View Full Version : Flipping heck, is this how the info is getting out there?
Just went on TP and thought I'd check the connections, jumped from 54 before (in 7 trees) to finding one tree with 83 common names, now TP has a new thing, to me anyway, that now shows if the connection has the same details or if they differ. This tree with 83 common nnames has ONE that is the same, the rest all have less information, checked the homepage for it and it has over 40,000 names. The differences in most records are that they use abbreviations for pob, I've thrown a couple of wrong dates on my online stuff and they have been duplicaterd in this tree too. I think I've found where a lot of this gedcom gathering site rubbish is coming from as those same abbreviations appear on those sites too.
Makes you wonder why people bother sometimes.
Just found another huge blooper in another tree on there 8not for the first time in that one either). Why is it these WRONG trees are the ones who get all the contacts and share the wrong stuff that then gets shared again and again yet nobody ever seems to contact me?
Getting the blood pressure up a wee bit now
Olde Crone
12-05-13, 21:56
Deep breaths, Glen, deep breaths......
I was told that I must be wrong, as 9 people had this woman in their tree and I was the only one saying she died when she was four! They had all copied from each other, but hey, nine people can't be wrong.
Someone recently contacted me through TP, where I have a hobby tree. He congratulated me in a rather patronising way and opened his Ancestry tree to me. He had made a huge and basic mistake in our mutual relative and I gave him chapter and verse about why he had picked the wrong man and who the right man was. He completely ignored me and has gone on adding daily to his wrong relative.
Why would you do that? Why would you go on working on something that was wrong and adding to it? What on earth is the point?
OC
Corse they're all right.....heavens...if my great grandfather can die before his first brithday, anything is possible....
TP? Sorry to seem daft, but what is TP?
This could be how it starts too -
Sydney Morning Herald 23 April 1949
"MARRIED LAST NIGHT
MAJOR KENNETH COLE and MRS. COLE, who was formerly Madame Caroline Chambrelent, leaving St. Stephen's Church, Macquarie Street, after their marriage yesterday. Major Cole's cousin, AIR-VICE MARSHAL A. T. ("KING") COLE was best man and MRS. ERNEST WATT was matron of honour. Mr. Ernest Watt gave away thet bride, who wore a beautiful afternoon frock of steel blue heavy silk with short cuffed sleeves, a buttoned skirt falling into soft folds and a bodice embroidered with metallic beads and pearls. Major and Mrs. Cole left by air last night to spend their honeymoon at Mount Macedon and will make their home in Melbourne."
If anyone believed that the Major and the Air Vice Marshall were cousins, then they would be in trouble.
I would love to know if they thought they were cousins, but they were not, they just have the same surname and some family members lived in the same suburb. I can prove they were not even slightly related.
But it must be true, it was in the newspaper !!!
Olde Crone
13-05-13, 10:39
Oh yes, my GGF's obituary. "He is survived by three sisters". True. But they are not HIS sisters, they are sisters to each other and in fact his sisters-in-law.
OC
I'm waiting on a couple of certs but it seems I've got a 1935 marriage of two people with the surname of Chambers, if the certs tell me what I suspect both trace back to the same village, it seems the 1935 couple are cousins of some degree, one tree on TP has the two lines mangled, it's still wrong despite the tree owner acknowledging the error. I know it's wrong as the error surrounds my great grandmother Martha Thorbon Elmer, (married to the wrong George Chambers) and I have all her certs, census etc. That same error is on at least a dozen online trees but does anyone ever contact me........erm no, they just seem to jump on the first fouled up tree and it spreads like wildfire.
When you point out the mistake the reply is usually well she is the mother of my grandfather or whatever, seems they can't even make the connection that if they had the right marriage she would be their direct ancestor, granted we can all make a mistake but why, when it's a direct ancestor, do people just fly back from the mistake regardless?
Chris in Sussex
14-05-13, 06:57
I have become very wary of contacting people who I believe have a mistake in their tree.
I usually write stating what I believe is correct but ask them to point me in the right direction where I have made an error, thereby putting myself in the 'wrong' and, until recently, this worked well.
But I have twice received rather rude and aggressive replies that were obviously designed to put me in my place, one particularly made me feel like I had been scraped of the bottom of their shoe.
