For Fouques Sake

Comments after the jump.

 Fouques I D Anjou
 B: 0870 in Anjou, France
 D: 0938 in Anjou, Anjou, France

 FATHER
 Ingelger I Orlean (845-893)
 MOTHER
 Aelinde De Amboise (844-890)
 SIBLING (half)
 Garnier Seigneur De Loches (844-929)

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Roscille De Loches (874-920)
 ✿ Foulques Le Anjou (909-958)

Royal Obsession

This is the photo gallery for one tree's profile of Peter Beverly (1610 - 1650). The last item is the only one not originally uploaded by this tree owner. The other 16 items are attached only to this profile which means they are uploaded numerous times. The tree has over 70,000 photos.
In true clickophile fashion there is only one record attached. It is from the U.S. and Canada, Passenger and Immigration Lists Index. The record is for a Robert Beverly. According to the profile Peter Beverly was born in England and died there.

ROW 1

1) Title: Family Tie Tree
On the image: Family Tie of Interest,
but Not a Direct Ancestor
Sibling, Cousin, In-Law,
Half- or Step-Sibling, Etc.
Attached to: 35 other trees

2) Title: Immigrant
On the image: Immigrant
Attached to: 84 other trees

3) Title: Descendant King Hugues I
On the image: Direct Descendant
Hugues I, King of France
Founder,
Capet Dynasty
Attached to: 128 other trees

4) Title: Descendant King Henry I France
On the image: Direct Descendant
Henry I, King of France
Capet
Dynasty
Attached to: 129 other trees

5) Title: Descendant King Henry II
On the image: Direct Descendant
Henry II, King of England
Considered Founder,
Angevin Empire &
Plantagenet Dynasty
Attached to: 125 other trees

6) Title: Descendant King Henry I
On the image: Direct Descendant
Henry I, King of England
Norman Dynasty
Attached to: 126 other trees

ROW 2

1) Title: Link to Germany
On the image: Direct Link to Medieval
German Ancestors
Attached to: 101 other trees

2) Title: Link to Wm the Conqueror
On the image: Direct Link to
William the Conqueror
Attached to: 134 other trees

3) Title: Link to Norman Dynasty
On the image: Link to Norman Dynasty
Kings of England
Attached to: 119 other trees

4) Title: Link to Capet Dynasty
On the image: Link to House of Capet
Kings of France
Attached to: 127 other trees

5) Title: Kings of Scotland
On the image: Direct Links to
Kings of Scotland
Attached to: 126 other trees

6) Title: Link to Plantagenets
On the image: Plantagenet Link
Attached to: 114 other trees

ROW 3

1) Title: Link to Magna Carta
On the image: Direct Link to
Magna Carta
Attached to: 177 other trees

2) Title: Link to Caroliginian Dynasty
On the image: Link to
Caroliginian Dynasty
Attached to: 162 other trees

3) Title: Link to Emperor of HRE
On the image: Direct Link to an Emperor
of the Holy Roman Empire
Attached to: 160 other trees

4) Title: Link to Charlemagne
On the image: Link to
Charlemagne
Attached to: 165 other trees

5) Title: Beverly COA
On the image: Beverley
Attached to: 558 other trees

Thanks to Aggie for the link to this profile ;-)
If you have a photo to suggest please send a link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.


PREVIOUS POST: Vaux Pas
NEXT POST: For Fouques Sake
RELATED POSTS: Royal Obsession II, Downward Spiral

Vaux Pas

I cancelled my subscription because I was sick of paying to put up with Ancestry's technical problems. As of the 18th I can no longer see the trees. Here's hoping I prepared enough to get through a few weeks of posts!
Comments after the jump.

 Elizabeth Alice
 B: 1488 in Whichford, Warwickshire, England
 D: 1572 in England

 SPOUSE
 Robert de Vaux (1103-1194)

 CHILD with UNKNOWN SPOUSE
 ✿ Thomas Welles (1512-1558)

Social Disgrace II: Photo Edition

Lots of images in this post so apologies to those of you with slow internet connections. Today's post covers Ancestry.com's Facebook page, their blog and their "online support community."
First up is a Facebook thread with just a screen cap of the image and no links at all. The admin who posted it is assuming that 1) everyone can recognize a Google Doodle and 2) Rosalind Franklin is a household name.

