Errors in Ancestry Trees

[Willibrod]

I sent message to a Ancestry member . A part of the tree it matches exactly mine including a name that matches my second great grand mother . In the tree she is married to someone else . Her marriage to my second great grand father and the descendants are not recorded . I hopeful I get a replied

 

[peter]

I sent message to a Ancestry member . A part of the tree it matches exactly mine including a name that matches my second great grand mother . In the tree she is married to someone else . Her marriage to my second great grand father and the descendants are not recorded . I hopeful I get a replied

Errors like this in Ancestry trees are fairly common. The chances are that even if the other member replies you'll be the one who has to demonstrate why the other tree is wrong.

 

[Helen7]

Errors like this in Ancestry trees are fairly common. The chances are that even if the other member replies you'll be the one who has to demonstrate why the other tree is wrong.

I agree. I have pointed out errors in people's trees (with evidence) where the other person has responded positively, saying 'yes I agree, you are right' - but when looking again at their tree some time later, I see they still haven't corrected it.

 

[jorghes]

Given this conversation - I recently had someone send me a similar message: an "You may have this portion of your tree incorrect" (found a cousin out of one of those emails once!), to which I thanked them and changed it - and I've sent them out myself, and had no reply!

 

[Willibrod]

I do see the errors quite often other peoples tree . I sent a message because it was a direct ancestor . There is enough evidence online to prove my point .

 

[peter]

I do see the errors quite often other peoples tree . I sent a message because it was a direct ancestor . There is enough evidence online to prove my point .

I'm sure there is, but it can be remarkably hard to convince someone to alter their tree - they could well have found convincing evidence for their version.

 

[Pauline]

I'm sure there is, but it can be remarkably hard to convince someone to alter their tree - they could well have found convincing evidence for their version.

And there are tree owners who seem to hold almost mythical beliefs about Ancestry's infallibility:

1. I will find my relative's baptism, marriage etc at Ancestry (ie there will be a surviving record of the event in one of Ancestry's data collections, and it will have been transcribed accurately enough to show up in a search) - and if only one possibility shows up it must be the right one
2. I can absolutely rely on Ancestry hints to be accurate and relevant to the person concerned
3. there is safety in numbers - at least 20 other Ancestry trees have the same information, and they can't all be wrong, can they?

 

[Bob Spiers]

- but when looking again at their tree some time later, I see they still haven't corrected it.

they could well have found convincing evidence for their version.

It reminds I recently messaged someone respectfully pointing out a research error in their tree. I explained why and the other person messaged back to say they agreed and would change to suit. Then, a day or so later I received a follow up message saying ... "after telling my cousin what you said, she told me to ignore it and leave things as they are" (no reason given). I decided not to pursue further.

 

[Helen7]

And there are tree owners who seem to hold almost mythical beliefs about Ancestry's infallibility:

1. I will find my relative's baptism, marriage etc at Ancestry (ie there will be a surviving record of the event in one of Ancestry's data collections, and it will have been transcribed accurately enough to show up in a search) - and if only one possibility shows up it must be the right one
2. I can absolutely rely on Ancestry hints to be accurate and relevant to the person concerned
3. there is safety in numbers - at least 20 other Ancestry trees have the same information, and they can't all be wrong, can they?

I agree, and I have come across lots of people who subscribe to your points 1-3 and cannot be persuaded otherwise. The 'safety in numbers' argument seems to be particularly persuasive for them, which is strange given the way misinformation is so easily spread amongst Ancestry trees, with the error likely to have originated from just one person's tree which is then copied by many others.

For example, I have never been able to find the origins of an ancestor who - according to censuses - was born about 1834 in London. She is not with her parents on the 1841-51 censuses, but her father is named on her 1853 marriage certificate. On Ancestry (and online sources generally) there is only one baptism that 'fits', and many trees on Ancestry have this in their trees. However, this child - with an unusual set of forenames (only one of which matches the ancestor's name on censuses and marriage cert) - died the year after she was born (her burial record - with all the distinctive forenames - is also on Ancestry), so she cannot possibly be the correct person. I have given up trying to persuade others of this error in their trees.

 

[IanL]

And there are tree owners who seem to hold almost mythical beliefs about Ancestry's infallibility:

3. there is safety in numbers - at least 20 other Ancestry trees have the same information, and they can't all be wrong, can they?

