Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The more you use Ancestry the more you know there are many people on the site that have NO CLUE what they are doing. It's a good reason to make a tree private.
Yes, make your tree private so no one can see a well researched, accurate tree, that will help cut back on the amount of errors out there.
Not that I have a problem with people making their trees private, it's just poor logic to advocate keeping good research private, so the bad research is the only stuff getting copied.
Quote:
When you see trees with tens of thousands in their tree that is a red flag that who ever owns that tree does not know what they are doing.
That's not true. I have been heavily researching my tree for 14 years now and I have over 20,000 individuals in it - while I'm certainly not perfect and I'm sure neither is my tree, I am very knowledgeable and most of the time, I know very well what I'm doing.
The more you use Ancestry the more you know there are many people on the site that have NO CLUE what they are doing. It's a good reason to make a tree private. When you see trees with tens of thousands in their tree that is a red flag that who ever owns that tree does not know what they are doing. Verify as much about your entries to your tree as you can before posting if you go public.
And those who paint all of Ancestry with a single broad brush stroke are doing a terrible disservice.
Certainly, any widely popular online application includes a wide range of expertise, experience and dedication, and Ancestry no doubt contains the good, the bad and the ugly. Regardless, there are many dedicated researchers with large Ancestry trees who know exactly what they are doing. In my experience, tree size has little to do with the validity of an online tree, particularly compared to trees which reflect no sources other than perhaps other trees they have copied.
Public vs private? To each his own, I guess, but I am grateful to a host of generous and patient researchers who have been willing to share their research with me. For that reason, I feel obligated to pay it forward by keeping my tree public. Doing so has also led to other researchers reaching out to me, leading to expanded knowledge for both of us.
And those who paint all of Ancestry with a single broad brush stroke are doing a terrible disservice.
Certainly, any widely popular online application includes a wide range of expertise, experience and dedication, and Ancestry no doubt contains the good, the bad and the ugly. Regardless, there are many dedicated researchers with large Ancestry trees who know exactly what they are doing. In my experience, tree size has little to do with the validity of an online tree, particularly compared to trees which reflect no sources other than perhaps other trees they have copied.
Public vs private? To each his own, I guess, but I am grateful to a host of generous and patient researchers who have been willing to share their research with me. For that reason, I feel obligated to pay it forward by keeping my tree public. Doing so has also led to other researchers reaching out to me, leading to expanded knowledge for both of us.
But the majority of Ancestry users are clueless, in my experience. Take matches from hints as an example. I find that the vast majority of these hints are just information copied from someone else's tree. How do I know? Simple, I look for sources.
One of my grandmothers has Swedish ancestors, so for her, there's a wealth of information going back 4 or more generations. Ancestry serves up lots of hints, but most of them are just based on name matches. With Swedish genealogy, you need to match name, birth date AND location to have any confidence. But few folks on Ancestry do so.
You may be comfortable with the poorly sourced trees on Ancestry. I'm not. I tend to focus on true sources. I started genealogy long before ancestry, over 30 years ago. Spent many hours looking at microfilms. Things today may be a bit too easy. It's certainly easier to find and record bogus information.
But the majority of Ancestry users are clueless, in my experience. Take matches from hints as an example. I find that the vast majority of these hints are just information copied from someone else's tree. How do I know? Simple, I look for sources.
There are Member Tree Hints, and there are Record Hints. They are totally different, and you can turn off Member Tree Hints. Granted, Record Hints are generated in part by what records other people attach to their trees, but that's why they are merely hints.
Quote:
You may be comfortable with the poorly sourced trees on Ancestry.
I kept my tree private for years because i didn't want any one copying my data, in case it was not accurate. I have since verified all the information and made my tree public. I am confident that my tree is accurate so i don't mind sharing it...
i made a mistake in my tree, claiming someone was the parent but they wasnt, assuming a junior. Now I see hundred's of other trees with my error
That's on them, not you. Anyone who researches long enough will make a mistake. Hopefully, we are able to find it and correct it in our own tree. Ancestry trees should never be consider factual sources of information, but can be very helpful in pointing someone's research in the right direction when they are stuck behind a brick wall. Those who simply copy other trees because they are too lazy to do their own research are not worth worrying about, nor are they reasons to hide your well-earned discoveries behind a private tree.
That's on them, not you. Anyone who researches long enough will make a mistake. Hopefully, we are able to find it and correct it in our own tree. Ancestry trees should never be consider factual sources of information, but can be very helpful in pointing someone's research in the right direction when they are stuck behind a brick wall. Those who simply copy other trees because they are too lazy to do their own research are not worth worrying about, nor are they reasons to hide your well-earned discoveries behind a private tree.
It's so easy for people to directly copy someone else's branches that I'm surprised there aren't more errors. Glad I never do that, I do my own research, hand entering everything. Still on a free account.
It's so easy for people to directly copy someone else's branches that I'm surprised there aren't more errors. Glad I never do that, I do my own research, hand entering everything. Still on a free account.
A few years back, I found the errors in these trees to be so obvious as to be laughable, such as mothers younger than their children. Things are less obvious these days. Now I look at the trees themselves for sources. Most of the time, the only source listed is another ancestry tree! (Pass...) but sometimes there's very useful source information.
A few years back, I found the errors in these trees to be so obvious as to be laughable, such as mothers younger than their children. Things are less obvious these days. Now I look at the trees themselves for sources. Most of the time, the only source listed is another ancestry tree! (Pass...) but sometimes there's very useful source information.
I paid for 2 months, was seeing a lot of trees as sources. Agree, no thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
