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