|
#11
20-05-13, 14:10
|
||||
|
||||
It's slightly odd as I sometimes use a database of Lincolnshire familes for some bits in my tree, (purely as a guide and nothing more), the database has close to 250,000 names within it and the author, quite rightly, states it may be innacurate at times but it has let me wander through things and link different branches of one surname, ironically it doesn't have my direct line in there but lots of twigs that connect to it, it's odd how such a thing happens, everything I have looked at in there checks out accurately whereas the online trees with my direct lines are always wrong somewhere and one tree in particular is a small tree (just 80 names and just the one surname) but has so many errors it is beyond belief.
__________________
Joseph Goulson 1707-1780 My sledging hammer lies declined, my bellows too have lost their wind My fire's extinct, my forge decay'd, and in the dust my vice is laid My coal is spent, my iron's gone My nails are drove, my work is done Lord receive my soul 
|
|
#12
21-05-13, 11:11
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was looking at a tree the other day belonging to a person who I thought was a serious researcher. I noted the date of death which was right, then I saw attached were Census images of someone with the same name, but the Census images were after the death date!
Were they on there on the chance that they may have the wrong dod or are they ummh thick? Julie
|
|
#13
21-05-13, 12:37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well... there are some families on the 1911 census who listed all their children, the living and the dead, because they were confused by the question asking for the numbers of each. And some of the old Irish censuses (of which only a few bits survive) asked for details of household members who had died since the previous census. So it is possible for someone to be on the census after their death.
|
|
#14
22-05-13, 11:21
|
|||
|
|||
|
These images were for 1851 and 1861 Census. The birth place written (correctly) was different from the birthplace in the Censuses. I suppose I should have contacted them and asked why, but I thought I might get a rude answer!!
|
|
#15
22-05-13, 12:53
|
||||
|
||||
|
I must admit the 1911 stuff I have usually has stuff crossed out when it comes to the living/deceased children but the big errors in the online trees I have discovered always crop up with one ancester and the wrong marriage in the 1860's, The two lines do link (surname is Chambers in both cases) but the linking marriage is 1935 and not 1865 as they all seem to believe. One cert would sort it, I have it and am happy to share it but none seem that interested, perhaps detaching one name and reattaching to the correct line they all have is too much trouble.
__________________
Joseph Goulson 1707-1780 My sledging hammer lies declined, my bellows too have lost their wind My fire's extinct, my forge decay'd, and in the dust my vice is laid My coal is spent, my iron's gone My nails are drove, my work is done Lord receive my soul
|
|
#16
22-05-13, 13:58
|
|||
|
|||
|
What percentage of people who submit Ancestry trees update them, or is it just a fad?
|
|
#17
22-05-13, 14:04
|
||||
|
||||
|
If you don't have Family Tree Maker synchronised with your ancestry tree, it is easy to let your ancestry tree get out of date, Julie. (I'm sure mine is on some branches!) I seem to remember that if you want to upload a replacement GEDCOM to ancestry, you have to do it as a new tree rather than updating an existing one.
|
|
#18
01-06-13, 04:15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Back in January, I put some comments on some ancestry trees, about various things I knew but they didn't, asking if they would like further information, or if they could tell me why I was wrong.
Finally today, one of the tree owners got back to me to say that she would correct her tree as soon as she could. Wow, five months without checking into ancestry or working on your tree - I try to do something every week, and I have a lot fo 1911 census and probate records still to add. Di
|
|
#19
02-06-13, 05:06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Proofs and truths
I have been researching for many years and have a big tree, as wide as it is long, but I am not a slavish copier or name collector and totally agree with the comments made if one has the nerve to question something or point out a possible error in someone else's tree. Or even ask for a reference for their information.
I try to be as tactful as possible when I think I have found an error and usually work in a similar way to Chris from Essex. However, some people can be extremely rude, no matter how careful or tactful you try to be. I am at the moment looking at a recent email which calls me some very insulting names because I had the temerity to question a date and state an unpalatable and proven truth about an ancestor. The only thing that I think one can do is to know that you have your own tree and research as accurate as possible and then develop a thick hide. Insults will not stop me from trying to correct an error. Unfortunately, "name collectors" and copyists are bringing genuine family researchers into disrepute as well as the dragging the hobby in general down with them. Vicwinann
|
|
#20
02-06-13, 07:59
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Vicwinann,
I don't try to point out errors to anyone anymore, I just add a comment to the person on their tree. Today, two trees had Susannah Bistilope as marrying William Sawyer in Brighton Sussex. I just added a comment that Susannah's maiden name was Bishop, daughter of Benjamin and Sophia, which is easily checkable on familysearch.com ! DI
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
