DNA by My Heritage and have met many distant Cousins. I hope we can all find our answers out there.


                                      Welcome to the group. One question--where did you find documentation that far back?

                                      I have researched a long time through My Heritage.

                                      If you've been accepting SmartMatches to family trees, you may have accepted a lot of fiction, unfortunately. Trees without documentation are fiction.
                                      Most people in the US run into documentation problems before 1850, where the US census only lists heads of household. Please know that online trees are often based on fiction--I believed every shaky leaf when I first started ten years back.

                                      Yes, I do agree. Some birth and death dates can be different, however the names are usually the same.

                                      If they are fiction, then why have a program like My Heritage or Ancestry?


                                      They can't monitor what people enter into their trees. It's up to every individual to ensure that what they have is accurate, which means basing your tree on documents like birth, death, marriage, census, land transfers, wills, etc. Online family trees are simply not reliable, because unfortunately many people simply copy what other trees have, without analyzing if they are documented. I had to start over, my copied first tree had me connected to Constantine, more than one Ceasar, kings throughout Europe.

                                      I've been thinking more about your question. I'm speaking for myself, and how I use online genealogy websites. First, they make building a family tree easy. Second, they provide suggested records matches. These matches need to be reviewed to ensure they are relevant to the person on my tree, since there are a LOT of Charles Smiths! Third, to have access to DNA matches. Fourth, to have access to other family trees.

                                      Of all content present on gene websites, I trust vetted documentation most (where name, dates, and other information is a perfect match to known information). I also trust DNA matches, that meet a minimum size. That's complicated, and Genetic Genealogy Tips & Tricks addresses DNA more completely. I distrust other family trees, because I can't know if they have been built carefully with documentation, or are copies of fictional trees.

                                      It's a bit like ANY social media. They're platforms for information sharing. It's up to individuals to evaluate the quality of the information received. Would I like a website than can guarantee that all information is relevant to my ancestors? Heck, yeah! Problem is, I couldn't afford to subscribe to that.

                                      Wow, 55 BC! Where are those records stored? LOL. Not to be a Debbie downer, but that doesn't seem possible!

                                      This book might be interesting. Thomas W Jones ‘Mastering genealogical proof’

                                      It's a bit dry, but certainly to the point. He's a DNA match--and we have yet to figure out our MRCA!
                                      Last edited by GallowayLass; 09-04-18, 01:20.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        @gl -

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X