tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post1090256714002809246..comments2023-04-20T12:46:11.858-06:00Comments on The Ancestry Insider: Relative Finder, Ancestry.com StyleThe Ancestry Insiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-57403086651008613772010-10-28T20:23:19.296-06:002010-10-28T20:23:19.296-06:00It doesn't sound like there's much optimis...It doesn't sound like there's much optimism here. I think the One World Tree was flawed, but the theory is sound. I've encountered people in my own family that have discounted sources and evidence for their own gut feeling. Some people take it very personnel when you try and change a family record, even if an undisputed source shows a discrepancy. However for the most part I think a universal tree can benefit everyone. Error's in many family tree's could be corrected if multiple people were scrutinizing and adding sources to a shared tree. There's always going to be people that won't agree regardless. But over time I think reason and debate will weed out much of the bad information. The question is; who's going to create the best database to enable that kind of shared family tree? WeRelate.org seems to be the model that family Search is looking at copying. The problem with WeRelate.org is the lengthy process it takes to upload a Gedcom. It discourages people from contributing because of all the steps one has to take. But I do think it's on the right track. Ancestry might consider a shared tree based on the their "Public Member Tree" model. Allowing members to keep their own trees while contributing to a separate shared tree. They may have to compromise on how to make money on such a tree though. Especially if FamilySearch.org ever gets their act together.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12175323391239804589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-25632409565330681192010-09-29T23:43:13.054-06:002010-09-29T23:43:13.054-06:00Reading genealogy work without sources is like try...Reading genealogy work without sources is like trying to cash an unsigned check. My research is just a major hobby, but a friend in the LDS church was horrified when she signed into New Family Search to discover "merged" families that were filled with errors.Ellen Thorne Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01139317022324754404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-24667435143567123402010-09-29T22:41:55.189-06:002010-09-29T22:41:55.189-06:00A.I. ..... perhaps your best chirp ... er, blog .....A.I. ..... perhaps your best chirp ... er, blog ... ever!I am NOT a Praying Mantisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-69920584836436885082010-09-29T17:09:49.162-06:002010-09-29T17:09:49.162-06:00I don't merge families even if I know the pers...I don't merge families even if I know the person that posted the info. I use the Ancestry Connect as a research tool, I go find my own sources and if the person who posted the info didn't also post the source I contact that person and ask what was their source. If no reply, I delete them as a contact. I keep all my info and sources on a software program and only use Ancestry as a tool.<br />E. RAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-55860487559872441822010-09-29T16:20:07.958-06:002010-09-29T16:20:07.958-06:00Bravo!
Why Ancestry even continues to allow acces...Bravo!<br /><br />Why Ancestry even continues to allow access to that mis-begotten collection of <b>junkology</b> they call OneWorldTree is completely beyond me!Andrew G. Hatchettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-84293114441517075192010-09-29T09:27:21.324-06:002010-09-29T09:27:21.324-06:00Sorry you got out of the wrong side of the bed. Bu...Sorry you got out of the wrong side of the bed. But you're absolutely right. As wonderful as the new connecting technology is, I believe it is incumbent on the primary institutions to identify all of these linkages as hypothetical constructs at best, and particularly label all un-sourced compilations as of no value. Each should come with a "WARNING".Dean L. McLeodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05760198478862403980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-25694426890319386442010-09-29T09:07:46.617-06:002010-09-29T09:07:46.617-06:00AI, well said.
Happily, Ancestry.com's OneWor...AI, well said.<br /><br />Happily, Ancestry.com's OneWorldTree has been abandoned. The compatible Tree software was cut loose a few years ago and OWT is not "updated" to incorporate the new-format "Member Trees" additions.<br /><br />However, Ancestry.com is still encoding what its software thinks are "same individuals" in trees and in selected databases (including the junk ones based on family group sheets, IGI, and assorted unnamed genealogies).<br /><br />So the potential remains for re-creation of an even larger OWT-type swamp. In the past few years I have noticed addition of ridiculous items in Member Trees to some of my ancestral lines. So if some corner of Ancestry.com is working on OWT-type compiling software compatible with the Member Tree format, there is potential for re-creation of the same sort of folly, with even more GIGO.<br /><br />The only reasons I can see for doing such a horrorshow is either competition with newFamilySearch, or some sort of integration with it. Race to the bottom, anyone?Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-19082514081550252312010-09-29T08:00:52.436-06:002010-09-29T08:00:52.436-06:00The first time I saw that another member on Ancest...The first time I saw that another member on Ancestry.com had added my line to theirs, I was confused and thought they had merged or changed my own line. By the next few notices I learned to look carefully at the member's information and sources. I only merged those that matched my own information which I had been collecting over fifty years. I also wrote to new cousins which was a real treat.<br />When I saw that some of the information was absurd, I politely wrote and pointed out that a person born in the late 1500s could not have been born in the New England colonies as they did not exist prior to 1620 and later. I was thanked by some of the members, and am under the impression that some were adding an entire line without checking each and every bit of information. <br />Having once been a genealogy registrar, there were guidelines we used - a child should have parents who were alive (fathers at least nine months earlier) and a minimum of twelve to fourteen years old (early Quebec). A mother should have to be less than fifty years old and her children should fit into a conventional birth order. <br />One printed genealogy merged an ancestor with her own mother. I wrote that it was unlikely that a woman would be having children in her seventies or live one hundred and twenty five years despite the cold Quebec winters. My sarcasm was ignored. ETMEllen Thorne Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01139317022324754404noreply@blogger.com