genealogical junk -- a dilemma

jmurphy · Post by **jmurphy** » 16 Aug 2009 04:32

Assume you are researching your family on Ancestry or some other family tree site, and you find someone in your family linked to the wrong set of parents. What would you do?

They have 12,616 people in their tree.

The thing that bothers me most, from a research point of view, is that they have attached only half the household from the 1920 Census record they found (leaving out the two siblings that don't match the 1901 UK Census record that is also attached to this tree) and they have left in the married surnames of the wife and mother, which suggests to me they don't know the women's maiden names, thus they don't know the families involved.

Should I write and ask nicely what their interest is in these records, or just ignore them?

Note that in the case of the SSDI entry, I have not yet written for the SS application papers myself, so I have no real proof -- I am basing the identification on the preponderance of the evidence.

Jan

ID:3929

YouTube · Post by **Jane** » 16 Aug 2009 08:38

Hi Jan,

Difficult that one, I think I might be tempted to send a 'neutral' message looking for a connection, and judge the water from there. It's possible with that many names they are simply 'name' collectors rather than serious Family Historians are are not as rigorous as you are in research methodologies.

ireneblackburn · Post by **ireneblackburn** » 16 Aug 2009 10:04

I would suggest you look at the tree and try to find out where they 'pinched' the names from, that would be a better connection by far.

SunnyLady · Post by **SunnyLady** » 16 Aug 2009 13:11

I find this difficult too as in the past I have pointed out after a general exchange that I have differing information - and serious researchers are happy to discuss but I fear many who are not so rigorous are not prepared to have their information queried so on the whole I have now given up saying anything. And 12000 plus entries seems a huge amount to have fully researched and not 'pinched' unless they have been doing it for years and years (which of course could be the case but from what you have said that is not my instinct).

jmurphy · Post by **jmurphy** » 16 Aug 2009 14:09

It seems clear to me that in the case of this particular family, the Ancestry member has simply copied the names from the 1920 Census record, the 1901 Census record, the passenger list, and the draft registration cards, as they are transcribed by Ancestry -- they have 'pinched the names' from the records themselves.

I did try to see how this family is connected to the rest of their tree, but it wasn't obvious at first glance.

The person's profile says they joined Ancestry in June 2005, a year and a few months before I started my research. I've piled up quite a few names since August 2006, but I suspect that even if I put everyone in one huge file, I'd have an order of magnitude less than this person does.

Looking over their tree, I see that they have not attached any SSDI records to this individual, but my point remains -- if I had been doing things properly, I would have written for that SS application long since, and I haven't, which makes me hesitate about writing now.

I have not put a tree up on Ancestry until recently, because I was not sure about my work, and didn't want to mislead others. I had seen other people's 'trees' which were little more than Family Group Sheets, and I used to wonder why people would bother with 'publishing' things like that when they had no information. Then I realized that they might be putting up trees to get 'hints' from the Ancestry matching engine' -- so in order to save myself the trouble of constantly searching again and again to see if more data had turned up, I set up some trees myself. However, I made my trees private, so that if anyone wants to know who is in them, they have to ask me For many of these records, where I start with a single historical record and go 'fishing' for records that might match, I have started to name the trees in the format '[surname] Family Group Sheet' to indicate to others who might see me as a 'match' that the tree is not very extensive.

I do not have this family in a tree at the moment, so this other user is not likely to find me via the new Member Connect feature, which allows one to see what other people are doing.

I have mixed feelings about Member Connect -- it seems to be yet another mechanism to allow Ancestry users to copy someone else's work. I see via Member Connect that someone else has attached to a person in their tree all four of the US Census records that (I believe) belong to one of my great-uncles. (I haven't written in that case because I haven't been working on my own family for very long, and I don't have much to offer anyone else.)

The great irony is that when I first heard about Lost Cousins, I thought it was an interesting idea, and complained to them about the utter non-usefulness of LC for people who haven't got as far back as 1880/1881. I suggested to them that the 1900 US Census would be far better to use as a matching point. But now that Ancestry has allowed you to have a 'meetup' with any record in the collection, I'm not sure I like it.

On the other hand, I've been quite happy with posting queries on Curious Fox and making contacts there.

What do you think about Member Connect? If you've collaborated with others online, what have been your best and worst experiences, and why?

Jan

ChrisBowyer · Post by **ChrisBowyer** » 17 Aug 2009 05:13

jmurphy said:
Should I write and ask nicely what their interest is in these records, or just ignore them?

What I often do in these situations is write a long e-mail explaining how they've got it all wrong and why, and then re-read it twice and hit Delete without sending it. It makes you feel better.

But having said that, it's often worth trying to look at other people's conclusions from their perspective. They may know something you don't, and that may provide the hint that leads you off on a whole new line of research.

We have quite a lot of names on our tree on GenesReunited and Ancestry that are not thoroughly researched, but seem probable. Occasionally a living descendant of that branch will get in touch and we can share what we've found out about them. It occasionally proves invaluable. If not, as you say, you can just ignore them.

As we always say, this is not facts, it's just what seems most likely to us from the information available. Never believe what you see on other people's trees (including ours). Treat it as clues for your own research. But don't discount it all just because you know some of it is wrong.

ChrisBowyer · Post by **ChrisBowyer** » 17 Aug 2009 05:23

P.S.

I'm reminded of a contact we had some years ago about some ancestors, where when we questioned (politely I thought) some link, we got the reply 'I know it's true because my cousin has personally inspected the parish registers'.

Well, we've personally inspected a lot of parish registers, and know for a fact that you can never be absolutely sure that the X who married Y is the same person as the X who was baptised 20 years before. It is always a matter of probability.

