Genealogy Chat

I have my tree on Ancestry and have had contact from a distant cousin also on Ancestry.
She is including people from my family with whome she has no connection.
My mind boggles why she is putting all these people on her tree.

I have exactly the same problem. They have taken a very distant marriage crossed over and gone up about 10 generations and refuse to take it off the systems they have it on. Claims it just dropped in from One world Tree. Not only is she not connected it is also wrong is several places! It now means I have to hide a lot of info from closer relatives so they cannot connect. It can be very embarrassing as I have had to warn lots of people not to give access to this person.

I wish I could understand that, too - I know this topic does come up on here regularly but I once found myself on an Ancestry tree and didn't recognise the name of the owner, so I sent my "innocent message" - "noticed I was in your tree, can you tell me how we are connected as I couldn't find an obvious connection?" etc.

The message I got back was, they honestly had no idea how we were connected! I loved that - obviously somebody I had been in touch with had been in touch with them, information had been merged and this person with the tree on Ancestry had then uploaded it in good faith.

I keep my main tree offline as when I sort my hot matches out on here, half the time they are only vaguely linked anyway. I tend to look at the hot matches with more than one name listed now - if it is just a single person, the chances are, they are only related by marriage or by marriage to one of my "by marriage" relations.

Jonesey,

Having people on your tree because they are descended from your 3*G Grandparents, means you share common ancestors, so ARE related.
The problem lies with people who copy (for example) your mothers side of your tree, despite the fact that they are related to you via (say) your 4*G Grand parents on your fathers side. These AREN'T related.

I tend to agree with Jonesey and as long as there is a connection and I feel inclined, I research as many related branches as I can.

My GR tree tends to contain only those that have a connection to me or my wife, and by connection I will include marriage, if I feel it right to do so.

My main tree, on FTM also contains unconnected branches where I have worked with other researchers tracing possible connected lines. Some of these are in a way mini one-name / place studies.

For example, I have recently been working on the Lilley family from Hingham and Shipdham in Norfolk, and am currently documenting every connection I can find. I am not directly related though, but my dear deceased Uncle, husband of my mum's elder sister was descended from the family there.

This has brought me hours and hours of pleasure and I am happy to let others see the results too, if it helps them, which is why I publish my complete research on Ancestry.

So easy to do on Ancestry, even easier to get it wrong.
When I started out had my tree 'raided' to be honest the jokes on them as chunks of it I've now found are wrong, although this is what happens when people go for quanitiy rather than quailty. Weird watching the number of 'hot matches' you have with someone decrease instead of increase over time.

I do wonder how many trees on ancestry are hideiously wrong, because a wrong facts been copied so many times it becomes gospel, I mean three other people agree with you, it must be right, but you don't know if they've researched that information or just copied it.

I agree with a lot of what has been said. If you are going down the tree then you are all descended from the same point .

I can't understand why a third or fourth cousin thinks it right to research UP the line of the other side of a marriage - There is simply no connection. In our case we have documentary proof of at least one of the errors and strongly suspect several others.

MGHS - Sorry, no I don't have a Daniel Lilley, as yet.

nameslessone - I would part agree, all depends on the location. If you are talking about a small village or hamlet then it is worth going backwards up the other side of the tree. Invariably you will find there is a connection between the lines.

It is surprising how many couples are related - distant cousins who probably never knew at the time.

Otherwise, unless there is good reason, I go no further than the spouse / partners parents, at most.

Like Bilbo Baggins I have researched the families of the spouses of my aunts and uncles but have kept them in separate files.

On Ancestrys One World Tree, they have my father (correct name) b 1899 (correct) and my mother (correct name, no y.o.b.) and they have given them a daughter called Mary (my oldest sisters middle name), but then their Mary has a spouse b in 1723. All because some idiot at some stage decided my sister was married to him and it has been copied so many times it has to be right, doesnt it.
Huia.

BilboBaggins

Yes you are right but my 'other side' would have been classed almost as 'Foreign' with very little chance of having a prior connection especially as that side is much more easily traced through complete local records for 4 - 5 centuries!

You dear deceased Uncle is a lot closer ot you than the person I have been referring to.

I've never thought to check to see if anyone has got me randomly in their tree...maybe I should!

I'm in regular contact now with a 5th cousin in Utah, we get on really well and have enjoyed sharing all our info. He's taken a gecom of all the info I've got, and he's sent me a small gedcom of about 200 people on it (think there's 46000 people in his tree. So even though we're distant relatives, we've still got each others info.

But I do think it needs to be a mutual thing, think it's very wrong that people just copy your info without asking first, that's just plain rude!

I see no problem with looking at other trees and if necessary using that information.

When I first started I had little or no info re my past. No information on parents or any relatives. I used a number of trees, many of which differed, as a starting base. From this I managed to substantiate, using valid records the information I had gathered.

I see trees on this site and on Ancestry with incorrect information.
Here you can decide who can and can not view your tree. On Ancestry you have the option of making your tree private.

In my opinion, if you leave your tree open, as in public on Ancestry, then it is in the public domain.
If people are are that concerned about other trees differing from theirs, are inaccurate, and believe their tree is being mis-used then they have the option to restrict access.

Personally, I can not see what a lot of the fuss is about. It has helped me to make rapid access and I thank all those who have made their trees available. If you do not want people to copy bits of your tree then do not put it in the public domain.

Regards - Tony

I don't disagree with that, Tony, but what in my experience I personally objected to was that a contact on here (who I have now removed access to my Genes tree from) once saw my tree and took it upon themselves to copy the details. Now, I happen to be adopted, I can understand why somebody might add to an offline tree that they thought I was but I have never explicitly stated that to any contact and certainly would never consent to another contact putting that information on their own tree.

As you say, if you give access to your tree on here you have to allow for the fact that people will use that information but some contacts take that a step further and copy information onto other sites without verifying with the provider of information that it is OK to include some very personal details that may have only been assumed, not proved.

I think it's created an interesting grey area where some researchers are so keen to note down every scrap of information (confirmed or otherwise) that they don't stop to think, if it's relating to a living person, whether that person would want those details passed on.

Kate.

I fully understand and concur with what you say. It is a grey area.

If you do not make known certain personal information in your tree but as a result of some other form of contact someone becomes aware of that information then includes it in their tree then that is wrong.

I have to admit that I have taken information from various trees and used it on my own at Ancestry but do not include information on living persons.

As my main membership is with Ancestry, taking this approach has enabled the system to automatically search for hints and facts (ie census, birth, deaths,etc). Something I can not do on this site as I only have the standard membership and I can't afford to have to full memberships going on both sites, especially as my wifes side of our tree is Scottish and about the only useful site for this area is Scotlands People which I find very expensive compared to England & Wales.

Regards - Tony

I

slightly off topic...but I did a search in trees for myself and I didn't come up, neither did my sisters :S

Does it not show you people in your own tree?

Also realised that both my parents are in someone's tree that I've tried to contact before without success, so gave them a little nudge in the hope they receive it!

The trouble with Ancestry is that if one person says black is white and another person copies it Ancestry says 'aha, here is a hint' and they flag it as a hint which others click on and add to their tree without even bothering to check it out. They dont even know what they have added.
Not only do they have my sister married to Adam and Eves son but they have our gt grandmothers surname as Barnes instead of Baynes. Few of the Americans want to know about their errors let alone correct them. I did add postems to a lot of trees but that probably doesnt alter their stupid hints system.
Huia.