Search for content in message boards

Inaccurate Information

Inaccurate Information

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 2:21AM GMT
Classification: Query
Why are there so many trees with completely inaccurate information. I looked up one today for an individual I have BMD and all documented by Drouin. Birth and Death date and location was wrong. And those dates are visible on so many other trees that came up in the listing. One even had 5 children born to this person after the date they had for her death.
What gives are these just people who come in and just copy whatever they find and use it as a valid tree. I don't feel anything I find on any of them is of any value at all. Especially trees that rely on a census as a documented source.
I want to put my family tree on here but I have spent hours and $$ tracking the 4500 people and documenting many of them with valid sources. I honestly don't do it because I don't want lazy people to just come and grab all the work I have done and copy it for their own
Am I wrong or are people just copying whatever they see on another tree. I rarely even look at them but I had a particularly difficult time finding a death date for this individual and I thought I am going to look and see who had this date in the member trees. I didn't find one with the right date or location.
Has anyone else experienced this same problem.

Re: Inaccurate Information

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 2:31AM GMT
Classification: Query
"What gives are these just people who come in and just copy whatever they find and use it as a valid tree.... are people just copying whatever they see on another tree"

In a word - YES.

As to your concern about lazy people copying - sometimes the people who do this are clueless, and have no idea how to find actual records and documentation. At least, if they copied from what you had found and documented, their trees would be accurate to that extent (but don't hold your breath...)

This is widespread, rampant, and encouraged by Ancestry (through its "you don't need to know anything," and putting forward other members' trees as "sources" or "research"). You have to just do your own thing, and ignore what others do, IMO.



Re: Inaccurate Information

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 2:43AM GMT
Classification: Query
Light your own genealogical candle and stop cursing the darkness.

Re: Inaccurate Information

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 2:53AM GMT
Classification: Query
Well said, McC.

One of the best "new" options is the ability to turn off tree hints - just ignore what others do/have done and do your own best on your own tree.

Re: Inaccurate Information

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 7:29PM GMT
Classification: Query
"What gives are these just people who come in and just copy whatever they find and use it as a valid tree. I don't feel anything I find on any of them is of any value at all. Especially trees that rely on a census as a documented source. "

Then why bother to look at trees at all! They certainly aren't valid, documented sources and should be (and usually are) ignored by most serious reseachers.

Re: Inaccurate Information

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 8:09PM GMT
Classification: Query
Calm down Andy.

"They certainly aren't valid, documented sources..."

Oh but they are, and they're sometimes even citable.

"...and should be (and usually are) ignored by most serious reseachers."

Only by those who believe their own hyperbole.

Re: Inaccurate Information

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 8:17PM GMT
Classification: Query
Just started looking at them to see if anyone has this date that I finally discovered and had spent a lot of time looking for just wanted to see if it was on any tree and in that process noticed almost every tree has wrong info on this person. I don't use them at all I never source anything from someone else's tree.

Re: Inaccurate Information

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 8:28PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 17 Oct 2013 8:30PM GMT
"I never source anything from someone else's tree."

Pity. Sometimes they're a sole source for credible information...but I'll build my own citation.

Re: Inaccurate Information

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 10:55PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 17 Oct 2013 10:58PM GMT
"They certainly aren't valid, documented sources"
--anything from which one takes whatever sort of data is a source and should be cited as such. Evaluation of quality of information is a quite different matter.

"...and should be (and usually are) ignored by most serious researchers."
--There are actually some sterling trees in which cited documentation for nearly everything is present. There are also many trees for which the owner has extensive documentation but has not supplied it on the tree (but may share when contacted with specific questions). For serious researchers, it can be helpful to find a collaborator who has posted a "cousin bait" tree.

Re: Inaccurate Information

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 11:07PM GMT
Classification: Query
I have "planted" a cousin bait public tree. There are several trees that have linked a child to the wrong parents. It's a family of strong interest - collateral line - for me. If even one of the trees that is incorrectly connected corrects that bad assumption, it will have been well worth the couple of hours it took me to create the small tree, properly sourced, with a few carefully-selected documents.
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

© 1997-2014 Ancestry.com | Corporate Information | New Privacy | Terms and Conditions