Errors in Online Trees

[JDL...@yahoo.com]

I look at online trees as an oppurtunity on several levels. At the
very least its a new contact, And sometimes the error turns out to
be ours and not the poster. Strangely enough this just happened to
me so the lesson is fresh.

One other thing; re: posting comments about errors I used to post
lots of comments on the trees at Rootsweb. But I have since decided
that that should be a last option. Instead I contact the tree owner
and discuss the situation. Its less agitating that way. I suppose
comments will be added in the future if civil discourse fails.

Finally there should be a special level of purgatory for people who
post trees that are chock full of errors and who then abandon them.
Now back to your regularily scheduled discourse.

"JDL...@Yahoo.com" <JDL...@Yahoo.com>

[ne...@jecarter.us]

> [snip]

>
> Finally there should be a special level of purgatory for people who
> post trees that are chock full of errors and who then abandon them.
> Now back to your regularily scheduled discourse.
>
> JDL...@Yahoo.com

My wife's line has had a couple of books published about it (vanity
press type publishing). The first one was done in the 1970-1980
timeframe and was neither well-researched nor adequately documented
(our two kids were entered as one person with both names). The
second book was in the 1990-2000 timeframe and researched by a Ph.D.
who did excellent research (including ancient paper documents at
county courthouses) and very thorough documentation. Care to guess
which book someone entered in its entirety (including dozens of
"Living Lastname") at ancestry.com?

It's sad that the first writer failed to make the best use of
available resources - especially people - as some of them were no
longer with us when the second writer started his research - and
even fewer are available now. The last name is sufficiently unique
for this online tree to befuddle other researchers for centuries.
The best correction I could make would be a pointer to the second
book, copies of which are very difficult to find - small print run =
very few copies beyond those for the people who initially committed
to buy one. My copy has a "Library of Congress - Duplicate Copy"
stamp inside the front cover.

ne...@jecarter.us

[Wes Groleau]

> [snip]

>
> post trees that are chock full of errors and who then abandon them.
>

> JDL...@Yahoo.com


I had one of those for the longest time. Well-meaning public
servant wrote some nice code to make online genealogies from
GEDCOMs. Offered free hosting space for them, too. But after a
bit, kind of disappeared. Kept paying for the domain name,
apparently, as the stuff stayed online. But I couldn't get to it
for updates and he didn't respond to e-mails.


--
Wes Groleau

Change is inevitable.
Conservatives should learn that =E2=80=9Cinevitable" is not a synonym for=
=E2=80=9Cbad.=E2=80=9D
Liberals need to learn that =E2=80=9Cinevitable" is not a synonym for =E2=
=80=9Cgood."
=E2=80=94 WWG

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>

[singhals]

> > [snip]

> >
> > Finally there should be a special level of purgatory for people who
> > post trees that are chock full of errors and who then abandon them.
> > Now back to your regularily scheduled discourse.
> >
> > JDL...@Yahoo.com
>

> My wife's line has had a couple of books published about it (vanity
> press type publishing). The first one was done in the 1970-1980
> timeframe and was neither well-researched nor adequately documented
> (our two kids were entered as one person with both names). The
> second book was in the 1990-2000 timeframe and researched by a Ph.D.
> who did excellent research (including ancient paper documents at
> county courthouses) and very thorough documentation. Care to guess
> which book someone entered in its entirety (including dozens of
> "Living Lastname") at ancestry.com?
>
> It's sad that the first writer failed to make the best use of
> available resources - especially people - as some of them were no
> longer with us when the second writer started his research - and
>

> ne...@jecarter.us


Well, I'll agree that it's sad their input isn't in there, but then
again, would it have helped?

Being old isn't synonymous with being right. My GM insisted from
1950 until her 1997 death that her mother-in-law had died in the
late 1930s. When I showed her the official death record (1941), she
harumphed and said her father-in-law just hadn't gotten into town
that often!

I was fortunate to have started all this fairly young, while I had
three living generations before me. And they were STILL wrong. I
remember wanting to hit a Great-great-uncle who admitted he knew his
grandfather's name, and when pressed, said "dad-dahl". An hour
later, after he quit wheezing with laughter, I finally pried the
real name out of him, mostly because he knew telling me would annoy
my grandmother. (g)

Eye-witnesses are wrong more often than they're right, law
enforcement and attorneys tell us.