This sort of error then spreads much further. I had a dialogue with someone running a one-name study about the mistakes in a report he had sent me. Every tree on Ancestry has these same mistakes. He admitted that he didn't have time to research every person in his one-name study so was reliant on the information he received from others. Much of it no doubt from Ancestry-users. Happily once I had sent him the evidence to demonstrate that the information on the Ancestry trees was wrong he corrected it. But I wonder how many other one-name studies are passing on duff information.

 

[peter]

I had to produce and circulate a comprehensive 4 page Word document with extracts from certificates ,wills, and censuses to convince cousins from one branch of my tree that their ancestor was illegitimate and that the father named on two marriage certificates never existed. (it wasn't all bad news for them - although I robbed their ancestor of a father, I was able to tell who his mother was!)

I eventually managed to persuade all of the tree owners to correct their trees, but I note that the problem has now reappeared on two new trees - such is life!

 

[canadianbeth]

Unfortunately, I am the person who has unknowingly put incorrect information onto Ancestry. Since my Dad told me the name of his father, I put that into my tree. (His mother told all three of their children that name) Apparently such a person never existed, or if he did he was probably the father of one of my aunts. Now, when I look at the little leaf beside the "unknown" in my tree (I have since corrected mine) I see what others have copied into their trees. Not all that many, since there are not a lot of people researching my side of the family, but still... I doubt I can get one paternal cousin to change her information; she is the one who stopped communicating when I told her that George Roberts was not our grandfather, or at least not mine.

There is also the fact that for some unknown reason my grandmother decided to be Dorothy Annie, (or Annie Dorothy on my aunt's birth registration) instead of just Anne, so that error shows up as well. She is Annie in 1901 and Anne in the 1911 census. And on the registration of birth that I sent for. And the father's name she put on the marriage certificate was also incorrect. That is why it took me so long to find her; someone here on the Forum pointed me to her on the 1891 census, but even that was just a maybe until I received my DNA results. I can only assume that because she was brought up in a workhouse and essentially abandoned by her parents, that she may not have even known for sure their names. She had 13 siblings; I have found information on possibly three of them. Her mother and one of her sisters are in the 1939 register.

I have a 4th cousin on my mother's side who sent me a 58-page report on my grandmother's family, back to a 5th great-grandfather, well researched and documented, so I have input all of that into my tree, assuming hopefully that it is all correct. I was able to fill in the blanks for him regarding our branch, as he had no information at the time about my great-grandfather, other than his name.

 

[Pauline]

Unfortunately, I am the person who has unknowingly put incorrect information onto Ancestry. Since my Dad told me the name of his father, I put that into my tree.

It happens! It is a rare genealogist who has never made a mistake - yours was made in good faith, and you set the record straight once you were aware of it.

I have a 4th cousin on my mother's side who sent me a 58-page report on my grandmother's family, back to a 5th great-grandfather, well researched and documented, so I have input all of that into my tree, assuming hopefully that it is all correct.

I would always advise against entering another person's information into your tree (however competent and experienced the researcher) without first checking it through for yourself. All research (whether genealogical or whatever) will benefit from periodic review, and a good researcher will value feedback and be willing to re-check their research if something might be amiss.

Much of the problem with Ancestry trees is that information is too easily copied from one tree to another without any incentive to check it first, and with many tree owners unwilling to accept constructive review.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Much of the problem with Ancestry trees is that information is too easily copied from one tree to another without any incentive to check it first, and with many tree owners unwilling to accept constructive review.

I look upon Ancestry’s ease of copying with mixed feelings. I love things that are simple (and Tree copying certainly is) and hate complexities of any sort (DNA gobbledygook springs to mind). On the other hand, I dislike blatant copying or cribbing (like friends at school who ask to look at your Maths homework as they hadn’t done theirs) and admire original thought and input.

In Ancestry I see a wonderful medium for Family History research. Better than ever with newer innovations like ThruLines; improved Hints and yes DNA matching. It has stolen a march on FMP – still a necessary research tool – and wouldn’t be without either, despite incurring costs that my wife thinks are outrageous.

A good many Tree owners care little for absolute authenticity as they practice the old axiom … “if it has the legs of an Elephant, and the trunk of an Elephant, the chances are it is an Elephant” and the odds are likely in their favour, and more so if they bother to cross check against OTHER sources.

I used to message others when discovering anything from an outrageous falsehood to a little white lie, and realised long ago, I was wasting my time as few bothered to respond. I still make contact, but these days limit it to Tree owners whose Trees have the ring of authenticity (a DNA match or a ThruLines hint also fills the bill) and I want to make contact for the sheer joy of proving that we can add something to each other’s research. I have made many treasured contacts this way, and very few failed to respond.

