Annoying Issue with Ancestry's Search Engine (find, accuracy, family tree, pure)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find that when a transcription error from a primary document is corrected (such as Horace West in the 1860 census transcribed as Hornet Nest), the next thing that comes up is the "Find others searching for Hornet Nest" screen.
When a transcription is corrected the next step should be shown corrected or at least given both names! Has anyone else been annoyed by this?
PS My example is fictional but demonstrates what I mean. Nobody is ever looking for Hornet Nest since he does not exist.
I've never really used the "find others" option so no, it doesn't bother me. The "corrections" are added as alternates, so the original remains the same, which is likely why it defaults to the original.
My biggest issue with the search engine right now is the fact that the "exact" location option isn't always working in some collections.
I'd be interested to hear from people who have used the "find others" option since that often leads to trees which can be used as hints.
I never use it, especially since I ignore most other trees, because the info is usually wrong. People don't know how to read or do research.
(Twelve people) list a spouse's married name and wrong birthday. Granted, Ancestry had zilch, but they were too pathetic to go to Family Search and enter the married name and up pops the marriage certificate with her maiden name and correct date of birth, and a birth certificate for a child which incorrectly lists her married name instead of her maiden name (that sometimes happens with birth records before 1930), plus her 1900 Census record as a bonus.
Last edited by in_newengland; 11-08-2018 at 09:21 AM..
True, a lot of the trees on Ancestry are wrong, but they can still be used as potential hints to prove or disprove. I don't know why Ancestry allows postings that don't come with primary sources. It seems that one can post a tree that doesn't pop up with an obvious error correction such as showing a woman having children at age 6 or similar. Or I've found death dates at 110+ or something- just obvious things that era usually caught if you are using a database program.
Family Search has a long way to go too since many of their trees are speculative as well. Plenty of errors there also. They are of most use if they show actual primary documents.
True, a lot of the trees on Ancestry are wrong, but they can still be used as potential hints to prove or disprove. I don't know why Ancestry allows postings that don't come with primary sources.
Because they don't police family trees - that's not the their job, nor is it anyone else's job. There are no rules against putting speculative information in your tree, as long as you understand it's speculative and only there as a reminder of a potential lead. There's also no rules against using secondary sources, as long as you understand they are secondary and may not be as reliable as a primary source.
Because they don't police family trees - that's not the their job, nor is it anyone else's job. There are no rules against putting speculative information in your tree, as long as you understand it's speculative and only there as a reminder of a potential lead. There's also no rules against using secondary sources, as long as you understand they are secondary and may not be as reliable as a primary source.
I would argue it is their job to promote accuracy because it is not just for the individual's information. If it were, why post at all? The idea is sharing.
We've all seen the Ancestry commercials on TV which purport to show a line of accurate information by just inputting a name! That is the impression that Ancestry is advertising to get people to pay to subscribe. They are encouraging people who have zero training to use their website. It is a for profit commercial company so of course they're out to make money.
Much would be gained by not encouraging non sourced trees (and ones that don't just cite other trees!) to be posted- Or at least have a box for each item of information that says warning "undocumented" speculative information.
There is nothing specifically wrong with a secondary source. It just should be identified as such. And purely speculative items could be identified as "postulated" with a big red tag (or something).
Family Search allows a lot more latitude since it is a religious organization and can therefore post anything to get souls baptized into heaven (!). The IGI is notoriously inaccurate. Not being critical however, they are a fabulous free resource.
I would argue it is their job to promote accuracy because it is not just for the individual's information. If it were, why post at all? The idea is sharing.
Promote accuracy perhaps, not require or police it.
Quote:
We've all seen the Ancestry commercials on TV which purport to show a line of accurate information by just inputting a name! That is the impression that Ancestry is advertising to get people to pay to subscribe. They are encouraging people who have zero training to use their website. It is a for profit commercial company so of course they're out to make money.
I never said they weren't, and I'm not going to defend their commercials - my comment was only in response to the issue of Ancestry allowing or not allowing people to add data without primary sources attached.
Quote:
Much would be gained by not encouraging non sourced trees (and ones that don't just cite other trees!) to be posted- Or at least have a box for each item of information that says warning "undocumented" speculative information.
That's a fair suggestion, but you originally said "I don't know why Ancestry allows postings that don't come with primary sources" which I took to mean you feel they shouldn't allow it, not that they should discourage it. Also, not actively discouraging it isn't the same as encouraging it.