Link to original thread.

When asked about relevancy here was the admin's reply:

No "historical tie in"? How about a tie-in to the company you work for? I know it might be difficult to figure out how to relate a scientist who made significant breakthroughs in DNA to Ancestry.com but maybe if you think really hard.
The photos-of-kittens Facebook mentality has crept its way onto Ancestry's blog.

Link to blog post.

That's right, a photo of cats jump roping with a doll. I doubt it even crossed her mind that this post would be more appropriate for a personal blog, not the company one.
While the social media team expects everyone to adapt to their way of doing things (more on that after the jump) they refuse to learn anything about an important aspect of genealogy, sourcing. After the Cindy Crawford episode of Who Do You Think You Are? there was an Ancestry.com blog post about some of the research. If you go to that link you'll notice a change from the original post which is screen capped below.

The original post had no reference whatsoever to the professional genealogists who actually did the work. Now the first "we" is changed to "our ProGenealogists" with the link going to the ProGenealogists.com homepage. Well that fixes everything.
No mention that ProGenealogists wrote the summary for the case study section of their website. Meanwhile, Dick Eastman is giving credit to Kristie Wells. To her credit, she does manage to plagiarize well. [Note: I attempted to comment on Mr. Eastman's post to let him know about this the day his write up was posted but when I clicked "post" my comment would just disappear. No "waiting to be moderated" or error notice. I tried multiple times.]
Ironically while Ms. Wells doesn't see the point of giving credit to others for their work she wants all the credit for hers on the Ancestry.com Facebook page and doesn't want to be hidden by posting as the company. She and one other member of her team insist on commenting from their personal profiles without identifying themselves as Ancestry employees. Well no one new ever visits the page and all of the 600,000+ fans read every post the page makes so everyone knows who she is, right?

She claims that she is also part of the community and should be able to comment from her own profile but the comments are almost always (I've only seen one exception) made as an Ancestry.com employee, not as a fan of the page. If the other members of the team are fans of the page they are smart enough not to comment as employees unless they are signed in as a page admin.

After the jump: Censorship, a.k.a. The Borg

Social Disgrace II

Today and Friday will be my last posts on the ineptitude of Ancestry's social media. Writing about the crazy trees is much more enjoyable. I find people paying to add nonsense to their trees amusing. On the other hand, people getting paid by our subscription dollars when they should be flipping burgers or working at Wal-Mart is just infuriating.
Most of this will be about the Ancestry.com (not .ca, .co.uk or .com.au) Facebook page because it's the only social media site I waste time on. If there are issues with Ancestry's other social media, including the other Facebook pages, feel free to discuss them in the comments.
Let's start with the "About" page. It looks like website addresses are the only thing Facebook allows in the "Contact Info" section. Is "Mission" really the next best option for a phone number and email address? Is the mission of Ancestry.com to hear our thoughts and comments and to let us know about the initials at the end of comments by the page?

Maybe it's just a coincidence but the initials started showing up on posts soon after this comment was made by an admin.

That's right, an admin is claiming that Ancestry.com has customer support 24/7/365. I can hear your laughter from here. Maybe the initials will be used to identify admins in need of another training session. I'm sure someone will claim the initials are for the benefit of those who use the page. If that were the case wouldn't it be easier to use first names?
Of course requiring your team to identify their comments doesn't mean they will actually do it. This admin either forgot or decided not to sign their work. [The screen cap is from last week.] Lecturing fans in front of hundreds, possibly thousands, is usually frowned upon by most companies.

After all that the admin didn't even bother to tell Troy about Mundia.com.
Admins can't stand to look bad. You can see from the time stamp on this screen cap that I commented after the Ancestry.com admin but their post has been edited.

While viewing the edits is not possible on the Facebook app, anyone using a browser can click "Edited" and see exactly what was changed. This admin edited their answer to basically add my comment to theirs. I would have a lot more respect for them if they had just commented again and said, "I hadn't thought of that."

This comment took the admin three tries.

