Hi Graham I am not disagreeing with you regarding the desire of some for instant results, that is very obvious But whose fault is that? only the individual concerned, no one else You seem to be saying its Ancestrys fault for making the facility available You can't blame the facilitator for the users poor research techniques The quantity of records available to us online is growing all the time that is irrefutable, I do not count other peoples research in that, I do not count other peoples research as information, clues perhaps but thats all, I rarely even look at other peoples trees as far as my research goes (its generally a disquieting experience if I do) As to family history programs or any online supplier, you can hardly expect them to tell us the bare faced truth can we? Research will take you many years, you can never complete it, it will cost you a fortune, make you lose sleep and make you tear your hair out at times Doesn't sound to appealing put that way does it ;-) And a TV program showing someone waiting for a record to arrive in the post for a week is not going to make great viewing As when someone sells you a fancy car or machine, they never tell you the truth about the cost or length of service do they, they always sell it on its perceived merits There are more people taking up genealogy as more get access to the internet, now 3.5 billion users, about 40% of the worlds population, so plenty of room for expansion Family history online suppliers are growing all the time, year on year Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 18/03/2016 15:23, Graham Taylor wrote: > Cant say I agree with you Nivard > > Too many people these days want instantaneous results. The Pizza effect. You > bung it in the oven and its ready in 5 minutes. > > Genealogy is not like that. It takes time, effort, diligence, thought, and > money. It's like a Jigsaw puzzle and you need to put all the pieces in place > before you complete the picture. > > Programmes like "Who do you think you are ?" don't actually help. Too often > they show a celebrity typing into a pre paid search site and bingo the first > one they come across is the one they want. It ignores all the pre programme > research that will have gone into the one hour programme. > > Perhaps its just that those coming into genealogy have neither the time, the > energy, the patience or the inclination to take days, weeks and months > researching , because that is what it takes. > > Accept there is a combination of many factors but I can't agree with you > that research is expanding. Information is expanding but can we trust the > information that is being peddled? > > Regards > > Graham --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

> > 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