>> I have many family from New England, Mayflower ancestors and many others who came early to this country. There are many cases of multiple marriage records available on Ancestry from those times. <<
Your ancestry is far from unique in having boatloads of ancestors, some with multiple marriages.
>> Sometimes, as many as 10 records for *each* person in the couple<<
I had a peak at some of the *records* (Ancestry Member Trees, Millennium File, U.S. and International Marriage Records, to name a few), you're using and linking to your tree. Learning how to evaluate the good, the bad and the junk (see above) sources should be at the top of every beginners' list of things to do.
>>Since you don't have the problem yourself, you don't seem to understand the situation<<
That's correct, I don't have a problem. I don't add data that can't be verified with solid evidence. That's a good genealogy practice and the first thing every beginner should learn. I understand plenty from reviewing your tree data.
>>I do add the marriages manually myself. However, when the records are updated from Ancestry's hints, they may attach to the right couple or marriage date, or they may not, which is why the difficulty and extra work involved. Then, to correct it, I have to check each one, recheck each person's updates and reset quite a few records just for one couple.<<
Again, each and every one of Ancestry's 1000's of db's DOES NOT REACT THE SAME WHEN LINKING, and they never will. This is not something that can made uniform without recoding every db's index, and that's never going to happen.
>>I don't "slap" data into my tree - you are making up a story of your own, not understanding the situation at all.<<
A 12,000+ tree with copied data, poor/no sourcing and one that dates back to the 13th century appears slapdash, though more careless than hasty (it takes a lot of time to add a bunch of junk, but even more to remove it). It also negates the solid data a tree might have.