Now I understand why some ancestry.com trees are private ... (skin, public)

Originally Posted by rohirette

I am not embarrassed to say that I use other trees as a resource.

It seems ridiculous to do the exact same research that fifty other people have done before me, particularly when we are talking about an ancestor that easily has a thousand descendants. I am not, however, taking or giving credit; this is purely for my own knowledge.

Now, I won't blindly copy an unsourced tree; I have to be able to find some document confirmation via archives.com, ancestry.com, a published book, etc. And my tree is private, on software on my home computer.

But that is just it how do you know it is properly documented unless you examine it youurself? I've seen plenty of 'sources' attached to trees that were obviously wrong with just a cusory view of the material.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by rohirette

I am not embarrassed to say that I use other trees as a resource.

You shouldn't feel embarassed, as genealogy has always been collaborative, and few of us could get very far at all without the assistance of others. And in turn, I've always done what I can to help those who are just behind me.

It seems ridiculous to do the exact same research that fifty other people have done before me, particularly when we are talking about an ancestor that easily has a thousand descendants.

Yes, and no. First of all, new resources are opening up all the time which may revise, or even contradict earlier research. I recently found a very elusive document online that was not available as recently as two years ago, in facsimile, that proves when and where one of my ancestors enlisted to fight at Fort Ticonderoga, and another which shows when he mustered out, and that he had been promoted in rank... and this contradicts many earlier family trees which are all over the internet now throwing doubt on his service because they had no proof.

Far more troubling, sometimes the research that "fifty other people have done before me, particularly when we are talking about an ancestor that easily has a thousand descendants" is dead wrong, and perhaps even falsified, but nobody has ever questioned it before.

I have one of those famous ancestors in my line, call him Henry, a man who became a Burgess in early Salem Colony, and who signed the warrant against Rebecca Nurse in the notorious witch trials of the late 1600s. Tens of thousand, maybe hundreds of thousands of people claim him as an ancestor, and hundreds, at least, show him arriving in 1640 at the age of 13, having been born in King's Lynne (Lynne Regis), England, and baptized in Leyden, Holland where many Puritans had fled, then sailing for the colonies as the apprentice of an attorney. That's printed as a fact in hard-backed books and shows up in dozens, maybe hundreds of family trees. And each new person in the family picks that up from those who came before and runs with it, and adds it to their tree, as I first did more than 10 years ago.

The problem is, my recent research says the story probably isn't true.

I have to thank one of those who came before for kind of pointing the way. She made a simple note that there was no evidence to prove exactly when Henry had arrived in Salem, nor when and where he had been born, which I eventually picked up and ran with.

One of the resources available to me now, that was not readily available to earlier researchers, is the archive of detailed passenger logs from the ships of the day. I find the named attorney crossing from London during the year 1640... from London, not from Leyden... and I even find him returning to London four years later, where he was later involved in a plot to murder the King and sentenced to execution and dying in the Tower of London. But the passenger manifest for his crossing does not list Henry, and for a long, expensive trip like the Atlantic crossing, it's extremely unlikely he would have been overlooked.

So, I started with the first authenticated record I can find of Henry, a court record of his arrest and conviction and fine, along with two of his pals, on what appears to a drunken mischief charge at at about age 20, when they knocked "a great gun" to the ground. And his age at that point can only be approximated from another court record, much later in life, when he gave testimony in another case. But working backwards from that first public record in 1647, I have yet to find his name on a ship manifest, so that's an open mystery, as far as I'm concerned.

As if that were not enough, even a trip to England and a week spent in his supposed birthplace and a visit to the Norfolk archives produced no evidence that he had even been born in King's Lynne, much less being born on the exact date given with such certainty in various publications. Neither could I establish a link to a man some purport to be his grandfather, who was knighted by Queen Elizabeth I. Even the supposed family crest of that distant gent adorns some of the family trees I have found on the internet, an act of what I call "aspirational genealogy," because the crest appears to be completely bogus, and besides, there's no proven link from Henry back to him, just a lot of wishful thinking.

In other words, almost everything I learned from other's research when I began my own search has turned out to be worthless and untrue. And this all came up in fact checking a man who was prominent enough to be mentioned and quoted in books and movies about the witch trials. And don't even get me started on the phony genealogists of the craze of the late 1800s who simply made things up in order to squeeze big fees out of people who wanted to prove they had colonial roots.

Today I say to people, use what others have done as a rough draft for your own work, but then verify, verify, verify everything back to source materials.

I am not, however, taking or giving credit; this is purely for my own knowledge.

I don't give or take credit either, but I am scrupulous about providing references back to source materials whenever I can provide it. That's my thank you to all those who have aided me in my own journey.

