On Ancestry I found 7 pages one person had entered on the Griffith family.
I started reading it, delighted to find so much info, and got to a husband
who was born in 1655 and his wife, born in 1565 so I thought, oh no, typo!
As I read on, in another generation the husband was born in the 1500s and
the wife in 1403....so I wrote to the person posting the data and asked him
what gives?  This is his response.

"Most of what I have is aggregated from various sources, however in this
case both of the date discrepancies came from the same person and file:

When time permits (not too often as work and family life do get in the way)
I use primary materials, if I can access them locally, to verify and in some
cases correct what I've found in the files of others.  When I see an oddity
like this I will normally either seek primary materials to correct it or
foot note it as odd/suspicious/unverified.  My current notes in my working
system indicate I've not been able to get good primary material and that the
links in this branch of family history are aggregated and unverified.

That may not be a standard you are comfortable with in your data, to each
their own, I'm fine with it in mine and will always correct it when proof of
errors are presented.  I suspect in this case a family line was built by
someone with "approximated" birth dates resulting in distortion; I don't
have proof, and it is possible that a different mistake is present.  As i
said, it meets my standard for inclusion until or unless it is proven
wrong."

I didn't bother to respond.  Posting data that is so flawed should be just
plain wrong.
Just one person's opinion.
M. Preston

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html