tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post6020999616207092641..comments2023-06-22T07:05:06.074-05:00Comments on Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Zombie's SonLLG70http://www.blogger.com/profile/05978415045288866420noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post-55340474017167904092013-05-22T01:33:29.052-05:002013-05-22T01:33:29.052-05:00I can see it now, Ancestry threatens to take down ...I can see it now, Ancestry threatens to take down my tree because all the tree owners who have been featured on my blog have found and flagged it ;-) <br />Actually I think it's a good idea Emily. One pitfall would be that clickophiles could rate trees. Since they don't know, or care, what a record is or what is logically possible (like NOT going back to Adam & Eve) they would probably rate the Adam & Eve/Charlemagne/Zombie trees positively :-P LLG70https://www.blogger.com/profile/05978415045288866420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post-58829311128919930532013-05-21T11:38:53.704-05:002013-05-21T11:38:53.704-05:00What about allowing users to rate public trees? I...What about allowing users to rate public trees? I haven't really thought this through and I'm sure there are a million pitfalls, but it would be wonderful to have a way to flag trees like this to warn other users. Then maybe after a certain number of negative ratings Ancestry could remove the tree from search results or at least put it much lower in the list. Similarly it would be nice to be able to highlight those trees where there is great information and sourcing. It wouldn't be nearly as accurate as official "genealogy police," but over time I'd imagine that you'd get a good sense of which trees are great and which ones aren't worth the storage space.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12614661676959673099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post-87787675553667265442013-05-17T17:13:09.343-05:002013-05-17T17:13:09.343-05:00Patti,
The shoebox kinda stinks :-P I actually att...Patti,<br />The shoebox kinda stinks :-P I actually attach the record and add a note in the description field with details. Why I think it might be them, why I'm on the fence about the record, what I need to follow up on, etc.. I know the record then shows up as a hint for others who have that person in their tree but it's up to them to verify it for themselves. Unless they add some way to organize or add notes in the shoebox that's what I'll do.LLG70https://www.blogger.com/profile/05978415045288866420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post-69533993071977909572013-05-17T17:07:29.767-05:002013-05-17T17:07:29.767-05:00Agreed Patti! Even just an option to add a note wo...Agreed Patti! Even just an option to add a note would help. I've got newspaper pages saved and there's no name attached and I can't remember who I was looking for or why I saved it :-PLLG70https://www.blogger.com/profile/05978415045288866420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post-6040483592494032022013-05-17T10:39:39.623-05:002013-05-17T10:39:39.623-05:00Patti -- good idea of using "NC". I too...Patti -- good idea of using "NC". I too wish Ancestry's shoebox was easier to search. I probably have a 1000 'hits' stored there, but to find what I'm looking for means going through the entire thing, page by page. How about a 'search' option or a 'filing' option for those of us who find something interesting, but want to spend some additional time researching and verifying the information. Terrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15571528709024044806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post-15556774586429297422013-05-16T10:59:29.559-05:002013-05-16T10:59:29.559-05:00Since there is a bit of discussion here, let me as...Since there is a bit of discussion here, let me ask a question...<br />When I come across a bit of data that 'might' fit the person, but I'm not certain, I typically add it to that person but add a code of my own (NC for not confirmed). so I may end up with two marriage dates, for example, while I'm trying to sort out the data. This is more helpful to me than tossing it in Ancestry's shoebox (never to be seen again).<br /><br />What do others recommend as a method here?<br />Pattihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04644892396211601659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post-27938692859335584762013-05-15T21:14:26.332-05:002013-05-15T21:14:26.332-05:00Ancestry has been doing more education. Crista Cow...Ancestry has been doing more education. Crista Cowan does video tutorials twice a week and Tweetchats twice a month. Unfortunately the people who need them the most aren't watching or asking questions :-P I've found these people are also the most defensive when it comes to the quality of their research. When confronted with someone telling them of a mistake those doing actual research will immediately go into analytical mode. "What's the issue?" "What sources do you have that I'm missing?" Etc. Clickophiles don't consider for a second that they might be wrong. I doesn't matter that they've never looked at a single original record. Sigh.<br />I agree that Ancestry is being overrun with these junk/mythological/fantasy trees but outside of hiring 1000s of genealogy police I'm not sure what else they can do. Maybe a pop-up when someone joins: "Other people" are idiots, ignore their trees :-PLLG70https://www.blogger.com/profile/05978415045288866420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post-59982688453586079732013-05-15T16:40:37.745-05:002013-05-15T16:40:37.745-05:00Well Mark, based on my personal experience interac...Well Mark, based on my personal experience interacting with them when trying to correct them, I'd say that the village idiots are no longer confined to the village. They're now free to roam about the internet at will.David Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16719429187904711188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post-87693910290505468262013-05-15T12:04:17.361-05:002013-05-15T12:04:17.361-05:00Although I am sure the issue has been discussed ma...Although I am sure the issue has been discussed many, many times before, I will take the liberty of a relative newcomer and pose a few questions: Why do people engage in this kind of nonsense? What possible satisfaction could anyone derive from it? Can or should the people at Ancestry.com do more to promote better standards of practice? (Yes, I know that at one level they have an interest in maximizing revenue, but they also have a brand to protect -- and at some point the proliferation of this kind of junk begins to inflict damage on the brand.) <br />Again, I don't mean to annoy folks by re-plowing old ground. But I have to say that I am really appalled when I see that so many people are doing something they call 'genealogy' without the faintest attention to (or apparently interest in) the most basic standards of documentation and/or logical thought.<br />Mark STICKLE ONShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14758631948223906637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post-67554386700762472762013-05-15T09:10:19.189-05:002013-05-15T09:10:19.189-05:00Oh, and the John Nan (not Natz) Smith and Anna (no...Oh, and the John Nan (not Natz) Smith and Anna (not Ann ) Gildersleeve from the Monday post are not John Rock Smith's parents.<br /><br />They are his "machatunim", a yiddish word meaning the parents of your child's spouse.<br /><br />John Rock Smith's son John Smith Jr. married Hannah Smith, daughter of John Nan Smith and Anna Gildersleeve.David Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16719429187904711188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-891342107356798300.post-54852793051921758232013-05-15T08:04:33.668-05:002013-05-15T08:04:33.668-05:00There isn't a single piece of documentary evid...There isn't a single piece of documentary evidence as to the name of John Rock Smith's wife.<br /><br />From the latest and most definitive work in the NYGBS Record NYGBS Record Vol 88 No. 1 Jan 1957 by Rosalie Fellows Bailey<br /><br />"Nothing is known of Rock Smith's wife† other than that she was living in 1660, when she was indirectly mentioned in John James' unrecorded will (given above). She did not join in any of the deeds to the children. The earliest of these and his earliest sale was to his son-in-law Samuel Denton on April 18, 1665 (HpTR:r :162). From this we infer that Rock Smith's wife was dead by 1665 and that they had been married in the 1640's. Her name may have been Mary, since four of their children gave that name to a daughter."<br /><br />"†Called Hannah Murray without reference by the Tredwell genealogy, evidently from the much later marriage license of a John Smith to Hannah Murray on Dec. 27, 1758. This surname is not in the town and county records."David Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16719429187904711188noreply@blogger.com