Sorry Rex but how can you blame Ancestry for users poor research? Do you expect Ancestry to police the trees online? Or are you expecting Ancestry to take your word over another users? The fault lies *solely* with the respective tree owner and no one else Many tree submitters on Ancestry and elsewhere have either given up research or are no longer alive in many cases, so trees remain as submitted, there is no one to alter them Use *any* online tree for what its worth, a clue or two at best The *only* tree you can have 100% influence over is your own, so why expend so much wasted energy on what others trees contain? As to DNA personally I find it a complete waste of time, I have no interest in it whatsoever Ancestry is made up of two distinct sides, the records side and the submitted trees, I rarely look at the latter for obvious reasons If Ancestry or any other trees are so much garbage, why bother with them at all ? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 18/03/2016 21:17, Rex Johnson via wrote: > >> >> You can't blame the facilitator --------------------- > > Hi Nivard, Graham and others, > I am not usually an Ancestry 'basher' - I have had huge benefits from my subscriptions over the last 45 or so years. I do however, have one huge grumble with a particular 'facility' and for me, Ancestry's reputation is ruined by its inclusion on the site. > A generation ago I looked for mentions of a particular grandparent in Public Member Trees, and found 20 references to my ancestor. Every tree had the parents of this forebear wrong - I have irrefutable proof of this. > I emailed all twenty tree owners telling them of the errors. Two made changes, and one of these actually emailed back to say thank you. The rest remain wrong, and probably will do so for ever. > Public Member Trees are rubbish, we all know it, and I have read criticism of them hundreds of times over the years. > It led me to believe years ago that Ancestry was unscientific in leaving this junk online, not caring for accuracy, and made me suspicious of their motives. > Now Ancestry is active in DNA testing ------------ a very 'commercial' market at the moment, and Ancestry certainly recognises that, and has invaded it. > I have used several labs in Europe and the States in my own DNA research, but will not be using Ancestry. I have read of people who have had 'suggested' family links provided by Ancestry - based on marker results that you can't access - which have proved to have no substance at all. Lack of scientific exactness again. > Pity that such a superb resource is flawed. > Rex --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi Nivard and others. Having just upgraded my "Family Tree Makker 1995" I have also taken the plunge and joined "Ancestry" My initial thoughts were wow, look at all the new rellies I have found. Alas, at least 85% of them don't share my excitement as my inquiries to them go unaswered. I am careful to note if the people I write to have logged on recently. Some I have written to without response seem to log on at least weekly. I have concluded that there are many, many subscribers who in days of old would have collected teaspoons or similar. Today they collect names which a clever computer programs sorts for them. Lets face teaspoons do take up a fair bit of room. I have been astonished to see that some subscribers have more names on "their" tree than some countries have people. That ain't genealogy! But as Nivard says, don't blame Ancestry. Murray NZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nivard Ovington via" <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com> To: <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [LIN] Quiet on Lincs > > > Sorry Rex but how can you blame Ancestry for users poor research? > > Do you expect Ancestry to police the trees online? > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-LINCSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message