trees with incorrect information
-
williamgeorge
-
- Mensajes: 2
i have been put off with this website because of blatant mistakes on other trees, with regard to my own ancestors, the best thing I can say is My heritage and Ancestry are even worse. How do you get genealogical rubbish off other people's trees. The manager concerned here is a moron, who would not know a proper source if it hit him in the head tied to a ton of bricks. I also do not consider a link back to unsourced ancestry trees as a source. Now you have joined ancestry i expect the level of rubbish to rise.
-
ericdubois
-
- Volunteer moderator
- Mensajes: 5118
- Introducción: Gráfico
- Navegación: Texto
- Ver su árbol genealógico
Hi William,
Your complaint is a recurrent theme in the French forums as well. Users are responsible for the content of their tree and Geneanet does not interfere with the content except when privacy issues are concerned. This will not change. However, Geneanet is working on a system to flag frequent errors.
There are plenty of users who take their work seriously and do proper research, and there are users who just want a really big tree, quickly and easily. Those users don't visit the forum and won't read your message. If you have an idea on how to filter out the rubbish, I'm all ears.
Regards,
Eric
Your complaint is a recurrent theme in the French forums as well. Users are responsible for the content of their tree and Geneanet does not interfere with the content except when privacy issues are concerned. This will not change. However, Geneanet is working on a system to flag frequent errors.
There are plenty of users who take their work seriously and do proper research, and there are users who just want a really big tree, quickly and easily. Those users don't visit the forum and won't read your message. If you have an idea on how to filter out the rubbish, I'm all ears.
Regards,
Eric
-
williamgeorge
-
- Mensajes: 2
the family concerned is not at all hard to research see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Reynolds a nice big entry it says and is well documented never married and no known children. Two of his sisters have wikpedia entries Mary Palmer see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Palmer and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Reynolds
Mary Palmer three of her children have Wikipedia entries and two of her son in laws as well.
There were as far as i know three Joshua Reynolds in England at about this time period the first was married in 1735, in London, there is a marriage record for this, to Sarah Warne, but obviously it is not the future Sir Joshua Reynolds as he would have been 12 Years old at that time and living in Devon with his parents. The second marriage often attributed to Sir Joshua Reynolds and this too has a marriage record, is to Sarah Marytn in 1757, in St Agnes near Truro Cornwall, a little more research reveals that this Joshua Reynolds was born in 1730, married in 1757 and died in 1807 or thereabouts, he was born, married and died in Cornwall and is not related to the Reynolds family from Devon.
The third undocumented marriage of a Joshua Reynolds is Anne Zackville, with no sources what so ever, usually she is just 12 years old when giving birth to her first son Thomas Reynolds. In actual fact, there are no conclusive sources anywhere on the internet that can prove who the parents of this Thomas Reynolds were. Whoever the father of this Thomas Reynolds was it is not Sir Joshua Reynolds. But hey who cares, it's on internet trees it must be true.
Now for the children of Mary Palmer, managers usually mess up the number of children she had and add a bogus son Joshua Palmer, strangely enough he has the same birth and death dates as his Uncle Sir Joshua Reynolds, making his mother Mary Palmer just 6 or 7 years old when giving birth to this Joshua , even more ludicrous is in some trees they have him born in the now USA, while his parents never left England. For some reason her son John is often given a middle name that he never had. Joseph is usually correct.
Her daughter Theophilia or sometimes spelt Theophila is usually correct, but poor Mary and Elizabeth are often given wrong spouses, and both of them must have been bigamists and had children they never had.
why managers insists on wrong marriages and wrong children for this family i can not understand. Perhaps they just want a connection to someone famous. And clutch at imaginary connections with no sources or wrong sources. they see an Elizabeth Palmer in their ancestry and immediately jump to the wrong conclusions that their Elizabeth Palmer must have been the daughter of John and Mary Palmer nee Reynolds. Never mind the Wikipedia entry. I wonder how many Elizabeth Palmers there were running around England at that time. Poor Mary she too gets to be a bigamist, and once again its a common enough name, hey Mary Palmer is our ancestor she got to be the niece of Sir Joshua Reynolds, it says so on other peoples trees.
The main offender has trees on Ancestry and my heritage all with the same rubbish, I left My heritage and cancelled Ancestry and though I would try this website a go, this was just before the big announcement of Ancestry taking over. Then I saw this rubbish tree here and am not sure i want to be a paying member, this English couple John and Mary Palmer, did have descendants that were either born, died or married in 34 different modern countries, living descendants reside in France, Germany, the Uk, Canada, USA, South Africa and Australia. I may have missed a few countries. over on sites like Geni, wikitree, FamilySearch, i contribute to keeping the garbage off my Reynolds Palmer family
I have talked to the main offender and they, i am sure not know what a source is. I bombarded them with sources and still this garbage tree is here.
Mary Palmer three of her children have Wikipedia entries and two of her son in laws as well.