Neither would entertain the idea they could possibly be incorrect in their research but didn't provide any details as to why they were right and I was wrong even though I had given then chapter and verse on what I thought and asked for guidance as to where I had made an error.
I want my tree to be accurate and if someone contacted me, in a nice way, pointing out a possible error I would be pleased to correspond to sort it out. It has happened to me in the past and I am enternally grateful to the person who did.
I am probably guilty of being a bit 'precious' about my ancestors but I believe they deserve to be respectfully remembered with their lives recorded acurately, not as a notch on the belt of someone who just wants a big tree!
Chris
It's slightly odd as I sometimes use a database of Lincolnshire familes for some bits in my tree, (purely as a guide and nothing more), the database has close to 250,000 names within it and the author, quite rightly, states it may be innacurate at times but it has let me wander through things and link different branches of one surname, ironically it doesn't have my direct line in there but lots of twigs that connect to it, it's odd how such a thing happens, everything I have looked at in there checks out accurately whereas the online trees with my direct lines are always wrong somewhere and one tree in particular is a small tree (just 80 names and just the one surname) but has so many errors it is beyond belief.
tenterfieldjulie
21-05-13, 11:11
I was looking at a tree the other day belonging to a person who I thought was a serious researcher. I noted the date of death which was right, then I saw attached were Census images of someone with the same name, but the Census images were after the death date!
Were they on there on the chance that they may have the wrong dod or are they ummh thick? Julie
kiterunner
21-05-13, 12:37
Well... there are some families on the 1911 census who listed all their children, the living and the dead, because they were confused by the question asking for the numbers of each. And some of the old Irish censuses (of which only a few bits survive) asked for details of household members who had died since the previous census. So it is possible for someone to be on the census after their death.
tenterfieldjulie
22-05-13, 11:21
These images were for 1851 and 1861 Census. The birth place written (correctly) was different from the birthplace in the Censuses. I suppose I should have contacted them and asked why, but I thought I might get a rude answer!!
I must admit the 1911 stuff I have usually has stuff crossed out when it comes to the living/deceased children but the big errors in the online trees I have discovered always crop up with one ancester and the wrong marriage in the 1860's, The two lines do link (surname is Chambers in both cases) but the linking marriage is 1935 and not 1865 as they all seem to believe. One cert would sort it, I have it and am happy to share it but none seem that interested, perhaps detaching one name and reattaching to the correct line they all have is too much trouble.
tenterfieldjulie
22-05-13, 13:58
What percentage of people who submit Ancestry trees update them, or is it just a fad?
kiterunner
22-05-13, 14:04
If you don't have Family Tree Maker synchronised with your ancestry tree, it is easy to let your ancestry tree get out of date, Julie. (I'm sure mine is on some branches!) I seem to remember that if you want to upload a replacement GEDCOM to ancestry, you have to do it as a new tree rather than updating an existing one.
Back in January, I put some comments on some ancestry trees, about various things I knew but they didn't, asking if they would like further information, or if they could tell me why I was wrong.
Finally today, one of the tree owners got back to me to say that she would correct her tree as soon as she could.
Wow, five months without checking into ancestry or working on your tree - I try to do something every week, and I have a lot fo 1911 census and probate records still to add.
Di
I have been researching for many years and have a big tree, as wide as it is long, but I am not a slavish copier or name collector and totally agree with the comments made if one has the nerve to question something or point out a possible error in someone else's tree. Or even ask for a reference for their information.
I try to be as tactful as possible when I think I have found an error and usually work in a similar way to Chris from Essex. However, some people can be extremely rude, no matter how careful or tactful you try to be.
I am at the moment looking at a recent email which calls me some very insulting names because I had the temerity to question a date and state an unpalatable and proven truth about an ancestor.
The only thing that I think one can do is to know that you have your own tree and research as accurate as possible and then develop a thick hide. Insults will not stop me from trying to correct an error.
Unfortunately, "name collectors" and copyists are bringing genuine family researchers into disrepute as well as the dragging the hobby in general down with them.
Vicwinann
Hi Vicwinann,
I don't try to point out errors to anyone anymore, I just add a comment to the person on their tree.
Today, two trees had Susannah Bistilope as marrying William Sawyer in Brighton Sussex. I just added a comment that Susannah's maiden name was Bishop, daughter of Benjamin and Sophia, which is easily checkable on familysearch.com !
