Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Bloopers in Trees on Ancestry

  1. #1

    Bloopers in Trees on Ancestry

    Honestly why do people bother to do their tree?

    Just found one of my Male relatives born 1817 marrying a woman born in 1898 really ??


  2. #2
    Member Sylvia C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    There are many Cadd Family Trees on Ancestry, they were a very prolific family and migrated all over the world, with Australia and the US being the most popular destinations.

    At one point, due to an error by my own second cousin, I was on some trees with my 36 year old mother and my 10 year old brother as my parents

    I think all those have been sorted or removed.

    But mistakes are rife all through the generations, especially when men married 3 and 4 times ......... children assigned to first wife even though she might be way too old or dead for 20/25 years. Of course, researching that family is not easy because they all like using the same names, over and over again from cousins to siblings to children!

    It's being not careful in checking, and copying willy nilly from other trees with out checking.

    I did have one guy take my great aunt and great uncle from the very small tree I'd put on there while I tried to sort out his family. Two couples with the same names, emigrating from Lancashire to Newark New Jersey ............... only problem was his were having children in the US around 1820/40, while my two were not born until the mid-1870s, and emigrated in 1902

    He did remove my couple from his tree within 3 days of my notifying him and putting a note on his tree.
    My parents at my brother's wedding, March 1952

    Researching Cadd, Schofield, Cottrell in Lancashire, Buckinghamshire; Taylor, Park in Westmorland; Hayhurst in Yorkshire, Westmorland, Lancashire; Hughes, Roberts in Wales.

  3. #3
    I am loathe to tell people their tree is wrong as some get quite snotty, and some say well other people on Ancestry have what they have, as if they are definitely right.


  4. #4
    Member grumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    I think I have been lucky in starting my tree when the only way to research was do it yourself, go to the LDS sites, obtain microfiche, and proceed from there. An additional way was to employ a professional family history researcher and enter into long discussions by letter, for us Aussies anyway. Even though I joined Ancestry and later FMP, I tend to take their offerings with a grain of salt unless there is corroborating evidence of a connection. And, I just don’t look at their trees, especially after I stumbled one with 58000 names on it. In actual fact what I did see of that was a complete shambles and I suspect that the person who established that tree never looked at dates etc and was only interested in a number on the tree.
    That is no way to establish your identity.
    These days I do very little research, not interested by 4th 5th cousins etc and all I look for is factual evidence which, unfortunately is somewhat thin.
    Whoever said Seek and Ye shall find was not a genealogist.


  5. #5
    Member Sylvia C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    Val ..........

    I had no qualms in telling people that my 10 year old brother was NOT my father .......... I mean, they actually had the birth years for my mother and brother so it was flippin' obvious!

    Equally I had no qualms with telling the tree holder he'd made a mistake acquiring my gr aunt and her OH ........... after all he had the birth years for his couple AND their children and I had the birth years for my two, plus their marriage and emigration year. They left the UK just a few days after marrying.
    My parents at my brother's wedding, March 1952

    Researching Cadd, Schofield, Cottrell in Lancashire, Buckinghamshire; Taylor, Park in Westmorland; Hayhurst in Yorkshire, Westmorland, Lancashire; Hughes, Roberts in Wales.

  6. #6
    Moderator Jill on the A272's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    mid Sussex on the A272
    Blog Entries
    Someone whose mother is a DNA match with me via my 4x great grandfather (and manages her mother's tree) has put my direct line on her tree right down to the present, including me and my brothers
    and she has even put a picture on of baby footprints on my dead baby brother's entry.
    She has me down as male, though I've messaged her about it and also left a comment on my mother's entry to say she had a daughter and two sons it remained unchanged. A few weeks later I messaged her directly as she is still active, no response or change.

  7. #7

    There are professional researchers and then there are professional researchers! People are just as gullible if a "professional researcher" tells them something as they are when they see it on line.

    My great grandfather employed a "professional" genealogist to work his tree and a very fine tree it is too, worth every penny of whatever it was he paid for it in 1930. It shows his father was an engine driver, drove the Flying Scot no less. His father was a direct descendant of the manorial Holdens and the genealogist provided the coat of arms. We are also direct descendants of the Seymour family, Jane Seymour being the unfortunate wife of Henry VIii. A further connection to Alexander Bell, the telephone man through another grandparent.

    Um.......he was an engine driver in a factory, not the railway. He was illegitimate and not a Holden, nor would he have been able to use the coat of arms even if he was. The Seymour connection was to Seymour Mead, a grocer in Manchester. No connection to Alexnder Graham Bell either because the Bell grandparent was illegitimate too and took his surname from his mother. A complete load of tosh, but it made my great grandfather very happy and my late father chose to believe that version rather than my findings!

    Another tree provided by a "professional" genealogist for a contact included a Latin glossary. Puer = poor. Ex pochia = out of pocket (hahaha!) and various other ridiculous guesses at Latin words. Apparently though, this genealogist was "really good", he had been using them for 15 years and again, preferred the paid-for version over my version which asks stupid questions like "but how do you know he married her and not someone else if you cannot find the marriage?"

    i used to get very cross about it all but now I just laugh and think "you idiots".


  8. #8
    I had a lady contact me a few days ago that was convinced she was related to my husbands family. I think she searched for a name on 1939 and as there was only one came up she assumed it was her grandfather so added all the family etc. When I looked at what she had it became obvious that she was wrong as the one she thought was her grandfather had emigrated before her father was born so unless he had a regular user ticket for the ferry or plane theres no way he would be the same one. I advised her to get the marriage certificate for her grandfather so she could then see her great grandfathers name. I believe they were from Ireland so maybe wasnt even on 1939 register for england.

  9. #9
    My tree's full of them, as I was putting it together in the 'old days' without the Internet and did not have enough data to differentiate children and weddings of like families.
    Now with the Internet, I have access to a lot more data and slowly plodding through the trees correcting the errors.
    It makes me laugh to see so many of my known errors have appeared in Ancestry trees in the past 6 years the 'working draft' that is open to the searches has been up there. I keep my corrected version very private, unless contacted by people who are researching and can add branches to it, then they are given full access.
    Maybe if the others took the time to contact the owner and not just madly merge, they would have the correct info in their trees

    Pursglove is 98% complete
    Read is 70%
    Franklin and Poole are work in progress, with Poole being a real nightmare
    Last edited by TrevorFranklin; 14-10-19 at 20:56.
    Avatar is my Gt Grandfather

    FRANKLIN (Harrow/Pinner 1700 to 1850); PURSGLOVE (ALL Southern counties of England); POOLE (Tetbury/Malmesbury and surrounding areas of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire (1650 to 1900); READ London/Suffolk


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts