I've had the same experience more than once I get all excited to find someone who must have laboured for years to get to the same position as me...and I find that it is merely my original research that they have copied verbatim. Even original sketches by me have not been acknowledged. One person at Ancestry.com trees took all my data concerning the origins of a family at Lairg Scotland, which emigrated to Ontario, and transplanted it onto his own ancestors in Prince Edward Island. What the? No sourcing in the Ancestry tree yet my original data was all sourced and absolutely correct, a work of many years starting in the mid 1980s and involving research and collaboration with others in Scotland, Australia, Ontario and Nova Scotia. The idea that my ancestors went from Lairg to Prince Edward Island is sheer fantasy. Trust an Ancestry.com tree at your peril. Having said that, sometimes rubbish trees at Ancestry are not always 100% rubbish and can still be a source of great clues and data that does stand up to scrutiny, and of course many trees are pretty good. The problem with so many trees at ancestry is lack of sourcing so that you can't see how they built their family structures. A total lack of sourcing should ring loud alarm bells. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Patricia O'Shea Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 4:35 PM To: Jacqui Gee Cc: List - NZ Messages Subject: Re: [nz] errors ancestry com and other sites This lack of sourcing material on Ancestry is something which really irritates me. Recently I had contact with 4th cousins in Canada, which quite excited me until I looked at their tree on Ancestry. I was very surprised to find that comments had been added which were directly lifted from my website on that line of the family, and not acknowledged. This information and my comments come from primary research which could be done only in person in Ireland and had taken me many years and several trips there to accumulate, yet it was posted as the comments of the tree 'owner' - even though it is word for word my own work. I challenged the cousin who maintained that he had taken the comments from another tree on Ancestry but this is a straight out porky as it is an unusual name and there are no other trees on Ancestry for it. To me this is plain theft/dishonesty, and at the very least a lack of courtesy to the original researcher. A simple acknowledgment of the website where he found the information would be all I ask. I doubt that Ancestry has any facility to remove such material and perhaps wouldn't even want to do so. Just one of the joys of the internet I guess but very disappointing, especially as I have now ceased corresponding with that branch of the family. Regards, Patsy

You know, you can add comments on the information on the Ancestry trees......... On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Peter Dillon <peter_dillon@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > I've had the same experience more than once I get all excited to find > someone who must have laboured for years to get to the same position as > me...and I find that it is merely my original research that they have > copied > verbatim. Even original sketches by me have not been acknowledged. > > One person at Ancestry.com trees took all my data concerning the origins of > a family at Lairg Scotland, which emigrated to Ontario, and transplanted it > onto his own ancestors in Prince Edward Island. What the? No sourcing in > the Ancestry tree yet my original data was all sourced and absolutely > correct, a work of many years starting in the mid 1980s and involving > research and collaboration with others in Scotland, Australia, Ontario and > Nova Scotia. The idea that my ancestors went from Lairg to Prince Edward > Island is sheer fantasy. > > Trust an Ancestry.com tree at your peril. Having said that, sometimes > rubbish trees at Ancestry are not always 100% rubbish and can still be a > source of great clues and data that does stand up to scrutiny, and of > course > many trees are pretty good. The problem with so many trees at ancestry is > lack of sourcing so that you can't see how they built their family > structures. A total lack of sourcing should ring loud alarm bells. > > Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patricia O'Shea > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 4:35 PM > To: Jacqui Gee > Cc: List - NZ Messages > Subject: Re: [nz] errors ancestry com and other sites > > This lack of sourcing material on Ancestry is something which really > irritates me. > > Recently I had contact with 4th cousins in Canada, which quite excited me > until I looked at their tree on Ancestry. I was very surprised to find that > comments had been added which were directly lifted from my website on that > line of the family, and not acknowledged. This information and my comments > come from primary research which could be done only in person in Ireland > and had taken me many years and several trips there to accumulate, yet it > was posted as the comments of the tree 'owner' - even though it is word for > word my own work. > > I challenged the cousin who maintained that he had taken the comments from > another tree on Ancestry but this is a straight out porky as it is an > unusual name and there are no other trees on Ancestry for it. > > To me this is plain theft/dishonesty, and at the very least a lack of > courtesy to the original researcher. A simple acknowledgment of the website > where he found the information would be all I ask. I doubt that Ancestry > has any facility to remove such material and perhaps wouldn't even want to > do so. > > Just one of the joys of the internet I guess but very disappointing, > especially as I have now ceased corresponding with that branch of the > family. > > Regards, > Patsy > > > > > The List Guidelines > > http://new-zealand-l.blogspot.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NEW-ZEALAND-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >