I would guess that more than 50% of the Flye and Flythe family "data" on
Ancestry is inaccurate. The only reason I subscribe to Ancestry is to have
access to the census and the card catalog. Some of the errors are really
appalling. Ancestry should come with a caution sign!
I should note that I have spent unknown hours reading microfilm and
abstracting deeds and tax lists. It is hard on the eyes, but the drudgery
is well worth it. It is just very sad that so much junk is now available to
so many people. The worst aspect of this is that the junk seems to have the
ability to multiply in a way that accurate information does not.
Bonnie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fern" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:50 AM
Subject: [VA-ROOTS] VA-ROOTS] Posting reliable data
Dear M. Preston, You were lucky to even get a reply - I too am a subscriber
to Ancestry.com but it has been 5 or 6 years since I bothered to look at the
junk that people donate to the site regarding family genealogy. None of it
has been researched to a point of supplying 'Hard Copy' proof. There are so
many mistakes and blatant wrong info on my family on Ancestry and there is
no way to get it corrected or taken off the site. I tried so many times to
contact the person who donated the info but none but one bothered to
respond. The only one who did contact me just said "Who Cares?" I'm
afraid a lot of the 'Newby's' to genealogy have been led down the wrong road
regarding their family ancestry. It is a travesty that Ancestry.com still
accepts this junk.
Fern
www.bufordfamilies.com
From: Madaline Preston
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 7:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [VA-ROOTS] Posting reliable data
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2869 - Release Date: 05/12/10
06:26:00
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
|
