Over the years I have found many mistakes in my family records, some understandable because of original sources that disagree, (death certificate having one date and the tombstone having another). But the one that gets me are when I find out that many, who have been doing this for years, purposely put false information in their trees so they know if someone is using their work. 
Stan






-----Original Message-----
From: Fern <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, May 12, 2010 11:50 am
Subject: VA-ROOTS] Posting reliable data


Dear M. Preston,  You were lucky to even get a reply - I too am a subscriber to 
ncestry.com but it has been 5 or 6 years since I bothered to look at the junk 
hat people donate to the site regarding family genealogy.  None of it has been 
esearched to a point of supplying 'Hard Copy' proof.  There are so many 
istakes and blatant wrong info on my family on Ancestry and there is no way to 
et it corrected or taken off the site.  I tried so many times to contact the 
erson who donated the info but none but one bothered to respond.  The only one 
ho did contact me just said "Who Cares?"   I'm afraid a lot of the 'Newby's' to 
enealogy have been led down the wrong road regarding their family ancestry.  It 
s a travesty that Ancestry.com still accepts this junk. 
Fern
ww.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 
6:26:00
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
ttp://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