DI
Olde Crone
02-06-13, 10:32
Di
I mean, honestly.....if I found an ancestor called Bistilope the first thing I would suspect is that it was a mistranscription, and check that theory by looking for other Bistilopes!
OC
Margaret in Burton
02-06-13, 11:35
Di
I mean, honestly.....if I found an ancestor called Bistilope the first thing I would suspect is that it was a mistranscription, and check that theory by looking for other Bistilopes!
OC
Mistranscription!!!
Never!!!
If it's on the Internet it must be right, mistakes on the Internet? NEVER!!! :rolleyes::p;)
Mary from Italy
02-06-13, 12:57
I'm in touch with a lady whose husband I'm related to, and I've been sharing information relating to his side of the tree. Last time I looked at their tree, it was quite small.
I happened to look at it again yesterday, and was somewhat surprised to find nearly 30,000 entries, and a tree dating back to Alfred the Great...
I found a website claiming to list 750,000 people connected to European Royality - I was just googling some names from my distant cousins. I was surprised to find one of them on the list - One wonders how a country vet from small West Sussex town could be connected to royalty.
It looks like in the 1500s, some of his ancestors were High Sheriff of Sussex and one was knighted at Flodden (1513) by Henry VIII - so its a chance meeting rather than a relationship. If it lists anyone ever knighted, then its a long list....
I found a website claiming to list 750,000 people connected to European Royality - I was just googling some names from my distant cousins. I was surprised to find one of them on the list - One wonders how a country vet from small West Sussex town could be connected to royalty.
It looks like in the 1500s, some of his ancestors were High Sheriff of Sussex and one was knighted at Flodden (1513) by Henry VIII - so its a chance meeting rather than a relationship. If it lists anyone ever knighted, then its a long list....
I've probably stepped on things he dropped on the battlefield then seeing as I lived close to Flodden a few years ago.
I have found that some American researchers are very reluctant to have their bubbles burst, especially if their tree suggests connection to somebody important. British researchers tend to be a bit more receptive to advice and correction.
I have been involved in helping a US DOTY/DOUGHTY research group since the early 2000s.
They were convinced DOTY was an English name until I went through all the C19th UK census indexes and found only a handful in the 19th century. Two of these people were American and the other few entries were dubious.
This went down like a lead balloon, with people inferring I was wrong, until a respected senior researcher backed me up.
There was also a similar search for the name Doten, which is a variant. When checking the images I found that nearly every one that had been seen as a genuine DOTEN was a mistranscription. One family was actually named Lynch! (bad handwriting, but checked out in other censuses)
The only DOTEN was a French family in the Channel Isles which ties in with a much more likely connection to mainland Europe.
Edward DOTY, however, was on the Mayflower and is well known. He is possibly the only DOTY to ever come to the US. There was a well known, but fake, genealogy which connected DOTY to DOUGHTY in the UK, which was put onto the IGI.
There are now many thousands of people in the USA named DOTY. As they would say - "go figure!"
I had woman send me a tree where a couple had three daughters named Elizabeth, the last of which had been born when the mother was 55 years old!
Another American person sent me a family history they had put on line which mentioned a place of birth as "Oldsburg" Gloucester, England. On checking, this was probably Oldsbury, but the mistake has not been rectified.
Oh, and my favourite - the American lady who told me she had a tree tracing her family back to King Arthur.
kiterunner
03-06-13, 17:17
Oh, and my favourite - the American lady who told me she had a tree tracing her family back to King Arthur.
If you search the public trees on ancestry for Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon, there are 1,984 matches! :eek:
Olde Crone
03-06-13, 17:32
I am surprised that the Mayflower didn't sink without trace before it left the UK. The number of people who were supposedly on it is quite remarkable.
Apparently all Holdens in the USA are descended from Justinian Holden who sailed on the Mayflower. Apart from the fact that there was no one of that name on the Mayflower, the ONLY Justinian Holden around at the time was in fact Justinia, a female!
OC
There does seem to be immense kudos in the US if you are descended from a 'Mayflowerite', with various groups and societies for the 'elite'. Thankfully, the criteria is very strict, with DNA testing sometimes being part of the requirement for membership.
