Using Ancestory Com
Ancestory.com can be a great resource but I see far too many people carelessly adding names to their trees that make no sense. This happens when Ancestory places its information in a block beside your information for a particular ancestor, or offers their information on someone for whom you have nothing.
There are many times when it should be obvious that the information being offered does not fit. For example, if the supposed suggested children of one of your ancestors is older than the parents, check further or do not accept the information. Another example occurs when couples are said to marry many years after they are listed as deceased. Care also needs to be taken when viewing a couple's children. Usually, the children belong to the list, but not always. Watch the age and location of all parties. Many times childen are included when the mother is sixty or seventy years old. This is a possible grand mother, but very doubtful that one is seeing the mother.
In times when people did not move as much it helps if the children are born in the same city. No guarantee, but it helps. In one case I recently I saw three children said to be born the same day to the same woman. Triplets? Not in this case, they were born in three different cities. None of these pitfalls are the fault of Ancestry.com. People are free to accept or reject any clue offered. Much valuable information can be obtained if people just take the time to review the information received.
Some periods of history have very inconsistent or incomplete records. Since many families have posted their ancestories on their own web sites, one might gain help from independently checking their information. Most one the ones involving prominent families are pretty good, but sometimes even they have to guess.
Again, a little extra time now can save a lot of reworking later.
No question, extra time now can save a lot later! We could all benefit from a big dose of quality over quantity.
Interesting observations about Ancestry.
While most of the blame for this behavior does lie with the researcher, I do I feel like Ancestry has a little responsibility here. In my opinion, they foster too much the practice of adding names to your tree with little or no verification. Big "add to tree" links are everywhere, and as soon as someone makes a connection, it appears strongly in future searches giving more even credibility to the wrong information.
I've fallen into the trap before. "Eight people have this person in their tree, it must be correct." When in reality it's just one wrong person and seven blind followers adding names to their tree without question.
yeah ran into a situation at family search.org, tracing ancestry.
climbed high up that tree, then ran into a woman born in 1812 having last child in 1698. lol
Ancestory.com is a good starting point looking for family members, but I only use the information as a guide line. The IGI is another site that may supply the wrong information, and again should be used as a guide line.
Over the past twenty years I have also obtained birth, marriage and death certificates that give the wrong information. Some are clerical errors and some are errors made by the informant.
Cemetery headstones can also give the wrong details about the date of a persons death and their age, especially when the headstone is erected several years after the burial.
We all make errors.
No offence, but I find it particularly strange to see baptismal details many years after the person has died. And family may well have records of the person being christened when they were a baby or toddler.
Death Certificates are only as correct as the informant at the time.
And spelling ... now can that be atrocious!
Baptismal details many years after the person has died?
I'm interested so please tell me more.
Google 'Mormon Church baptism for the dead'.
Now I'm with you. I was thinking along different lines.
I agree. Quite often it is the blind leading the blind. Whenever I add someone to my tree, I try to add the source, so that people can see where I got my information. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone added their source.
(To my surprise) New Zealand BDM also has errors
Names spelt incorrectly (not a biggie) but children left off of birth lists, incorrect dates of birth and/or death by many years, no death details at all of people who have died in and who are buried in NZ
So even the info on that site must be researched thoroughly
I agree with you ngairedith, New Zealand BDM has errors and it is very fustrating to the researcher when you know someone else should be there , but isn't.
I agree with you ngairedith, New Zealand BDM has errors and it is very fustrating to the researcher when you know someone else should be there , but isn't.