Cheryl

singhals <sing...@erols.com>

[ne...@jecarter.us]

> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>


I won't argue the possibility of errors - I've enountered many - as
well as outright lies. My mother's birth certificate is dated 6
months before her parents' marriage license - March and September
are not months when a clerk is likely to be thinking in terms of a
year other than the current one. One of my wife's aunts was the
family encylopedia of marriage partners and birthdays, but in her
80's she starting losing it - giving me DOBs that made two of her
grandkids almost 10 years younger than they actually were - but
still accurate on things from 50 years ago. Asking someone to tell
you about a person they knew or an event they experienced often
provides peripheral information that can be used for verification -
and sometimes there's an incredible little bit of information that
chips a hole in one of your brick walls.

I don't consider obituaries or tombstones as credible souces of
birth dates, unless the person is under age 20 - in that case, there
will likely be someone who knows when the decedent was born. Death
dates are more likely to be close or correct if the marker was
placed immediately after death. Obits sometimes have goodies such
as "Survived by a sister, Sue Smith of Podunk, WI." That explains
why Sue isn't in the census with her siblings and why "Molly
Wilkinson" doesn't show up at all in the census that year: she's now
a Smith and she goes by Sue instaed of Molly.

ne...@jecarter.us

[Wes Groleau]

> Being old isn't synonymous with being right. My GM insisted from
>

> Cheryl Singhals


I am in possession of a family history in which half of the author's
siblings are given birthdates that differ from his (their) mother's
affidavit for a Civil War pension.


--
Wes Groleau

Be spontaneous … today
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/BlindDog?itemid=3984

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>

[singhals]

> placed immediately after death. Obits sometimes have goodies such
> as "Survived by a sister, Sue Smith of Podunk, WI." That explains
> why Sue isn't in the census with her siblings and why "Molly
> Wilkinson" doesn't show up at all in the census that year: she's now
> a Smith and she goes by Sue instaed of Molly.
>
> ne...@jecarter.us

Yeah, doncha just LOVE that one! I've a lady whose name AFAAK is
Phoebe, yet in the last census on which she appears, she's Susan.
Then there's Wes, who appears on one census as J Walter ...!

Cheryl

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

> Being old isn't synonymous with being right. My GM insisted from
>
> Cheryl Singhals

And here I had thought I was always right because I was old. There
must be another reason, cherie. ;)

Hugh (but you already knew that)

Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)

[ne...@jecarter.us]

> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>


I have an ancestor whose first name was "Guy". The 1920 census has
him indexed as "Gray". I found the entry by his daughter's name -
at least that entry was indexed correctly.

Then there are the multiple men named "James Daniel" in my wife's
line and their odd use of Sr. and Jr. The Jr. was the grandson of
the Sr. They apparently used those suffixes because they were both
lawyers in the same town. I had fun sorthing that one out and
getting the correct wives and children associated with each of them.
The "family tradition" I received from an older relative was
somewhat garbled.

John

ne...@jecarter.us

[bob gillis]

On 11/18/2011 11:43 AM, ne...@jecarter.us wrote:

> <snip>

>
> I have an ancestor whose first name was "Guy". The 1920 census has
> him indexed as "Gray". I found the entry by his daughter's name -
> at least that entry was indexed correctly.

Such a mis-indexing is fairly common.

> Then there are the multiple men named "James Daniel" in my wife's
> line and their odd use of Sr. and Jr. The Jr. was the grandson of
> the Sr. They apparently used those suffixes because they were both

> lawyers in the same town. I had fun sorting that one out and

> getting the correct wives and children associated with each of them.
> The "family tradition" I received from an older relative was
> somewhat garbled.

In Massachusetts and probably other Colonies/States, the use of Jr
to denote the younger man in the town was common. I have seen
instances of Third and Fourth. They weren't necessarily lawyers or
even closely related. When the eldest died the younger one had the
jr, 3rd etc dropped. These suffixes were used by the clerks to keep
the individuals separated.

bob gillis

bob gillis <robert...@verizon.net>