Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    808

    Default Another one gets it wrong!

    My Anc. tree has just been mined again by someone "researching" their ancestors and yet again they have got the wrong line. Now I don't mind sharing, to me that is what it is all about, and to be fair there is an old tree doing the rounds which has this particular ancestor ending his days in Kingsley in 1863, which seemed reasonable at the time. However a chance discovery while researching one of his siblings has now lead to pretty conclusive evidence that he ended his days as a publican in Warwickshire in the same year. The other chap (with the same name) who died in Kingsley came from an earlier split in the family line and as this is a commonly researched family I added a comment to explain the difference in the two ancestors and how they link up as well as up dating the info in him in line with the new discovery. So to those who, every month or so, gather to their bosoms all the various records, stories, photos and wills pertaining to his "father" while ignoring the actual records and comments (including details on his pub) of the ancestor himself I say "Read the Godamn comments! You are only fooling yourselves!" *Sigh* rant over.

  2. #2
    Loves to help with queries
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    180

    Default

    I do sympathise. I got one of Ancestry's waving leaves the other day and couldn't work out why no one else had the same wife for Edmund Mackrell as I did. Edmund Mackrell was born in 1805 and married Elizabeth Cunliffe in 1829. One lady had even put a correction on a census in Ancestry to say her name was Bella, when it clearly said Betty. For some reason they had all attached the wife of Edmund junior, born 1832, to his father, so they must all have been looking for an Isabella Chadwick born 1805. I sent messages to all 8. Two have made the correction. cicilysmith

  3. #3
    pottoka
    Guest

    Default

    Rant as much as you like, temporarily un-Zen Rabbit.

    There are people who do things properly and people who don't, and the ones who don't check are fools, basically. This ties in with what Cicily says. Most of the shaking leaves I get are either for the wrong person (Hannah for Ann, I can understand, but I've been offered names with no connection at all) or the wrong place of birth (US instead of UK) - I would dearly like to know how Ancestry sort their possible contenders! - or for family trees.

    If I look at those family trees, there are very rarely any sources, but an incredible number of mistakes too numerous to go in to, but too silly for a self-respecting genealogist to allow in.

    I'm not claiming that my tree's perfect, but at least I don't add every shaking leaf to it willy-nilly like some of these people seem to. I think Ancestry has a part of responsibility, too.

  4. #4
    A fountain of knowledge pejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    lincoln, lincolnshire
    Posts
    356

    Default

    This is one of my rants too. I agree the ones who don't bother to check are most definitely fools, and therefore if they have no sources to fall back onto and they have wrong ancestors in their trees - it is their own fault. But that will not bother them - because they are merely name gatherers. The ones with huge trees just looking to find another name to add to their `ancestors`.
    pejay

  5. #5
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    808

    Default

    T'was just a bout of exasperation. Early on I went through a family tree adding them to mine, before I knew better, but when I got round to scrutinising them it soon became apparent that nothing added up,they were just names and dates selected at random with, naturally, nothing to back them up.
    On the subject of "shaking leaves" a few recent ones have even sent my own information back to me via other members who have copied my info.

  6. #6
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Grey County, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,222

    Default

    Happens to all of us, but Fall is almost here ( at least in the Northern Hemisphere ) so perhaps the leaves will settle down for a bit.
    Thanks to those leaves, last evening I found out a 5x gr. grandmother became a mother for the umpteenth time in 1838. Amazing!! She died in 1800. No idea how I missed that birth.

    Sue

  7. #7
    Knowledgeable and helpful stepives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ireland, but born Buckinghamshire.
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Why does everyone get so uptight about someone elses tree, even when it's wrong. And why would anyone 'copy' names from another tree to their own, without doing the research for them.

    I have, at the moment 4998 shaking leaves to view...........not on your life. If I could bin them in one fell swoop, I would. I cannot be bothered to go through them one at a time, and delete them all.

