Hi again Yes, I think that data can be copied across far to easily, it should prompt for at least one source and preferably more before allowing a sideways copy, there would be some that would ignore it or enter rubbish as a source but at least it might get some to do the job right I can't say I have come across AMT or OWT in my research but then I don't use others trees much I have never quite understood the enjoyment in copying thousands of names you have no idea are connected or not My tree may be smaller than many but at least I know those in it are connected to me Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > The term AMT seems to be the accepted acronym for Ancestry.com Member > Trees as compared to OWT for One World Trees and some of the others. > > Any tree without solid documentation is always suspect for its > accuracy. It is the user's responsibility to verify the data. With > AMTs just as it is with other data bases, garbage in is garbage out. > > BJ

Sorry, while I recognize the inherent problems with the quality of the trees, the idea is to let people find others who may have other data. As John Boyd correctly pointed out just because a tree has one source, that source may not be accurate or even valid. I don't know whether you have looked at some of the trees but I find it comical that many trees reference AMTs as their source and when you examine those AMTs, they reference the AMT you were looking at originally. Just like a dog chasing it tail. I don't understand it either but I certainly don't want any restrictions to the trees that I may upload, review or even use. One think I like about FTM 2012 and its synced AMTs, you now get the sources and images uploaded and viewable. I appreciate those who take a conscientious approach to ensuring the accuracy and validity of the information in the trees. Those who don't, I just ignore. If they copy my data, hopefully they will copy my sources so for those individuals, the information accuracy has been improved. I think this thread has about run its course so this will be my last post to it. BJ On 10/13/2011 3:15 PM, Nivard Ovington wrote: > Yes, I think that data can be copied across far to easily, it should prompt for at least one source > and preferably more before allowing a sideways copy, there would be some that would ignore it or > enter rubbish as a source but at least it might get some to do the job right > > I can't say I have come across AMT or OWT in my research but then I don't use others trees much > > I have never quite understood the enjoyment in copying thousands of names you have no idea are > connected or not > > My tree may be smaller than many but at least I know those in it are connected to me

Hi, I believe the only answer to this problem is a certified tree that enables researchers to share their research, have it protected, but be able to help others with their research. My own aim is to correct the amount of wrong information about my own family tree on ancestry.com and to try and provide and true and accurate history. This is not going to be achieved by the amount of sour grapes and spilt milk that has adorned these pages lately. I would think that the amount of concern and intelligence applied to various problems recently may have better suggestions. Regards Malcolm -----Original Message----- From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011 9:16 AM To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 2012 People/Family Index Hi again Yes, I think that data can be copied across far to easily, it should prompt for at least one source and preferably more before allowing a sideways copy, there would be some that would ignore it or enter rubbish as a source but at least it might get some to do the job right I can't say I have come across AMT or OWT in my research but then I don't use others trees much I have never quite understood the enjoyment in copying thousands of names you have no idea are connected or not My tree may be smaller than many but at least I know those in it are connected to me Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > The term AMT seems to be the accepted acronym for Ancestry.com Member > Trees as compared to OWT for One World Trees and some of the others. > > Any tree without solid documentation is always suspect for its > accuracy. It is the user's responsibility to verify the data. With > AMTs just as it is with other data bases, garbage in is garbage out. > > BJ ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html Online Support for Family Tree Maker Version 16 and earlier http://pastftm.custhelp.com/ Version 2008 - 2011 http://ftm.custhelp.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message