Errors in Ancestry Trees

[peter]

Looking up a deceased cousin of mine in Ancestry public trees gave slightly different information for his place of marriage in the search results (bottom) compared with the actual tree (top):

 

[At home in NZ]

slightly different information for his place of marriage in the search results (bottom) compared with the actual tree (top)

Seems like they got the date right and thought that was good enough. I've seen so many of such like errors.

I found a real 'doozy' yesterday where two people with the same last name were married (nothing unusual about that where my great grandparents were from) and all the 'children' had a totally different last name.

 

[peter]

Seems like they got the date right and thought that was good enough. I've seen so many of such like errors.

The key point is that the tree is correct, it's the way that Ancestry interpret the tree information in the Search results that's wrong. Unless we search our own trees we're not going to know that Ancestry are doing that.

 

[Pauline]

The key point is that the tree is correct, it's the way that Ancestry interpret the tree information in the Search results that's wrong. Unless we search our own trees we're not going to know that Ancestry are doing that.

Using the Ancestry drop-down to enter places generally avoids this kind of misinterpretation in the search index - or at least entering places in the same format with the country included.

But, as you say, many tree owners are probably unaware that this happens.

 

[peter]

Using the Ancestry drop-down to enter places generally avoids this kind of misinterpretation in the search index - or at least entering places in the same format with the country included.

Most experienced researchers construct their tree on their own computer using dedicated family tree software, so never use the drop-downs (unless, perhaps, they use Family Tree Maker). I've never manually updated my Ancestry trees.

I do try to enter places in a format that Ancestry will understand, but it isn't always easy. And as soon as you include the name of a church where a marriage or baptism took place it completely throws Ancestry's parsing, as in the example above. There's a similar problem with street addresses.

 

[Pauline]

Most experienced researchers construct their tree on their own computer using dedicated family tree software, so never use the drop-downs (unless, perhaps, they use Family Tree Maker). I've never manually updated my Ancestry trees.

Yes, I guess I was thinking of people either using FTM or updating manually, and hadn't fully considered people who upload gedcoms.

I always update my Ancestry tree manually since it includes only outline detail, the full detail being on my computer and on my own genealogy website. Except at Ancestry, I only ever add countries to locations which are not in the UK.

 

[Helen7]

And as soon as you include the name of a church where a marriage or baptism took place it completely throws Ancestry's parsing, as in the example above. There's a similar problem with street addresses.

I now put church and street address information in the 'Description' field, with just town, county, country as location. That seems to work for me.

 

[peter]

I now put church and street address information in the 'Description' field, with just town, county, country as location. That seems to work for me.

What will work best will depend on the family tree program you're using. With Genopro I use the Comments area on the relevant tab.

 

[Helen7]

What will work best will depend on the family tree program you're using. With Genopro I use the Comments area on the relevant tab.

Yes, clearly it will vary. I use FTM and the Description box is just below the Place box. It syncs nicely to Ancestry into the Description area.

 

[canadianbeth]

I now put church and street address information in the 'Description' field, with just town, county, country as location. That seems to work for me.

I like that idea.

 

[At home in NZ]

I might have got the wrong end of the stick while reading through this discussion but I've been sitting back watching and wondering what on earth some of you are talking about.

I think you mean the Location field in Ancestry. If so, I put anything and everything in it and it doesn't cause me any problems. It creates its own drop down from what I enter.
When you ask for a Search from within a profile, it's quite easy to modify the search window so that Ancestry will look for what it knows.

I don't have any problems with syncing with FTM and I have found that the Descendants report in FTM makes far more sense when an actual address or even the name of the ship a person emigrated on is in the Location field.

 

[peter]

I think you mean the Location field in Ancestry. If so, I put anything and everything in it and it doesn't cause me any problems. It creates its own drop down from what I enter.

We're not talking about searches but about Ancestry trees, and in particular trees uploaded in GEDCOM format. (There's another discussion going on at the moment which is about Ancestry searches.)

 

[At home in NZ]

The key point is that the tree is correct, it's the way that Ancestry interpret the tree information in the Search results that's wrong.

We're not talking about searches but about Ancestry trees,

Certainly seems like you moved on to talking about searches.

 

[peter]

Certainly seems like you moved on to talking about searches.

I gave an example of how a tree entry can be misrepresented in Search results, but only to demonstrate that what we see in the Search results isn't necessarily what we will see when we look at the actual tree.

 

[BruceW]

When I look at other people's trees on Ancestry I get a mixed bag. Some of them provide useful information with documents I have been unable to unearth myself and sometimes photos too. And sometimes they quote or display the same documents as I already have. So I'm happy about the information. But in lots of instances I look to see the source of their information and there is none. I assume at that point that they have simply copied their tree (or at least that part of it) from someone else's tree and they have no idea of the veracity of what they have published. Very annoying.

 

[peter]

But in lots of instances I look to see the source of their information and there is none. I assume at that point that they have simply copied their tree (or at least that part of it) from someone else's tree and they have no idea of the veracity of what they have published. Very annoying.

That's exactly what you'll see when you look at my tree. I'm sorry if you find it annoying, but I don't run separate Ancestry trees, I upload GEDCOM files produced by my family tree program. I'm sure many others do the same.

 

[Helen7]

But in lots of instances I look to see the source of their information and there is none. I assume at that point that they have simply copied their tree (or at least that part of it) from someone else's tree and they have no idea of the veracity of what they have published. Very annoying.

I thought if they'd copied from other trees, the source appears as 'Ancestry Family Trees' rather than nothing. If no source appears, I tend to think it has not been copied from other trees (certainly not directly) but could be from their own off-line research. They just haven't included the sources in the Ancestry tree, as Peter indicates.

 

[Pauline]

I thought if they'd copied from other trees, the source appears as 'Ancestry Family Trees' rather than nothing.

Yes, I think that is the case, and if you follow it up you can see the tree(s) that the information comes from.

To avoid any misunderstanding about where the information in my Ancestry tree comes from, I add the same source to everything there - "My Own Research", with the citation details as "Details available". Hopefully that lets people know that the information isn't simply copied in from somewhere else, and that if they want to know more about my exact source they can contact me - not that anyone has as yet!

 

[canadianbeth]

I came up such an error in someone else's tree yesterday when following a leaf from my grandmother. This person had attached her to the 1940 U.S. census, with her husband and a 16-year-old daughter. There is no way that my grandparents were in the U.S. in 1940 and they definitely did not have that particular 16-year-old daughter (my youngest aunt was at that time 14). The surname was not quite right, but he attached her just the same. I know who this person is - my cousin's grandson - so I messaged his mother and pointed it out. She knew about it; said he was quite naive some years ago when he started working on his tree and added things without properly checking them. His mother has been doing her own research and is in fact listed first in my matches at My Heritage.

 

[MegH]

Errors on Ancestry Trees: Could anyone please advise - not only is the information incorrect on a tree but it is extremely insensitive. My comment about the data on the tree has gone unheeded and it's still there. I have contacted Ancestry and been told they cannot do anything about it. The problem is the death has been recorded on the tree as Committed Suicide by Gunshot - far from it. He died at home from TB soon after WWII and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Medal posthumously. Sadly someone most probably had died in such a way but my feelings are it should have been researched more thoroughly and given thought before making public. All the other information about the family is correct apart from this so I have posted the correct details from the Death certificate and advised the tree owner looks at it.