26 January 2015

Waste of Space

Today we have photos uploaded to a single profile. Along with the images below there are scans of a baptismal record and a marriage record. Each of those is uploaded twice.

Title: seal of NJ
Uploaded: 8 times

Title: seal of NY
Uploaded: 8 times

Title: New_Amsterdam_1684_Visscher
Uploaded: 9 times

That's 29 uploads for 5 photos to one profile. The last image has been attached 21 times to 7 other trees. That's right, it has been attached multiple times to other trees. Not that you can tell from the image but it's a drawing of New Amsterdam from 1648.

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

PREVIOUS POST: Cousins Are Not Ancestors
NEXT POST: Do Not Ancestry


  1. I guess I can understand why some people might upload images like this, along with coats of arms, sailing ships, etc. (That's understand, not condone.) But what really amazes me is why anyone would ever, ever, ever copy these images to profiles in their own trees. These images are meaningless and have absolutely no genealogical value. As for the multiple uploads of the same image... well, I guess some people have no idea what they're doing.

    1. Pardon me MEHSAB, but I have to respectfully disagree.

      So you are saying that if I put a picture of the ship my ancestors sailed on to Australia on their profile, it has no genealogical value. Or I put "my family's" heraldic coat of arms on our profiles that this also has no genealogical value. These images have significant importance to my family history & story, they are genuine & integral to recording my ancestors and their descendants. I have a couple of famous painters in my tree (and before you snort, yes, this is verifiable) and I have attached images of some of their paintings to enhance the story. I also have a family member who was instrumental in the vast improvements in coal mining safety in the early to mid 1800's in NE England, are the photos & images of his work unrelated to my family records? I think not.

      I will agree that just copying insignificant "family crests" to your tree or such trivial images is rather irrelevant, but each to their own.

    2. Ross,
      Most (I'd guess 95%) of the ship images uploaded to trees are clip art, not images of the actual ship. No genealogical value. If you upload the same ship image 100s of times to your tree it has lost genealogical meaning and you're a server hog. If you upload the image and attached everyone from your tree who was on the same voyage to it I can see how that might be useful.
      What genealogical value does the 3rd image in this post have? You can't even tell what it is! It's bad enough this person uploaded NINE TIMES but then other trees attached it and they probably have no clue what it is either. One of those trees attached 8 of the 9 copies to a profile. How is that helpful?
      As for coats of arms... http://www.cyndislist.com/myths/common/crest/

    3. LLG70.

      Firstly, MEHSAB stated "I guess I can understand why some people might upload images like this, along with coats of arms, sailing ships, etc. (That's understand, not condone.) " This infered any images are not worthy of inclusion.

      I have a genuine "Heraldic Coat of Arms" in my possesion. I'm not talking the stupid things you buy in the local shopping centre, but one issued to my family by the College of Arms in England. It is not your garden variety type "Coat of Arms". We are in the process of having the pedigree of our CofA approved by the College of Arms.

      Following is part of an email from the College of Arms.

      "You are right in saying that Arms are granted to an individual and a Right to those Arms passes to all their descendants in the legitimate male line. This would include your sister/daughter if you have one. This Right is not, however, established until the person records his pedigree here to demonstrate that he or she has indeed descended in the legitimate male line from the grantee.

      I note that Clara Atkinson of Woolley Grange of Bradford on Avon, widow of Buddle Atkinson was granted Arms in his memory on 25 November 1882. (Grants 62.4) No pedigree has been recorded for this family, however, and so, strictly speaking, you, your brother and your nephews have not established a Right to those Arms."

      So the link to Cyndi's List is irrelevant. And only refers to some elements of the issue of Coat of Arms. CofA is a complex issue and I have some family who claim to be allowed to use it, however by the laws of Heraldry in England, only my brother, his sons(and or daughters), his sons children & myself (I have no issue) are entitled to bear these arms once we have proven the right to bear these arms.

      Please feel free to contradict me if you or others here know more about this issue than the college of arms.

      Kind Regards


    4. Well I know enough to see that they contradicted themselves with their first two sentences.
      If you've done the work then great but you will be the one out of thousands (hundreds of thousands?). The gullible masses are displaying clip art COAs and being server hogs, making things miserable for the rest of us. Upload the COA to Ancestry and hundreds/thousands of other descendants (male, female, people with the same surname but not related at all) will claim it as their own.
      Also, I read what MEHSAB wrote and understood it in the context of my blog post. Maybe you should reread both the post and the comment (which MEHSAB did not direct at your personal tree btw).