VA-ROOTS Archives

May 2010

VA-ROOTS@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Research and writing about Virginia genealogy and family history." <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 12 May 2010 16:15:56 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (114 lines)
The worst aspect of this is that the junk seems to have the 
ability to multiply in a way that accurate information does not.
Sort'a like: "A lie can travel all around the world before the TRUTH is ever spoken..  fern
  From: Bonnie Flythe 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:48 AM
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] VA-ROOTS] Posting reliable data


  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.  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 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2