There were a lot of people on board ship because the other ship was unfit to sail, so everyone crowded onto the MF.
From all accounts the Pilgrim Fathers weren't fleeing religious persecution, weren't pilgrims, didn't land at Plymouth rock and were a particularly nasty, prejudiced, fundamentalist bunch, hanging one of the women when they discovered she was a Quaker. Nowadays they would be called a "cult". All the hype is now part of the American mythos, sadly.
They were not even the first group of settlers from England. Others had landed and founded settlements earlier. Seems they just had the best PR.
Di
I mean, honestly.....if I found an ancestor called Bistilope the first thing I would suspect is that it was a mistranscription, and check that theory by looking for other Bistilopes!
OC
Exactly, OC, and if you haven't done so, why do you have a family tree at all ?
SBDFHS - here in OZ, there is now kudos in having a "First Fleeter" as an ancestor and saying they were transported for just one minor crime, which in the majority of cases was not completely true.
But I am proud that all my ancestors came as free settlers, paying at least part of their own way (some were assisted migrants), and worked hard, set up their own small businesses or worked for the government, paid taxes, had families and generally lead pretty unremarkable law-abiding lives !!
I have worked on making sure my family tree is correct, as far it is possible to know and found it surprisingly easy to trace most of them back beyond 1800, although one or two are still giving me grief. But I persist, I add little details, chase up side branches and lost twigs, just because I can, and you never know where it may lead.
So far, I have made only two major mistakes, following the wrong line, which I have now fixed and found the correct family, but I am loathe to tell the lady who shared her tree, that William from Chard is not the same as William from Taunton. I am a chicken, as I am happy to anonomously tell others !
Di
Why is it that it always seems to be the wrong trees that are copied and not those with correct information?
I see there are now 15 trees on Ancestry detailing the wrong spouse and ancestors for my 4xg-grandfather, Thomas Smith, but only two trees with the right person.
I was told by an American descendant that in the 1970s he paid a UK researcher "a lot of money" to find the marriage for Thomas Smith. The researcher ignored the known fact that TS was a Quaker and that there is an obit for his wife at the Quaker library in London (written in TS's lifetime) stating the date of her marriage to TS and info on her parents (there is also an obit for TS stating his birthplace and parents). Faced with the "impossibly hunt" for a marriage of a man with such a common name the researcher earned his money by looking at marriage allegations in Oxfordshire and picked one sensible for date, that took place close to where the couple lived after their marriage and with the correct bride's forename. It's just a shame it isn't the right people as the right couple had a Quaker marriage in a different county. This wrong couple now have a couple of generations of wrong ancestors too!
So, as this marriage was picked from many, I presume all the trees showing the wrong couple come from the same source. Apparently (according to my US contact), paying a lot of money for research means the result of that research must be correct!
I found a website claiming to list 750,000 people connected to European Royality - I was just googling some names from my distant cousins. I was surprised to find one of them on the list - One wonders how a country vet from small West Sussex town could be connected to royalty.
It looks like in the 1500s, some of his ancestors were High Sheriff of Sussex and one was knighted at Flodden (1513) by Henry VIII - so its a chance meeting rather than a relationship. If it lists anyone ever knighted, then its a long list....
One of my grandfathers' grandfather was a chemist who went bust in a small Devon town. His insolvency wasn't talked about but that sense of lost former glories was.
I followed solid yeomen farmer stock backwards till I found maternal lines where they called themselves gentlemen.
The vast majority of my Devon ancestors probably always were ag labs & yeomen farmers, but the Dissolution of the Monasteries enabled the wealthier ones to buy a bit of land, along with rich London merchants. The daughters of the ancient noble families were in demand to add a bit of class to a marriage.
In my family, it is those females, trophy brides, who were bragged about endlessly in every herald's visitation.
My tree does rely on every subsequent female being true to her husband, but yes, through female lines I am descended from royalty.
fantasy in trees, of course, has always existed. It is fascinating to compare heralds' visitations. Different family members will tell completely different stories and siblings can be omitted, as well as parents' other spouses.
Walter Rawleigh is a case in point. I think I am descended from his Aunty Joan, but all the men are called Wimond or Walter, they all marry Elizabeths, Marys and Katherines (often all three) and at least half a dozen trees have been produced showing different ancestries.
