|
#11
02-01-23, 07:56
|
||||
|
||||
I don't think Ancestry is 'saying' that - think of it that Ancestry is telling you stuff from other trees without evaluating it for accuracy! As Phoenix said - Unfortunately, Ancestry goes with the majority. - as soon as you get a sniff of anyone 'known' or 'famous' there will be a lot of people wanting to work that person in to their tree. In this case they are probably doing that so they can say they are 'related' to Queen Victoria, given the number of people who have her down as JB's spouse! In this case there's the added help that JB's name is so common, it' simple for people to connect him to random Browns in their tree if they don't care about any degree of sense/accuracy, such as women having children after they are dead etc etc etc
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 
|
|
#12
02-01-23, 09:12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I have just looked at some trees on Ancestry because you piqued my interest and some have some good facts but all have woven in some fantasy about Brown's relationship with Victoria, some have them marrying! Some seem to have picked up siblings of Brown with totally different surnames but with middle name Brown! No one will ever know what happened between them, it's clear they had a much closer relationship than the Queen would normally have with a servant but I really don't think the intimacy went that far that it could be called an affair. It is documented that Brown was very outspoken to and in front of Victoria but it is is also clear from documented accounts he was mostly under the influence of alcohol. His younger brother Archie also worked in the Royal household.
|
|
#13
03-01-23, 01:52
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would think though that Ancestry would at least check basic facts before giving me hints. They have John Brown senior and Margaret Leys as my 4 x great grandfather’s parents. There is a tree with that on it, but that tree has as the wrong dates.
I just think for what we pay for Ancestry they shouldn’t use stupid info as ‘potential father or mother’.
__________________
|
|
#14
03-01-23, 03:21
|
||||
|
||||
|
There’s no “intelligence” there other than AI, methinks, Libby. I agree with you entirely of course, but I believe they’re attempting to make a quick killing, down and dirty, by just letting their computers run amok. The uninitiated think they’re being catered to. Myself, I’m starting to really resent the time I lose sorting the wheat from the chaff and I wish they’d stop shoveling such nonsense my way.
|
|
#15
03-01-23, 04:38
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#16
03-01-23, 08:03
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think it would be too much to expect Ancestry to evaluate the hints it gives you. What they should do is stop giving hints (or probably should never have started). I never look at them. Maybe I will occasionally miss a good hint, but I don't care about that.
In the most part I prefer to do any research myself. That may include looking at other trees, but only for specific proven information that perhaps I don't have access to any other way. Surely reSEARCH should include a bit of searching?!!
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#17
03-01-23, 08:10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#19
03-01-23, 08:24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
