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 don't blame Ancestry, I blame people. There are some pretty horrible genealogies out there from published books all the way back to the 1800s, long before Ancestry was around. In fact many of the bad trees (especially the ones showing false royal connections) are based off of those books (that were long ago disproven).
Also just because someone shares their genealogy doesn't mean you *have* to copy it. For someone to share there tree openly and others to ridicule them is somewhat petty. Sure if they are broadcasting on surname forums they have it right, but I don't see the need to pick on people or their trees you passively run across.
Often, even a tree showing sources is completely wrong. They've proven that the person exists but not that they have anything to do with any of the other people on the tree. I am in a spot right now where everyone's name is either Elizabeth or Charles, even the children of each Liz and Chuck couple. Impossible to see any conclusive evidence really, yet all these trees have wonderfully creative links. lol.
People who have life events years after their death.
People who were born well after a putative parent died.
I have one lady, born in 1783, who is in tree after tree as the daughter of a man who died during the Revolutionary War, in 1778, while his wife was pregnant with their only child, a son.
[quote=Alandros;42060313]I don't blame Ancestry, I blame people. There are some pretty horrible genealogies out there from published books all the way back to the 1800s, long before Ancestry was around. In fact many of the bad trees (especially the ones showing false royal connections) are based off of those books (that were long ago disproven).[/QUOTE
I once ran across a genealogy for my paternal grandmother's family which led all the way back to (hold your flying cats!)... Odin and Freya of Asgaard!
Nope, we're Irish. If they'd cited one of the High Kings of Ireland, well, maybe...but my family tree isn't Yggdrasil.
It is a frustration. Sometimes an error is very explainable . A cool thing I had happen was where a public tree showed a person in my grandmother's family but not my grandmother. I contacted the tree owner, someone who I did not know at all, and asked him who the person was that he had included and let him know that he was missing the baby of the family, my grandmom. That led to some great exchanges and the discovery of a birth record in Ohio where the way an official in 1874 had written the births , parents and dates was confusing and thus two children on that list were attributed to my great-grandparents at first glance. If one did not know that a surprise baby appeared in 1886, the head count would work and the documentation looked to be there.
The individual was thrilled when I sent him the info on my grandmother, further researched the errant document that appeared to be correct from 1874, sent me pictures of it to show how he came to the conclusion and it was a great exchange of information. To make it even stranger, the county -to save money I guess - had recorded these births on a sheet that recorded deaths so they just turned it upside down and wrote in the information, with obviously, some errors in trying to put birth information. Wouldn't you love your child's birth recorded on a death record??????? Geez - morbid recycling project. It makes for a great family conversational piece now that it has been uncovered.
But it is frustrating the perpetuation of incorrect information that even a novice could deduce is wrong. I am presently combing through my information to catch anything I have added that is in error by accepting information from another tree (sometimes one that has a very serious seasoned genealogist) that is just wrong. I treat my tree like I do politics, religion and gossip. Do my own research and verify. Plus add editorial notes to entries that strike me as suspect . While it is time consuming, I do try to go to any trees that come as hints, and look at their information in general . I think some people do trees like they give out favorite recipes - omitting a crucial ingredient. LOL
Lol. One entire side of my family tree is screwed up on all sites that have user submitted data. One of my aunts converted to Mormonism back in the 50s and treated the family history thing they do as a creative writing assignment. Edited out stuff about the family that she thought was embarrassing, spliced in some new ancestors that she thought would impress her friends or that would make her related to someone she wanted to be related to. The whole thing is an elaborate work of fiction, there are more people in it that aren't my ancestors than authentic family members. It all falls apart like a badly constructed house of cards when you start comparing it to census records, official marriage records, etc. but that hasn't stopped hundreds of people from adding pieces of it, or even the whole thing, to their tree and referencing it as "LDS records" as if that means something.
Honestly I don't think a lot of them care, we aren't talking about colonial era stuff that would be difficult to vet, half a dozen census sheets would be enough to call BS on the whole thing. When genealogy became a popular hobby it also attracted a lot of people who are really just looking for something interesting to talk about with their friends, accuracy to them is secondary. Or maybe tertiary.
In a related field, my late father -- an historian -- ran across a guy who kept insisting that he was the direct descendant of a mildly notorious late 19th century western outlaw. He wasn't.
The guy had actually gone to the effort, expense, and subterfuge of having his own great-grandmother's tombstone replaced with one prominently featuring a totally inaccurate maiden surname in support of his erroneous claims.
This will probably foul up family trees in perpetuity, as it gets recorded into Find a Grave, etc.
And this wasn't some 'big name' notorious or legendary outlaw, just a mid-level bankrobber. But this guy was fixated upon him.
Lol. One entire side of my family tree is screwed up on all sites that have user submitted data. One of my aunts converted to Mormonism back in the 50s and treated the family history thing they do as a creative writing assignment. Edited out stuff about the family that she thought was embarrassing, spliced in some new ancestors that she thought would impress her friends or that would make her related to someone she wanted to be related to. The whole thing is an elaborate work of fiction, there are more people in it that aren't my ancestors than authentic family members. It all falls apart like a badly constructed house of cards when you start comparing it to census records, official marriage records, etc. but that hasn't stopped hundreds of people from adding pieces of it, or even the whole thing, to their tree and referencing it as "LDS records" as if that means something.
Honestly I don't think a lot of them care, we aren't talking about colonial era stuff that would be difficult to vet, half a dozen census sheets would be enough to call BS on the whole thing. When genealogy became a popular hobby it also attracted a lot of people who are really just looking for something interesting to talk about with their friends, accuracy to them is secondary. Or maybe tertiary.
I love this! Your story about your aunt adds humor to the atrocity of ancestry fabrication. And your take on it is refreshing. It shows how varied the personalities are that get into this. Or how varied the motives are.
While I have to watch getting to be so nit-picking that I lose the joy of discovering our roots (though I am actually a fairly joyful nitpicker due to extreme hyper-focus) , I have no desire to enter the sweepstakes for the most people on my tree (kind of like friends on facebook) . Likely there is a strange bent to my personality because I stray from culling out the embarrassing and instead avidly seek the fullness of the questionable activities of my ancestors. Now, that may be due to the lack of much in the way of historically notable individuals to be found, but I have some that have married into who's who and those too have had their fair share of eye-brow raisers. I love these guys .
So many people on my tree are the extended families of those who have married in. THeir families seem to keep better records than my own blood line so they provide lots of interesting perspective of the times they lived in. If it doesn't fully reveal something of my family, it at least let's me see what their dinnertime conversations were likely about.
When I tie up a few (many few) loose ends on my tree (not that I am anywhere near gathering info far back at all) , I want to start adding some stories to people. I'll likely do the Fargo disclaimer, making it abundantly clear that all of this may or may not have happened, but it sure is interesting to add colorful speculation.
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.
