Updated my Ancestry subscription recently, now One World Family Tree is included. Said to be a powerful feature, with nearly 400 million names in trees submitted by community members. The only thing is, on those records where I have found a match, the information is several years out of date, or they have matched the wrong people together! My Westall family, from Berkshire and London, gives an example of both of these!! John WESTALL, wife Martha DAVIES (from Mick Westall's tree in 2000), has been 'matched' with John WESTLEY, wife Margaretha BEHM, so in essence it has John WESTALL/WESTLEY, with 2 different wives, and children from each marriage. This in spite of the fact that John WESTLEY and Margaretha married in 1803, had children born 1804 and 1817, whilst John WESTALL and Martha, marriage date unknown, had children born 1802 to 1806! Later down the line there is Thomas WESTALL again from Mick's 2000 tree, married to Charlotte HENRIETTA. In census info, Thomas is married to 'Mary', this is reflected in Mick's latest online tree, updated 2005. Why are they using out of date material, surely there must be enough recent submissions to supply them with info, or has it not taken off as well as they thought it would? Margaret

It's sad, but so many rootsweb and other Internet sources just get worse and worse, year after year. The problem comes from so many ill-informed (and semi-literate, in some cases) stature-seeking individuals are overly anxious to leap onto the genealogy bandwagon and post the first unverified rumor they hear about Grandma's roots. And they hasten to create personal web pages also, often featuring photos of themselves and their pets. The misinformation, largely undocumented, is eagerly grasped all sorts of impatient, over-eager "researchers", who in turn record it, post it, etc. The family information contributed to LDS is equally unreliable. Likewise, many early histories (late 1800s and early 1900s) that are sworn to as gospel contain erroneous relationships. Some of those presumptuous old authors can really lead one down an incorrect garden path. I have completed and printed three large hard-bound books of family history and have learned the hard way over many years. I have settled in pretty much at regular ongoing e-mail discussions of documented information with other family researchers as my major sources. Meanwhile, I've never been able to connect my particular Thomas Westall, who arrived in North Carolina shortly after 1800, back to his Virginia roots. Too many records lost in the war, for one thing. Regards, Tom -- Tom Camfield 538 Calhoun St. Port Townsend WA 98368 > From: "margaret wilkinson" <margaretjanew@hotmail.com> > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:00:24 +0100 > To: WESTALL-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: One World Family Tree/Westalls of Berkshire and London > Resent-From: WESTALL-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:00:36 -0600 > > The only thing is, on those records where I have found a match, the > information is several years out of date, or they have matched the wrong > people together!

My mail was not intended as a criticism of submitted on-line trees, though some, as you say, leave a lot to be desired. More a criticism of Ancestry in taking old submitted trees, where information has been updated recently, then in trying to match them inappropriately, with only the flimsiest of connections. John Westley/ Margaretha Behm from Berks, Pennsylvania, USA John Westall/Martha Davies living in Reading, Berks, England Not a valid match that I can see! Online trees, even if incorrect, can give a starting point for further research. Ure Jane Tuthill's daughter, Jane Bigmore Brigden, married Arthur Westall, my great grandparents. A recent contact with someone with an online tree with the name of 'Ure' in it caught my eye. We found out that out of a dozen or so London female 'Ure's', nearly all were connected to either my 'Ure' or his 'Ure', chances were that there was a connection. Between the 2 of us we have worked hard and found the probable connection, though lacking the final proof. I have found out a lot more about my family, not from Jim's tree specifically, but by the 2 of us working together. So, inaccuracies there may be, but a starting point, especially where there is a contact name/number given Margaret ----Original Message Follows---- From: Tom Camfield <camfield@olympus.net> To: WESTALL-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: One World Family Tree/Westalls of Berkshire and London Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:27:06 -0800 It's sad, but so many rootsweb and other Internet sources just get worse and worse, year after year. The problem comes from so many ill-informed (and semi-literate, in some cases) stature-seeking individuals are overly anxious to leap onto the genealogy bandwagon and post the first unverified rumor they hear about Grandma's roots. And they hasten to create personal web pages also, often featuring photos of themselves and their pets. The misinformation, largely undocumented, is eagerly grasped all sorts of impatient, over-eager "researchers", who in turn record it, post it, etc. The family information contributed to LDS is equally unreliable. Likewise, many early histories (late 1800s and early 1900s) that are sworn to as gospel contain erroneous relationships. Some of those presumptuous old authors can really lead one down an incorrect garden path. I have completed and printed three large hard-bound books of family history and have learned the hard way over many years. I have settled in pretty much at regular ongoing e-mail discussions of documented information with other family researchers as my major sources. Meanwhile, I've never been able to connect my particular Thomas Westall, who arrived in North Carolina shortly after 1800, back to his Virginia roots. Too many records lost in the war, for one thing. Regards, Tom -- Tom Camfield 538 Calhoun St. Port Townsend WA 98368 > From: "margaret wilkinson" <margaretjanew@hotmail.com> > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:00:24 +0100 > To: WESTALL-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: One World Family Tree/Westalls of Berkshire and London > Resent-From: WESTALL-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:00:36 -0600 > > The only thing is, on those records where I have found a match, the > information is several years out of date, or they have matched the wrong > people together!