    What I do object to, are the 'researchers' pinching, copying all my photo's, scans of certs etc. So, my tree is now private. If there are 'serious' researchers doing the same family line as me, then it's up to them to contact me for information. I check their tree out first, if it's public, to see if they are wasting my time

    I have spent £100's & £100's, on Parish register transcripts, Wiils, certs and searches, so I'm damned if I'll hand my info over to a name collector.
    In previous years, I have tried to help where I can to other researching the same family........BUT, like the saying goes........"You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink".

    So, 99.9% of the time, I ignore other trees unless my/our needs are at a point of going nowhere.


    Steve.
    Too many bones, too much sorrow, but until I am dead, there's always tomorrow.

  8. #8
    Wilkes_ml
    Guest

    Default

    lol I have 943 shaking leaves waiting for me..and I won't bother looking at them. I only look at hints when I'm working on a particular person, and the majority is rather random stuff like photos of a windmill!

    But it isn't just ancestry, I found a family file on the internet claiming one of my ancestors was born 1699 at Kelvedon, Essex, with no source listed. No idea how they got that information, as although he married at Kelvedon in 1718, the marriage register clearly stated he was from Shalford. I even checked the baptism register and could see not baptism for him at Kelvedon. Then they have assigned parents to him..again no source Robert Boreham & Elizabeth Saville married 1695 at Hedingham Castle, yet the same year Robert Boreham married Elizabeth Sable at Hedingham Sible, the village next to it...I can't work out how to prove his parents, and if they did, I just wish they had included proper sources rather than "ancestral file no."

  9. #9
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    808

    Default

    Another one received in a "hint". A photo of my G Grandfather submitted by me re-submitted (acccording to Anc) by someone else with a surname change name change. I don't mind for myself but some one could easily find that and think that they have a photo of their ancestor and it would not be at all.

  10. #10
    Name well known on Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    4,863

    Default

    I thought I was the only one who had virtually refrained from putting my tree on ancestry, primarily for the reasons listed above, however in recent months I succumbed to placing names etc on a tree......why? I had inherited 0ver 500 photo's from my late mothers cousin, some pf the persons were born circa 1840! Fantastic I can hear you all saying...downside, once I have taken my family I am left with the cousins father's side & his late wife, both of whom I know very little...so a tree.....to attract similar researchers, and I use that word lightly quivering leaves, loads of them, other trees again a handful, but when I look at some of the trees, my research is at variance to there's however I have succeeded in attracting 3 researchers on line all of whom are being very helpful so slowly the photo's are on the father's side. His late wife has an unusual surname in the family I googled and found the info then resorted to facebook...again these are bing helpful but do not share the same need to look at their family...slowly the inheritance is being distributed...so there are +es & -es

    Whiilst doing this I needed to place my own family name on the tree...the cousins mother, my gt Aunt.....did I get a surprise....a family tree going back to 1705...so I checked it out, then wrote to the 'owner', asked a few questions none of which the US person could answer...then I found the typo.....my typo....the work that had been loaded on was mine and a now deceased distant cousin.....in the late 1970's early 1980's he and I had 'met' via family members, he in Canada me UK! He was wanting to pursue his family in the UK...me I had been dragged around the grave yards by eldely spinster gt Aunts so was interested! We linked up, I did the research slowly in those days, in the UK he picked the family in Canada & US. Our tree was based on 12 children born to a couple married in 1850 - 1984...then we moved back , in those days it was snail mail The cousin in Canada prepared a 20' x 4' family tree which he 'sold' for the cost of printing & post to family members...it has full credit to those who eventually helped us create it.....this had fallen into the hands of an unscrupulous daughter in law....who when the opportunity seized her placed it on ancestry...but is not prepared to be part of the family in the continuing research!!! Sad, but it has made me re think my approach to trees on the net...whilst I agree to spending of money you can at least restrict the amount of information you add,

    I was 'educated ' in trhe art of family history of...D|o not declare your full hand' or 'keep the carrott dangling' that way you always have a bargaining toll....sorry my rant over for shall we say at least the month!!!!!!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: