27 March 2014

Jung Would Have a Field Day

Any psychiatrists out there?
I would love to hear theories on this tree owner's thought process.
The photos are attached to:
Anna Jungmayr
Birth 1608 in Germany
Death 1670 in Germany
The flag, titled german flag, was originally uploaded by another tree owner. All the others were uploaded by this tree owner and are untitled. Seven of his photos are attached to five other trees. Here are just some of the photos attached to Anna's profile:












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


PREVIOUS POST: Moore or Less
NEXT POST: April Fools

24 March 2014

Moore or Less

 William Moore
 Birth: 1775 in England
 Death: 1781 in Franklin County, North Carolina, USA

 PARENTS
 John Moore (1686 in Colony of Virginia - 1753 in Colony of Virginia)
 Tabitha Pace (1714 in Colony of North Carolina - 1753)

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Ann Nancy Lanier (1749-1833) married in 1768 and 1780
 ✿ John Moore, b. in South Carolina, USA
 ✿ Moses Moore, b. in South Carolina, USA
 ✿ Thomas Moore, b. in South Carolina, USA
 ✿ Edward Moore, b. 1769, b. in Colony of South Carolina
 ✿ William Moore II, b. 1775, b. in Colony of North Carolina
 ✿ Aaron Moore, b. 1781 in England

 ONLY RECORD ATTACHED
 U.S. and Canada, Passenger and Immigration Lists Index, 1500s-1900s
 William Moore, born abt 1763, arrival year: 1765

Let me get this straight. William was born to parents who, if they had lived, would have been 89 and 61 years old. He married a woman, twice, who was 26 years his senior. One of the marriages occurred before he was born, the other when he was five. That makes sense since he also fathered a child before his own birth. Of course that was his second birth since he immigrated 2 years after his first birth.
Like most examples on this blog I could have my pick of profiles from this tree. Son Aaron has a child born in 1782 and wife Ann is a bigamist with two children sired by another man in 1775. She married him in 1781, a year after her second marriage to William.
How does this ridiculousness escape the notice of the tree owner?

Thanks to Kristin for the link to this profile ;-)

PREVIOUS POST: Do They Use Their Company's Product?
NEXT POST: Jung Would Have a Field Day

21 March 2014

Do They Use Their Company's Product?

Today's post has been interrupted to bring you the following rant. The photos from Monday's tree will be featured in a future post.
You'll probably be surprised to hear that this post will not be about Ancestry finally doing away with the "old" search. Dragging out the search change for five years was dumb but this move is, in my opinion, much worse.
Most, if not all, of you will recognize this as the bottom of the advanced search box:


The "Collection Priority" only works if you click the "Show only" box because why make something a one-step process when you can make it two, especially when the first step accomplishes absolutely nothing. That's a whole other rant, sorry. Back to the image.
Below the drop-down you can choose which collections you want included in your search results: Historical records, Stories & publications, Family trees, and Photos & maps. It should come as no surprise to regular readers of my blog that I never check the Family trees or Photos & maps boxes.
A SIDE NOTE: Both the drop-down and the check boxes are "sticky" meaning that they won't change until you change them. If you go on vacation and forget that you were working only with collections involving Australian maps just before you left you might be very confused by your search results when you come back to look for records of your Native American ancestors. 


The options for the unchecked boxes are still there, a click away, but those results are not included in the main search results. Until now. Family trees are still filtered out, thank goodness. The issue is with the photo portion of Photos & maps. Here is an example:


For this search I had Historical records and Stories & publications checked. Unfortunately the first four results are photos. There is a portrait, a headstone, a document and something on a private tree. This has to be a glitch right? If I say something it will be fixed and I can go back to seeing the results I want to see, right? I posted that last image on Ancestry.com's Facebook page and an employee responded:
"OK, I checked on this and as I mentioned it's coming up in results because it's a database and because it includes scanned documents that are historical records, it is categorized as such. Since there is no way to separate out the different kinds of media in the collection with search, that is why you're seeing images. Hope that clarifies it for you. Have a good day!"
Seriously?!!? Apparently Ancestry's decision makers are not familiar with the loads of crap posted on clickophile trees. Making it worse is the fact that photos already on our tree and those that are ignored hints do not get filtered out. In the search example above two of the four images are already attached and a third was ignored as a hint.
I searched from another profile with the same two boxes checked and 10 of the first 15 results, six family photos and four documents, were items I uploaded. The other 5 were for photos on a private tree.
It looks like removing the "Show only" check removes photos from the first page of search results but depending on the profile it could cause other issues. Basically Ancestry's programmers are making the first page of search results useless. Do they use their company's product?
Photos on Ancestry can be categorized. It's very useful. For what, I have no idea. The category options are Portrait/Family Photo, Site/Building/Place, Headstone, Document/Certificate, and Other. You can't sort the photos by category in the profile's gallery or in the tree's gallery. You can't search for images by category. But since there are some documents uploaded as photos Ancestry is adding all photos to the historical records search. Now we have no way to stay away from the Disney Princess, Care Bear insanity while we're searching for records. What a terrific idea. (sigh)


PREVIOUS POST: No Leeway
NEXT POST: Moore or Less

17 March 2014

No Leeway

Sometimes I'll be just about done typing in details and click over to a parent's or spouse's profile only to realize that it is the one I should be writing about. Today was one of those days. I deleted the profile of a man whose wife had 43 children, at least 3 of them born after she died, and decided to type up his mother's profile instead. How long will it take you to figure out why?

 Elizabeth Lundy
 B: 1710 in Isle Of Wight, Virginia
 M: 1732 to Peter Lee in Brunswick, Virginia, United States
 M: 1732 to Peter Lee in , Brunswick, Virginia, USA
 D: 1782 in Brunswick, Virginia

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Peter Lee (1731-1738)
 ✿ William Lee b. 1727
 ✿ Peter Lee b. 1730
 ✿ Sampson Lee b. 1745
 ✿ David Lee b. 1746
 ✿ Noah Lee b. 1755
 ✿ Westbrook Lee b. 1759
 ✿ Batt Lee
 ✿ Burchet Lee
 ✿ Caro Lee
 ✿ Dau Lee
 ✿ Elizabeth Lee
 ✿ Geaine Lee
 ✿ Lundeay Lee
 ✿ Mary Lee
 ✿ Penelope Penny Lee
 ✿ Rebecca Lee

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Peter Lee (1718-1738)
 ✿ William Lee b. 1727
 ✿ Peter Lee b. 1730
 ✿ Batt Lee b. 1737
 ✿ Sampson Lee b. 1745
 ✿ David Lee b. 1746
 ✿ Noah Lee b. 1755
 ✿ Noah Lee b. 1755
 ✿ Westbrook Lee b. 1759
 ✿ Betsey Lee
 ✿ Burchet Lee
 ✿ Caro Lee
 ✿ Caro Lee
 ✿ Dau Lee
 ✿ Elizabeth Lee
 ✿ Geaine Lee
 ✿ Jane Lee
 ✿ Lunday Lee
 ✿ Lundeay Lee
 ✿ Mary Lee
 ✿ Mary Lee
 ✿ Penelope Penny Lee
 ✿ Rebecca Lee

A man who died at the age of 7 did not father one child, much less 16. And a man who died at the age of 20 did not father 22 children. Maybe after medical advances in late 20th century but certainly not in the 18th.


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

RELATED POST: No Leeway, The Photos
PREVIOUS POST: King Charlie II
NEXT POST: Do They Use Their Company's Product?

14 March 2014

King Charlie II

I took a closer look at a few of the trees that has this image attached.

Title of photo: line leads to Charlemeagne
Uploaded to: Henry Cooke (1690-1772)
Attached to: Over 100 other trees


One tree has Charlemagne and Henry Cooke but they are not connected. At least two others do not have Charlemagne, or Charlemeagne, in them at all.
The tree it was originally uploaded to has at least four profiles for the emperor including one that shows he died in 1914.
*head/desk*


Thanks again to Kristin for the link ;-)
If you have a photo or profile to suggest please email the link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.

PREVIOUS POST: I'm Older Than My Grandpa
NEXT POST: No Leeway
RELATED POST: King Charlie

10 March 2014

I'm Older Than My Grandpa

There are variations of this profile on numerous trees. Some even appear, in the search results, to have records attached but I couldn't find any that had more than other trees.

 Sarah Jane Blansingame
 Birth 1695
 Death 1737

 PARENTS
 Larkin Venable (1771-1835)
 Molly Ann Roundtree (1771-1856)

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Francis Bearden (1690-1759)
 ✿ Thomas b. 1717
 ✿ William b. 1717
 ✿ Humphrey b. 1722
 ✿ Benjamin b. 1736
 ✿ Edmund b. 1737
 ✿ Ambrose b. 1739
 ✿ John b. 1744

Thanks to JoAnn for the heads up about this profile ;-)
If you have a profile or photo to suggest you can email me at buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.

PREVIOUS POST: Jesus, Mary and Joseph!
NEXT POST: King Charlie II

07 March 2014

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

Title of photo: D of J of A
This image was uploaded 2753 times to a single tree.
Two THOUSAND, seven HUNDRED and fifty-three!!!


Thanks to Kristin for the link to this tree ;-)

PREVIOUS POST: Zombie Pioneer
NEXT POST: I'm Older Than My Grandpa

03 March 2014

Zombie Pioneer

Here is the profile I promised in Friday's post.

 Suletia Letitia Larison Cox
 Birth: 1822 in Missouri City, Fort Bend, Texas, United States
 Death: 30 Jun 1856 in Bonham, Fannin, Texas, USA

 FATHER
 George Larrison (1700 Kansas - 1800 Kansas)
 HUSBAND
 William Henry Cox Jr (1816 - 1891)

 Some of the records attached
 ✿ Irish Immigrants: New York Port Arrival Records, 1846-1851
    Letty Cox, age 23, arrival date 9 Oct 1848, native country Ireland
 ✿ Missouri Marriage Records, 1805-2002
    Suletia Larison and William Cox, Jackson County, 2 Dec 1836
 ✿ Texas, Marriage Collection, 1814-1909 and 1966-2011
    William Cox and Sarah Jane Yates, Fannin County, 20 Feb 1858
 ✿ U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900
    William Cox (b. 1814) and Margaret Ann Whitaker, 1869
 ✿ U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900
    William Cox (b. 1816) and Margaret Ann Whitaker (b. 1874), 1869

The United States acquired Kansas in 1803 as part of the Louisiana Purchase. That would make George Larrison quite the pioneer. And since his daughter wasn't born until 1822 it also makes him a zombie. Being sired by a zombie must give her powers to defy the space-time continuum. She can be born in both Texas and Ireland and continue to live on past her death as her husband. Luckily it was only his marriage records that were added to her profile and not his wives.
The last record above has an alternate name submitted and a comment. They are so very helpful.
Alternate name suggestion:
"Margaret Whitaker rather than William Cox
Her date of birth is wrong. It showes [sic] she got married before she was born. Showes [sic] she got married in 1869 and she was born 1874. That just can not be right, please check this out. Thank You, [name]"
Comment:
"I believe the spouse year is wrong! She was married before she was born."
Of course it couldn't possibly be a typo and they couldn't be bothered check the reliability of the source.


PREVIOUS POST: Keeping Up With the Joneses
NEXT POST: Jesus, Mary and Joseph!