There were as far as i know three Joshua Reynolds in England at about this time period the first was married in 1735, in London, there is a marriage record for this, to Sarah Warne, but obviously it is not the future Sir Joshua Reynolds as he would have been 12 Years old at that time and living in Devon with his parents. The second marriage often attributed to Sir Joshua Reynolds and this too has a marriage record, is to Sarah Marytn in 1757, in St Agnes near Truro Cornwall, a little more research reveals that this Joshua Reynolds was born in 1730, married in 1757 and died in 1807 or thereabouts, he was born, married and died in Cornwall and is not related to the Reynolds family from Devon.
The third undocumented marriage of a Joshua Reynolds is Anne Zackville, with no sources what so ever, usually she is just 12 years old when giving birth to her first son Thomas Reynolds. In actual fact, there are no conclusive sources anywhere on the internet that can prove who the parents of this Thomas Reynolds were. Whoever the father of this Thomas Reynolds was it is not Sir Joshua Reynolds. But hey who cares, it's on internet trees it must be true.
Now for the children of Mary Palmer, managers usually mess up the number of children she had and add a bogus son Joshua Palmer, strangely enough he has the same birth and death dates as his Uncle Sir Joshua Reynolds, making his mother Mary Palmer just 6 or 7 years old when giving birth to this Joshua , even more ludicrous is in some trees they have him born in the now USA, while his parents never left England. For some reason her son John is often given a middle name that he never had. Joseph is usually correct.
Her daughter Theophilia or sometimes spelt Theophila is usually correct, but poor Mary and Elizabeth are often given wrong spouses, and both of them must have been bigamists and had children they never had.
why managers insists on wrong marriages and wrong children for this family i can not understand. Perhaps they just want a connection to someone famous. And clutch at imaginary connections with no sources or wrong sources. they see an Elizabeth Palmer in their ancestry and immediately jump to the wrong conclusions that their Elizabeth Palmer must have been the daughter of John and Mary Palmer nee Reynolds. Never mind the Wikipedia entry. I wonder how many Elizabeth Palmers there were running around England at that time. Poor Mary she too gets to be a bigamist, and once again its a common enough name, hey Mary Palmer is our ancestor she got to be the niece of Sir Joshua Reynolds, it says so on other peoples trees.
The main offender has trees on Ancestry and my heritage all with the same rubbish, I left My heritage and cancelled Ancestry and though I would try this website a go, this was just before the big announcement of Ancestry taking over. Then I saw this rubbish tree here and am not sure i want to be a paying member, this English couple John and Mary Palmer, did have descendants that were either born, died or married in 34 different modern countries, living descendants reside in France, Germany, the Uk, Canada, USA, South Africa and Australia. I may have missed a few countries. over on sites like Geni, wikitree, FamilySearch, i contribute to keeping the garbage off my Reynolds Palmer family
I have talked to the main offender and they, i am sure not know what a source is. I bombarded them with sources and still this garbage tree is here.
-
ericdubois
-
- Volunteer moderator
- Mensajes: 5118
- Introducción: Gráfico
- Navegación: Texto
- Ver su árbol genealógico
Hi William,
I chatted about this thread with the member who manages the database of recurring errors. Currently, this database is limited to French genealogy because of language issues. Hopefully it will expand to other languages and countries.
A little more about the project. It was initiated by a dedicated member, Pelisson, working in collaboration with Geneanet. One of the advantage of a smaller company is that you can actually communicate with the developers. The errors are reported in a dedicated forum thread. Pelisson verifies the accuracy of the report and, if confirmed, enters them into the database. Geneanet is working on a system to compare that database to the members' trees and, if one of those errors is found, it alerts the owner of the tree and the visitor in a way similar to the way inconsistencies are currently reported.
As you can guess, for the system to work the report must be organized, precise, well-documented, and verifiable. Eventually, we hope to have volunteers familiar with other languages and research in different countries to assist with the verification step.
So, to get back to your original question, Geneanet is working on a way to get rubbish off people's trees by flagging it and hopefully preventing people from copying it. It's not moving as fast as we would all like, but it is progressing.
Regards,
Eric
I chatted about this thread with the member who manages the database of recurring errors. Currently, this database is limited to French genealogy because of language issues. Hopefully it will expand to other languages and countries.
A little more about the project. It was initiated by a dedicated member, Pelisson, working in collaboration with Geneanet. One of the advantage of a smaller company is that you can actually communicate with the developers. The errors are reported in a dedicated forum thread. Pelisson verifies the accuracy of the report and, if confirmed, enters them into the database. Geneanet is working on a system to compare that database to the members' trees and, if one of those errors is found, it alerts the owner of the tree and the visitor in a way similar to the way inconsistencies are currently reported.
As you can guess, for the system to work the report must be organized, precise, well-documented, and verifiable. Eventually, we hope to have volunteers familiar with other languages and research in different countries to assist with the verification step.
So, to get back to your original question, Geneanet is working on a way to get rubbish off people's trees by flagging it and hopefully preventing people from copying it. It's not moving as fast as we would all like, but it is progressing.
Regards,
Eric