Quote:
There is nothing specifically wrong with a secondary source. It just should be identified as such. And purely speculative items could be identified as "postulated" with a big red tag (or something).
Personally, I'm of the belief that sources should speak for themselves, and good researchers should be knowledgeable enough to identify a primary source vs secondary and understand what the lack of sources means. If someone is not, that's their problem, not mine. I'm not opposed to a simple notice pointing out an undocumented person in a tree, but literally every single unsourced item/fact in the timeline being tagged with a big red notice would very quickly get annoying and intrusive if it appeared on my own tree. I would probably remove my tree from Ancestry if that were to happen, because it would just be too much in the way of my work. Because as I say, I do have speculative data in my tree I've added without sources, simply as a reminder of a potential lead.
Additionally, identifying a secondary vs primary source would take a lot of work on Ancestry's part. They would have go through every single collection they have and determine whether it's a primary or secondary source, and then tag it as such, in order for it to be labelled such in people's trees when attached. Then there are all the manually added sources that come from outside Ancestry's collections which they would not be able to label (they could offer a way for people to opt to tag it themselves, but many people probably wouldn't bother). And then of course there's all the records that may contain a combination of primary and secondary data. Census records, for example, are a primary source for the residence of the individuals listed at that time - but they are a secondary source for birth data. Trying to tag not just the collection but each individual piece of data on each record would be far too big of an undertaking and not a realistic or reasonable request. As genealogists, it's our jobs to figure these things out, not Ancestry's, and if people fail to do that job properly, the website should not be blamed.
Additionally, identifying a secondary vs primary source would take a lot of work on Ancestry's part. They would have go through every single collection they have and determine whether it's a primary or secondary source, and then tag it as such, in order for it to be labelled such in people's trees when attached. Then there are all the manually added sources that come from outside Ancestry's collections which they would not be able to label (they could offer a way for people to opt to tag it themselves, but many people probably wouldn't bother). And then of course there's all the records that may contain a combination of primary and secondary data. Census records, for example, are a primary source for the residence of the individuals listed at that time - but they are a secondary source for birth data. Trying to tag not just the collection but each individual piece of data on each record would be far too big of an undertaking and not a realistic or reasonable request. As genealogists, it's our jobs to figure these things out, not Ancestry's, and if people fail to do that job properly, the website should not be blamed.
What I initially blamed Ancestry for was their faulty correction designation as stated in my original post. That could be easily fixed.
I'm not suggesting Ancestry would do all of what you say. They could give current users a time frame in which to add sources to existing trees.
I'm suggesting they would not post new trees that don't have the appropriate sources identified by the user. That they could do by changing their software- wouldn't be perfect but it would be a step in the right direction.
No source is absolute and even primary sources can be wrong, but I think Ancestry is misleading people by buoying expectations unrealistically and they are definitely promulgating bad information.
What I initially blamed Ancestry for was their faulty correction designation as stated in my original post. That could be easily fixed.
Again, the corrections are actually alternates suggested by users. While they very much have their use, I've seen people suggest incorrect alternate data - so defaulting the "find others" data to the alternate may not necessarily always be the better option. Additionally, multiple people can submit alternates, meaning there's sometimes more than one "correction" - which one would should Ancestry default to in these cases?
Quote:
I'm not suggesting Ancestry would do all of what you say. They could give current users a time frame in which to add sources to existing trees.
I'm suggesting they would not post new trees that don't have the appropriate sources identified by the user. That they could do by changing their software- wouldn't be perfect but it would be a step in the right direction.
You mean not allowing a tree to be available to the public until it's sourced, or not allow people to even create an unsourced tree (public or not) to begin with?
I would definitely remove my tree from Ancestry if they were to start blocking people from adding unsourced info. Again, they are not the family tree police, nor should they be. People have a right to add whatever they want to their tree, even if it's wrong, even if it's unsourced, no matter how frustrating that is to us. Many people start off in genealogy by adding what they know or have collected from family members, then move on to documentation later. It would be incredibly off putting for beginners to genealogy to find that they were barred from adding info to their tree because they don't yet have a source for it.
Ancestry provide the materials and means to research your genealogy and organize that data. They are not required, and they should not be required, to dictate how people do that. They are not any kind of governing body of the genealogy community, and even organizations which sort of are (like the Board of Certification of Genealogists) only tell us how to conduct research with genealogy standards and guidelines - not some kind of laws that will get you barred from building a tree if you don't do it how they say. Honestly, your suggestions sound rather controlling and dictatorial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
