FamilySearch website and over-zealous wanabee researchers

[Pauline]

But also remember that baptisms were taxed from 1783-94

Just to clarify this, the actual baptisms weren’t taxed, it was entries in the parish register that were taxed (except for paupers).

 

[peter]

Just to clarify this, the actual baptisms weren’t taxed, it was entries in the parish register that were taxed (except for paupers).

You're right, of course, but a baptism that isn't recorded is of no value to family historians.

 

[illyjay]

The thing about having a tree at FamilySearch is that you don't own it, and anyone can make changes to it. There are benefits of having your tree there, but you do need to accept that there are down sides too, this being one of them. You can restore your original work, and remove things that have been added incorrectly, as Creighton says, but I agree it can be annoying to find that someone has damaged your careful work.

I would guess almost everyone who uses FamilySearch trees has experienced this kind of thing to some degree, and it's not their "volunteers" so much as just other ordinary (and perhaps less experienced or less competent) researchers.

I was just really surprised that the volunteers would add or change information in a family tree when they are not related in any way to, or have never researched someone else’s ancestors and cousins, seems an odd thing to do.

 

[peter]

I was just really surprised that the volunteers would add or change information in a family tree when they are not related in any way to, or have never researched someone else’s ancestors and cousins, seems an odd thing to do.

As Pauline pointed out, they're probably just ordinary users, and have made a mistake like many other inexperienced researchers. They may well believe they are related.

However it's also worth saying that on occasion I have posted helpful comments on the Ancestry trees of users who are not relatives of mine simply because in the course of my own research I've made discoveries that, whilst not useful to me (except for elimination purposes), are relevant to the other person. I'm sure many experienced researchers do the same when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[canadianbeth]

Someone listed my Dad as having been buried in a cemetery somewhere in the U.S. I discovered this when Family Search sent me a link to him. He was listed as dying in Toronto, Ontario but buried in the U.S. I corrected this. The cemetery had the same name as the one in which my Dad is, so it would appear that it defaulted to an American one. My FTM program clearly states where he is buried.

 

[At home in NZ]

As Pauline pointed out, they're probably just ordinary users, and have made a mistake like many other inexperienced researchers. They may well believe they are related.

However it's also worth saying that on occasion I have posted helpful comments on the Ancestry trees of users who are not relatives of mine simply because in the course of my own research I've made discoveries that, whilst not useful to me (except for elimination purposes), are relevant to the other person. I'm sure many experienced researchers do the same when the opportunity presents itself.

I have done this myself and on occasion found myself back in the same tree looking at my Comments which have been ignored or possibly not seen. At least other researchers can see them if they are experienced enough to know how to look at the Comments, it took me a while!