tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post5479351762499612660..comments2023-04-20T12:46:11.858-06:00Comments on The Ancestry Insider: Passionate Genealogist is Core - Tim Sullivan at #RootsTechThe Ancestry Insiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-53240794825382342472017-02-22T17:01:17.312-07:002017-02-22T17:01:17.312-07:00First, thanks very much for this blog - it helps m...First, thanks very much for this blog - it helps me keep up to speed with the things happening on my genealogy sites.<br /><br />I understand the frustration with all of the bad information in Ancestry trees, but on the whole, I think I have gotten a lot of value there, particularly in tracking down the lost siblings of some of my ancestors. Obviously, it is up to me to review and validate the source material, and I wish that was more universally understood.<br /><br />Doug RamseyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402587749550687724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-18017010156116937502017-02-21T18:38:31.094-07:002017-02-21T18:38:31.094-07:00Another example of garbage in garbage out. I take...Another example of garbage in garbage out. I take comfort in the words of Sheriff Buford T Justice who after telling his son there was no way he and him were related, resolved that he should smack his sons mother in the mouth for having him. Basically the vast majority of public trees on Ancestry are a joke, so there is no additional harm in replacing one form of garbage with another.deserwesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744611125738719613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-32223059368915484242017-02-21T16:51:17.729-07:002017-02-21T16:51:17.729-07:00The We're Related app is useless and waste of ...The We're Related app is useless and waste of good space. It was designed by the same bunch of . . . . . . that were in charge of the Ancestry redesign/facelift.Cormachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330567840361202034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-86644802195682667752017-02-21T15:22:29.003-07:002017-02-21T15:22:29.003-07:00As I tell anyone who wants to know, if you are doi...As I tell anyone who wants to know, if you are doing US or British genealogy you must use Ancestry. The depth of the database, the access to actual digital images of the documents is unmatched.<br />That said, I am driven crazy daily by its attempts to make genealogy simpler for the untrained.<br />Currently it is BETA testing a package of "facts" to go with the data circles. Previously what you got was the likely joint ancestor and the lines from that ancestor down to you and the potential match. <br />This package of information which is a pastiche of family trees is utterly full of misinformation, such as how many kids the ancestor had, thrown off by the fact that many trees include the same kid twice,and all the misinformation that is promulgated in so many trees, ie wrong mother, because most trees are not based on any research, just grabbing repeated information or misinformation. In my case the ancestor is shown with a mother to whom she had no relationship at all. The woman was the mother of her father's consort by whom he had more children. It took alot of research to get it right, but her correct parentage is now fully documented. Just thrown away because Ancestry doesn't make any attempt to evaluate what is good information and what is not. I wouldn't mind if they weren't actively promoting the bad information as they are on the DNA circles.<br />Similarly but not as bad, the life story feature sets out as gospel facts which are still in play. It says she and her husband had two children--not true. I just chose to post two children. Or they pick up as a death date when it is posted as "after whatever date." Thus Ancestry is compounding the ongoing problem of promulgating misinformation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10941741938315560584noreply@blogger.com