We didn't hear from that person again!

jmurphy · Post by **jmurphy** » 17 Aug 2009 06:09

Chris Bowyer said:

What I often do in these situations is write a long e-mail explaining how they've got it all wrong and why, and then re-read it twice and hit Delete without sending it. It makes you feel better.

So true -- I've employed that technique on forums many times.

I've just been reading comments on the Ancestry blog. It's somewhat comforting to know that I am not the only one upset by this. Some of the members who have been going at this for much longer than I am are not happy, to put it mildly.

Apparently because of Member Connect, it has made it much more evident that many people have been copying other people's work. One person said that the hobby used to be like a treasure hunt, and now it is like taking a test and having other people copy off your paper.

I know how that feels.

Jan

goodwin2 · Post by **goodwin2** » 17 Aug 2009 17:18

Guess I am quite fortunate in that my prime line's first known ancestor - and several subsequent generations - have been well documented and by respected genealogists. For the total novice as I was nine years ago, that was a great start.

Since that time I have added substantially to my prime line, as well as researched my husband's line as much as possible. One thing that I have followed consistently is the mantra of REAL genealogists - ALWAYS INDICATE YOUR SOURCE.

I have made the decision that I will NOT publish my family tree, however, I do subscribe to the message boards and am always happy to share SPECIFIC information that I might have - leaving out, of course, living individuals.

As far as finding/seeing errors or information that differs from one's own data is concerned, one can address the issue with a question - and providing one's own information with the source. Then asking for their insight in the matter may illicit their differing sources.

Message boards and family trees have given me many clues that I would be hard pressed to have found otherwise. The clues then get further research to see if they stack up.

My overall purpose in researching my family is to leave the data I collect to my children and future generations of my family. Having sourced all of my material, it is up to those who later view it to determine if the source supplied is sufficient. Again, I am always happy to share with others that I see are sincerely interested in their family history.

ChrisBowyer · Post by **ChrisBowyer** » 18 Aug 2009 06:10

jmurphy said: now it is like taking a test and having other people copy off your paper.

But it's not a test, not even a competition. You don't have to publish anything if you don't want to. If you do, you shouldn't be surprised that other people copy it. At least if they do, they may get it right.

Another thought on this before I shut up... Several of my great-something-grandparents have thousands of descendants, some of whom I know the names of. I don't have any exclusive right to an opinion about their lives and relationships. The internet is the worlds first largely unregulated global mass communications medium. Everyone can now publish their opinion on almost anything. I don't feel obliged to correct all the rubbish I read whether it's about my ancestors or anything else that I happen to think I know better about.

Getting upset by it is also your choice.

Now I'm wondering whether to follow my own advice, but if you're reading this...

jmurphy · Post by **jmurphy** » 18 Aug 2009 14:41

Chris Bowyer said:
jmurphy said: now it is like taking a test and having other people copy off your paper.

But it's not a test, not even a competition. You don't have to publish anything if you don't want to. If you do, you shouldn't be surprised that other people copy it. At least if they do, they may get it right.

Chris, thanks very much for your comments here (thanks too to everyone else who has posted).

Unless you are one of the 'my tree goes back farther / is bigger than anyone else's' kind of person, no, it isn't a competition. But I think the 'copied off my paper' comparison is apt because it does convey what it feels like to be working on something and have someone else come along, watch you, copying your work, and get some kind of benefit from it.

When I was starting out, I did look at other people's published work, but I didn't copy it except for study purposes.

I might find a missing maiden name, but it only raised questions -- where did they get this information? Can I find a source to substantiate it? To me the idea of merging in someone else's tree without examination simply took all the joy of discovery out of the process.

I can see why people are upset with Ancestry, because they say they don't want the data from living people posted online, and make other claims like that, but the technology they supply often encourages users to do the opposite.

The end result is that many people will be taking their trees from public to private, and those of us with private trees may be taking them down altogether. In my case, I was only putting up private trees to see if I could get matches when new record sets were added, but if they are only going to collect data about other people's bad work, that's not worth my time.

I don't mind helping people who ask me for help, but I don't want to be sucked into being an unpaid 'expert' by Ancestry's waving bad data in my face. The time I spend sending a message to people saying, 'look here, your sources are inconsistent' is time I could have been spending doing my own work. And if they see my sources instead and 'correct' their work without talking to me about what I've done and why, what have they gained? Just like the people who copy off your paper, they have learned NOTHING because they aren't doing the work.

At any rate, it helps to be able to talk to people to clarify what one thinks, and I'm very glad to have FHUG to come to and talk about this.

Thanks again to you all.

Jan

SunnyLady · Post by **SunnyLady** » 22 Aug 2009 13:36

Never forget that ultimately Ancestry is a commercial organisation - they do not have an interest in accuracy per se (and witness some of the appalling transcription errors) but getting paid. I pulled my tree but it has not stopped someone else I have been in touch with leaving, despite my request to take it down, reference to me - okay not obviously by name but I think I am still living - I do not trust their security... but but but I have found information I would not have had a clue about without some of those trees... including photographs of people I would never have been able to have otherwise. So I check and double check and try and find confirmation for myself - from primary and secondary sources, plus witting and unwitting testimony ...

AnneEast · Post by **AnneEast** » 22 Aug 2009 14:22

If (when!) I find that someone has 'copied' my work - and I know its mine because of the odd mistake which I have since corrected - I smile to myself and think 'They might have a big list but they haven't had the pleasure and excitement of the hunt for all those relatives.'

It can be very disappointing to be handed everything on a plate. That is the reason I don't do much searching for others with the same ancestors. They can find me if they want and I'll be happy to respond!

Anne

Family Historian User Group