I have preached for years about people posting things on line they have
not researched themselves. People have taken my information and twisted
it, added untrue things to it, and now my family info out there is
really messed up, I suggest people use integrity and if they have not
done the research themselves DON"T POST IT, gynger cook
-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Veirs <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, May 12, 2010 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: VA-ROOTS] Posting reliable data
I agree completely! I have researched the Wheeler family beginning
with
Ancestry. At the time I thought I was doing the right thing. Before I
knew it
I was back to Adam (no kidding). My family all laughed at me. I went
the local
library class on Genealogy and got enlightened. I have got some good
work on
Ancestry and hated to lose it so I have spent one year deleting name by
name and
only have finished 500! The Wheeler myths from Va. Washington Co. &
Smyth Co.
have gotten out of control and multiply daily by the thousands. Well
that's
enough my blood pressure's up.
Melinda
________________________________
From: Bonnie Flythe <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, May 12, 2010 12:48:39 PM
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. 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
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
|
