Steve -
For a long time I saved an email from LDS that stated that if I sent resources to prove what my brother submitted is incorrect, would they correct it and attach the sources?
I was told 'no' - 'once sealed - always sealed' - and that they would throw away any resources since they do not submit the proof at all - but the best way I could correct what my brother did wrong would be to submit the correct data and then researchers could 'choose' which they prefer to use!
I just might still have that email on my old PC - will take a look!
Diane S
As one who posts all his data on Ancestry and my own website at Rootsweb, I
have to agree and disagree with some of the comments in this thread. When I
post my data it is always with the caveat "this is raw data, do your own
research" I do so in hopes that this data may lead someone in the right
direction to prove what I think was correct at the time. This is not to say
that I post data knowing that it is wrong, but data I need to research
further to prove one way or another. The lines I have proven are also
posted with sources (as much as Ancestry will allow conveniently) and actual
documents.
Now what I do believe is a gross misuse of caveat data is for someone to
take what you have done and portray it as a fact without any research of
their own and the LDS is a perfect example of this misuse. There is no
caveat to any of the data or trees presented as fact on their site. In fact
I was thrown out of a couple of their forums for stating just that about
their "Temple Ready" data. Some of the popular software companies were/are
trying to integrate their software to download and upload everyone's trees
like Ancestry. I stated garbage in, garbage out, and mentioned that their
should be a check for qualified sources before an upload would be accepted
and available for review as the LDS is taken by most people as fact. In
fact, between the LDS and Genealogy.com's CDs, hard to say who has
contributed the most garbage for use. Not to say they have also provided
some excellent sources. I love the way Ancestry allows their source
material to be associated with an individual, I just wish that when you did
quote a census as your source, it would also go out and link that source to
the citation. It does eventually find and place a hint in your file, but
results in dual citations.
That is why I take a two pronged approach to putting my data on the web. I
can't save stupid, they will always be there, but I can help those who wish
to be helped and will always work with anyone to prove their line or correct
my data when found to be inaccurate.
Regards,
Steve Stevens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynda Huckaby Bishop" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] Virginia Citations
>I have noticed that there is a "comment" box on some of the Ancestry.com
>trees. I put in the correct information and what documentation I used and
>leave it in that "comment" box. It lets others viewing that family tree
>know that the info isn't correct. I did hear from Ancestry once thanking me
>for my input. It doesn't help much but it is a start. Lynda Huckaby Bishop
> El Dorado Springs, MO
>
> Quoting Nancy Noel <[log in to unmask]>:
>> I am a subscribe to ancestry.com and I am in 100% agreement with you.
>> I've
>> received satisfaction surveys from time to time, from Ancestry and I
>> always fill
>> them out as it allows me the opportunity to point out the company's
>> skewing
>> "records" to the more commercial side of their mission ( well, their only
>> mission really) at the expense of accurate genealogical research methods.
>> And
>> they continue to make messes of family research.
>> Nancy Noel
>> Buffalo NY
>> On Mar 11, 2011, at 7:57 AM, john Hogg wrote:
>>
>> My Grandfather was born in Virginia and his ancestors go back a long
>> way
>> there. Documentation is scarce in many places because of the armies that
>> have marched there over the years.
>> I have been working on my Mother's family (Southard, Sudduth and a host
>> of
>> variations) for a very long time. I have documentation for everything I
>> have published.
>> Now Ancestry has 557 Genealogies that have my family all figured out.
>> This
>> is based on an entry in the LDS Ancestral file that has no documentation.
>> There are zero official records to prove this 'old family story'
>>
>> The scary part is when you look at the Ancestry they show the Source
>> Citation as "Ancestry Family Tree'.
>> I think we are losing the battle.
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>> at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>> at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>>
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