I personally think the angst I used to get from discovering ‘Mickey Mouse’(apologies to Disney) Trees, was unnecessary . Good research, like Charity, begins at home. Get on with your knitting and try to ignore those who have dropped stitches.

 

[peter]

I would always advise against entering another person's information into your tree (however competent and experienced the researcher) without first checking it through for yourself. All research (whether genealogical or whatever) will benefit from periodic review, and a good researcher will value feedback and be willing to re-check their research if something might be amiss.

Unfortunately checking someone else's research can be extremely difficult - generally all that their tree will tell you is what records they have found. There will no indication of how comprehensively they've searched, which other records they considered but rejected (and why), or even whether their search was confined to Ancestry sources.

 

[Helen7]

Unfortunately checking someone else's research can be extremely difficult - generally all that their tree will tell you is what records they have found.

I would understand 'checking' to mean researching an individual/couple in a tree independently, regardless of what sources are given in the tree, then see if you come to the same conclusions as they did. Some trees on Ancestry look to be extremely well researched, with notes on other (non-Ancestry) sources included. Even so, I'd still not take them at face value.

 

[Helen7]

I love things that are simple (and Tree copying certainly is) ... On the other hand, I dislike blatant copying or cribbing

The trouble is that Ancestry encourage unchecked copying as it is so easy to do, and clearly this can result in the rapid spread of misinformation. And as you say, some people are reluctant to correct errors even when these are politely pointed out to them. It seems that many Ancestry subscribers are not really interested in discovering their family history, but are just collecting names.

And I totally agree with you Bob when you say:

In Ancestry I see a wonderful medium for Family History research. Better than ever with newer innovations like ThruLines; improved Hints and yes DNA matching. It has stolen a march on FMP – still a necessary research tool – and wouldn’t be without either, despite incurring costs that my wife thinks are outrageous.

My husband has expensive hobbies so can't complain about Ancestry/FMP subs (especially as I currently have half price ones for both).

 

[peter]

I would understand 'checking' to mean researching an individual/couple in a tree independently, regardless of what sources are given in the tree

It would be great if everybody thought that way, but I suspect you are in the minority, even amongst LostCousins members (though not, I hope, the membership of this forum).

 

[Bob Spiers]

He admitted that he didn't have time to research every person in his one-name study so was reliant on the information he received from others

But I wonder how many other one-name studies are passing on duff information.

Oh dear I hope Alexander does not read my response to one-name study (ONS) researchers in general as I know he has been an enthusiastic ONS 'Bisset' researcher for years.

But I must tell of my own experience with one such researcher who even pre-dated my own excursion in Ancestry. He was researching his own (coincidentally my secondary paternal line) 'W'. Being new to Ancestry his Tree cropped up time and again. I messaged him and found him extraordinary friendly and helpful and held his tree in a sort of reverence.

It was ages - a year at least - before I cottoned onto the fact that his Tree was 'W' top heavy. Information on spouses or non 'W' children was sparse if recorded at all. I knew nothing of one name studies and it took a while to understand this is what drove him, as opposed to staying within a family framework. In the end our exchanges tailed off as he was clearly off on his own 'W' tangent.

Then, some years later I carried out some extensive research on my 3rd Great 'W' Grandparents and their large family. Two of his sons served transportation sentences and another brother became my 2nd GG. In the end there was little I did not know about their entire family and acknowledge help given with Australian research from many sources (including Forum members).

Then, inevitably I came again across my former contact's Tree and revisited our coinciding family members -particularly those at my 3GG level - and knew much of what he had in his tree diverged from fact (as I knew it to be) and was close to being fictional, in part at least. For old times sake I communicated and explained I had information he needed to correct inaccuracies, I gave chapter and verse (much as Peter explains above with his 4 page Word document). This fell on stony ground so I followed it up until in the end he told me not to bother him with such minutiae. He explained the purpose of his ONS study was to gather statistical information on his 'W' surname and did not warrant having factual information on all siblings, or their spouses or progeny.

I am sure other ONS researchers are not just interested in statistical number crunching but I'm afraid such experience did little to warm me to such research and would be happy to learn how others attempt one-name studies.

 

[Pauline]

Unfortunately checking someone else's research can be extremely difficult - generally all that their tree will tell you is what records they have found. There will no indication of how comprehensively they've searched, which other records they considered but rejected (and why), or even whether their search was confined to Ancestry sources.

If when checking through someone else’s research, I am unable to work out why (or how) they reached a particular conclusion, then I will ask.

And on the whole, where reasoning for such conclusions is unlikely to be apparent in my own research, I will add an explanatory note.