[EnricoV]

Originally Posted by jeansipes

What I do not understand is people who are doing research on the same family tree and do not want to simply compare notes ! I mean for crying out loud ...... you are related even if it is a 'distant relative' you are from the same 'stock' ! Those that ignore emails or refuse to swap info. are in my opinion, just plain selfish and RUDE. And the ones that completely ignore emails ....... would it kill you to at least answer the email with a reply like "I'm sorry but I cannot help you" or "I'm not interested" ???

When more than one family member is researching the same tree ; it only makes sense to assist each other. But we live in a day and age where too many people are dismissing manners and are only looking out for themselves. They have forgotten the meaning of "FAMILY".

My problem are messages that I get like these (and these are directly quoted, with identifying info X'd out):

Hi, looking for any info you might have on this person and her husband and kids.
Thanks in advance.

Would you share your documents and photos to the grandson of XXXXX XXXX XXXXX? She was the granddaughter of XXXXX X.
The XXXXXXXX email is a public email at the library Please send to my private: XXXXXXXXXXX

Would you give me access to read your information on the Smith family? I am not a direct descendent of XXXXXX, but we are related. Thanks.

please give me any info you have on the aforementioned person and family. thank you

It's all give me, give me, give me, do this do that. No offering up of information, even of how they're related, if they are. So I'm supposed to tell them everything I've gathered about the individual, usually only to get a reply back saying, "I already knew that."

[SilverwingNC]

I've developed quite a bit of detachment since the time I started this thread.

Once I got a hang of how to research and - more importantly - developed such an enjoyment of the process, I began to look at the copied and crappily constructed trees with a "meh" attitude. Reconstructing my family history creates a feeling of accomplishment, but the actual work has been even more fun. If other people don't want to do that, and resort to poaching, they can say they have a family tree, but can't claim to be researchers.

I set my tree to Public so I don't have to deal with all the message and e-mail inquiries. If folks want to copy the records, well - whatever. The purpose is served to disseminate correct information. It still hasn't made some of the common tree owners change what I obviously corrected by finding records, but that is pure laziness on their part.

[AnnieA]

Originally Posted by EnricoV

My problem are messages that I get like these (and these are directly quoted, with identifying info X'd out):

It's all give me, give me, give me, do this do that. No offering up of information, even of how they're related, if they are. So I'm supposed to tell them everything I've gathered about the individual, usually only to get a reply back saying, "I already knew that."

I've gotten those, especially, the, "give me all you have, please, on so and so......" .....trash bin.

I appreciate all who have helped me, given me hints, even, and not outright facts. I appreciate looking at other trees and trying to find clues that I can research on my own. I never take anything at face value but, some people are outright sheep......the more I write, the madder I get <rant over>

[rohirette]

OpenD, that is a very good point. Your example is more dramatic, but I have found that some of the other trees for my ancestors are incorrect. Normally I look through every tree I can find, to first see if there are conflicts. Then I don't make a decision on who to use without a historical source. That wouldn't eliminate scenarios where stories have become "canon," however.

I just had to prune away an entire lineage because I realized later on that someone had taken a leap of faith, and I couldn't substantiate it. I do spot overt sloppiness, but thinking about your scenario, I'm a bit nervous.

[cdnirene]

I have come across trees on Ancestry more than once where fathers have been listed as being born years AFTER their sons are listed as being born. Amazingly, several other Ancestry members have then attached those profiles to their own family trees, apparently completely unaware of how ridiculously impossible the supposed relationship is.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

OP, keep in mind, some of us were adopted and much of our family history is NOT information that we can easily find through family members. Sometimes it is ONLY because of connections made, (meaning, connecting the dots), through other people's work that we find any information at all.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone by "copying their work", (seriously?), all I wanted to do was find out who the hell I am since most of my life, I didn't have a fricken clue.

Maybe instead of being so selfish about what you found, be happy that you can help others. Why do you need acknowledgement of that? Just know that you did.

But, you'll be happy to know, I closed my account. I got back pretty far on the bio mom's side, couldn't find squat on male donor's side since I don't know his mother's name, and it was just too much money. You can rest easy, I will never "steal" from you.

How DARE people want to know where they came from when they have barely anything to start with.

[patrinka]

I don't understand why you would post your info publicly and complain when someone else uses your info. If you don't care to share then don't. Keep it to yourself. I think all info should be double checked. I ran across one tree that included my father but had him living and dying in the wrong location. I sent a little note to explain and received a curt and mildly rude answer. The person did not believe me. I guess you run across all kinds.

[kakalena]

Really?! I do a lot of research and am happy to share it with other people. I don't mind. I had no idea how touchy people are about this. It's not like it involves money or anything. We're all trying to find out the same stuff, might as well assist each other. This makes no sense to me.