Editing is only possible with comments, not an original post. In the case of a post admins will post, delete and post again. On pages it's possible to create a post that will go live at a later time. Once you create the post and set the time (an hour, a week or a month from now) you can see exactly what it will look like. There really is no excuse for deleting and re-posting. So far I think the record is posting the same thing three times before they just gave up. The admin couldn't spell genealogy correctly in any of them. *head/desk*
[Thanks to Aggie for grabbing the screen cap!]

Admins seem to think we'll believe whatever they tell us. This one would like us to believe that a fan can make someone else's post disappear from the page. Anyone who has visited the page when the porn spammers are around knows that isn't possible. We can report something as spam and even report that it violates Facebook community guidelines but unless an admin removes it, or Facebook removes it which could takes months, the post will still be visible the next time we visit the page. The fact is that a few of the admins are actively censoring posts. I'll go into that more on Friday.

There's the admin that refuses to learn how to spell. It doesn't matter how many times she is told that "cashe" is not a word. There are at least half a dozen instances just this weekend.

There's the admin that either doesn't know what is available for free on the site they work for or can't be bothered to tell potential customers.

Then there is the admin that makes no sense at all. He/she says Janet's comment is correct and then states the exact opposite. [Note: This is before the use of initials.]

Much more coming on Friday. I'll start writing that post as soon as the headache from this one goes away :-P


PREVIOUS POST: 15th Century Modesty
NEXT POST: Social Disgrace II - Photo Edition
RELATED POSTS: Social Disgrace, Social Disgrace - Photo Edition

15th Century Modesty

As always...WHY???

Title: _
Uploaded: Twice to three profiles
1) John Peryent Periente b. 1415 Hertfordshire, England
Periente b. 1460 Hertfordshire, England
2) George Periente b. 1505 Hertfordshire, England
Attached to: 8 other trees

Hayden Panettiere playing tennis in Hawaii.
Photo credit: Eubank for Bauer-Griffin


If you have a photo to suggest please send a link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.


PREVIOUS POST: Follow Blindly
NEXT POST: Social Disgrace II

Follow Blindly

A short post today. We're going back to the trees.

 Judith Kay Walls
 B: 1435 in Renfrewshire, Scotland
 D: 20 Jun 1951 in Renfrewshire, Scotland

 Children and husband lived in the 15th century.

35 public trees on Ancestry.com have this profile.
35 people who clicked away without noticing the typo.
35 people who didn't think twice about having an ancestor who lived more than five centuries.

Thanks to Mark for the heads up about these trees ;-)
If you have a profile to suggest please send a link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.


PREVIOUS POST: Aunt Generation
NEXT POST: 15th Century Modesty

Aunt Generation

An aunt generation? I honestly have no idea. The tree owner's father had three sisters and her mother had five. None of them have this photo on their profiles.

Title: Individual was in an Aunt generation
Date/Place: Unknown, Internet Clip Art
Description: Relative was in the aunt cagetory [sic]- all generations are included. If just the person's last name is in caps, she is in the aunt cagetory [sic]. If the complete name is capitalized, the lady is also in a Great-Grandparent generation. Other photos may also be attached.
Uploaded: Once, thankfully, and linked to two profiles.
A note on one of the profiles: "3d G-Grand Aunt and then married my 3d G-Grandfather Pleasant Almond, but she was not my 3d G-Grandmother."
The other is a 4th great-grandmother of the tree owner.
Attached: Only to this tree.

Coffee mug with "Aunts are special, especially mine" on it.
Caption: "All generations of Aunts included"


Thanks to Rene for the link to this photo ;-)
If you have a photo to suggest please send a link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.

PREVIOUS POST: Another WDYTYA? Rant
NEXT POST: Follow Blindly

Another WDYTYA? Rant

Cindy Crawford on Who Do You Think You Are?:

"That's really incredible to go back that far
on my first day really, doing this."

"I think this sets the bar really high for a first day.
I've already gone back to 1633..."

Bless her heart. Sweetie, you didn't do anything. A group of professional genealogists worked for 1000 hours so you could get that far in a day. This was an episode to make clickophiles feel good about themselves. I can hear it now, "Well if Cindy Crawford could get to Charlemagne in an hour why don't you believe I got there during my 14-day free trial?"

There was no mention of any of the important sources used to make that huge jump to Charlemagne and no explanation of the "unestablished" notations on the behemoth scroll she was given.

Screen caps after the jump.