Margaret in Burton
05-06-13, 08:16
Paying for research does seem to mean that it MUST be correct and I'm sure most is. OH's cousin paid a researcher to do his paternal line. My OH went to Wiltshire to check some lines many years ago. Most of it is complete fantasy. The cousin gave us a photocopy of this tree he is so proud of. One A4 piece of paper, no siblings, no deaths just a direct line straight back to about 1700. There were some certs obtained but in my opinion it was very badly done. No idea how much was paid but they were robbed.
Olde Crone
05-06-13, 10:49
Ah yes, the paid researcher - they are called professionals, I believe? I know that SOME paid researchers are excellent but unfortunately the results I have seen from some of the others would be comical if they hadn't been so expensive.
One was presented to me with great solemnity by a Canadian contact. Reams of it, very impressive. If you didn't know the first thing about genealogy, which my contact obviously didn't.
It all hinged on one John Holden born c 1700 in Darwen, Lancs. Darwen was a tiny village in 1700, very remote and had an adult population of 699 people (men, I am assuming). At least 30 of them were called John Holden, so how, I asked, did you find out which one yours was? Answer: My researcher is a professional of many years standing and very good.
What really flabbergasted me though, was the handy list of Latin to English translations to back up the parish register entries.
Puer/a = means poor people, according to this very good professional researcher
De pochia = means out of pocket, probably pauper
Ex parochia = means On the parish, again pauper.
Considering this lot were landed gentry, you'd think the very good professional researcher would have been a bit suspicious really.
We don't correspond anymore because what on earth would I, a mere amateur, have to offer someone who has paid thousands of dollars for a professional tree.
OC
Mary from Italy
05-06-13, 11:53
Good heavens, those Latin translations are horrifying.
tenterfieldjulie
05-06-13, 12:51
I have been doing research for 30 years in Australia but had no idea how to proceed here. Forunately I have been taught so much in the last couple of years by GF and have much still to learn.
I have only recently (fortunately) started to look at other people's trees on Ancestry and I've got to admit that I am utterly flabbergasted with many of them. There does not seem to be any logical sense of what they are doing. I've looked and opened documents attached to prove something and it is for a completely different spouse. Then you bring up other trees and today another 15 people quoted the same completely wrong source. It is complete nonsense!!!
kiterunner
05-06-13, 13:39
I I've looked and opened documents attached to prove something and it is for a completely different spouse.
I have found when adding marriage certs etc to my ancestry tree in the past that the tree-building software would decide for itself which marriage and spouse it related to, and I could find no way of removing it from the wrong one and adding it to the right one. (I think mostly it was always linking them to the first spouse.) So maybe they had the same problem.
tenterfieldjulie
05-06-13, 13:54
Thanks Kate that makes sense, as it sure isn't logical.
It really is something that genealogy programmes should fix.
It is making genealogy look really stupid.
If you give a tree with wrong attachments to anyone with half a brain, they would think you are !!!!. Julie
Chris in Sussex
05-06-13, 13:59
Try putting 'God' into the surname box on Ancestry Family Trees search. Make sure there is no father's surname entered. The public trees are enlightening:)
Chris
Try putting 'God' into the surname box on Ancestry Family Trees search. Make sure there is no father's surname entered. The public trees are enlightening:)
Chris
I noticed that Eve b 4004BC married Adam. She died in 3074BC. Tsk! As ever, the tree is unsourced.
Olde Crone
05-06-13, 15:36
Eve didn't last very long though, dying at 30. Serves her right.
OC
Eve didn't last very long though, dying at 30. Serves her right.
OC
True, but remember - even in Victorian days no one lived past 40!!.......
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Olde Crone
05-06-13, 22:13
I remember someone (was it Jess?) telling me that you could download a tree from the LDS site with space for 300 generations! That's about 9,000 years.....
OC
There was a girl at Croydon station on Sunday talking on her phone. I wasn't paying attention till she said "Wave to Granny". Daughter and grandchild going through on another train. I hastily revised her age upwards, but she still cannot have been much above 35.
Perhaps LDS think we will all live forever.
A lass I was at school with was a gran at the age of 32. :eek:
kiterunner
06-06-13, 08:55
Or she could be a step-granny (the person who Phoenix saw, I mean)?
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.