Search for content in message boards

Famous Ancestors

Famous Ancestors

Posted: 26 Apr 2013 7:27PM GMT
Classification: Query
This post was deleted by the author on 27 Apr 2013 12:35AM GMT

Re: Famous Ancestors

Posted: 26 Apr 2013 10:34PM GMT
Classification: Query
Any move to marginalize the effects of One World Tree is an improvement.

Re: Famous Ancestors

Posted: 26 Apr 2013 10:46PM GMT
Classification: Query
I have no problems with it's disappearance and I hope it doesn't return...

Re: Famous Ancestors

Posted: 26 Apr 2013 10:52PM GMT
Classification: Query
The 'famous ancestors' results were mostly wrong since they were based on a badly programmed computer compilation of user-submitted trees. The user-submitted trees were and are seldom based on factual genealogical research.

Good riddance.

Re: Famous Ancestors

Posted: 27 Apr 2013 4:34AM GMT
Classification: Query
I agree that the source of the data and the connections for famous people was suspect. That said, I think connections to famous people (especially historical figures) are a fun way to get non-genealogists interested in family history. It's a touchpoint that people will talk about and share with others.

-Dave
(possibly related to U.S. President James Monroe ;-)

Re: Famous Ancestors

Posted: 27 Apr 2013 5:24AM GMT
Classification: Query
"That said, I think connections to famous people (especially historical figures) are a fun way to get non-genealogists interested in family history."

That may well be true, but only if those connections have actually been sourced, those sources cited, and a genealogical proof statement presented.

Connections based on junk (i.e. most online trees) are worthless.



Re: Famous Ancestors

Posted: 27 Apr 2013 6:21PM GMT
Classification: Query
Possibly the best way to support a Famous Ancestors feature would be for Ancestry to hire qualified genealogists to build some "Descendants of .." trees for non-living individuals who pass their fame critera (perhaps inclusion in several major almanacs), source those trees well, and then test only for matches between the user's tree or search expression and the professionally built trees.

Whether the number of new users who would be attracted by this feature is sufficient to be worth the resources to construct the well-sourced descendants-of-famous-people trees is a question for marketing research.

Re: Famous Ancestors

Posted: 29 Apr 2013 3:00AM GMT
Classification: Query
I for one, do not really care about famous ancestors, I mean it would be fun to know, but I would rather learn about the ordinary people who made me who I am. I know some people are all about the famous people and that is why there are so many fantasy trees.

Re: Famous Ancestors

Posted: 29 Apr 2013 3:28AM GMT
Classification: Query
barbdale-I'm with you. My focus is learning about my ancestors, my husband's and all other family members.

Re: Famous Ancestors

Posted: 30 Apr 2013 2:09AM GMT
Classification: Query
I agree, 'Famous Ancestors' is fun family information to know.
Errors happen, and documenting corrections is a very enjoyable part of useful genealogical research.
Keep 'Famous Ancestors' for those who enjoy it, please.


per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

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