tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post619416937152636062..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: Ancestry.com: "You don't even have to know what you're looking for..." - Post 1Randy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-11535877060598714882014-07-24T07:23:08.327-07:002014-07-24T07:23:08.327-07:00There are two recent ancestry.com ads that show wh...There are two recent ancestry.com ads that show what is worst about ancestry.com. The ads both show a woman finding several generations of her ancestors - all of whom are linked by the same last name. Looks good right?? Think for a minute: all the "ancestors" she finds share the same last name, but they are all women -- throughout the years and places shown in this commercial a woman would have taken her husband's last name - there is simply no way that anyone would have had several generations of female ancestors each born with the same last name; but an ancestry.com user searching records certainly might find lots of records whose only relationship was the same last name. <br />But of course she can build a family tree with these "ancestors" and then you can find a leaf that leads you to her flakey pseudo-research.<br />THT is the problem with ancestry.com today -- in their manic drive to expand their paying customers they are fleecing ignorant people with their bogus promises that the computer will magically do all the research for you.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527660195223152916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-87137800315162037582011-07-29T10:49:57.831-07:002011-07-29T10:49:57.831-07:00Ancestry.com used to have a similar commercial a f...Ancestry.com used to have a similar commercial a few years back. It implied all you had to do was type in a name and bingo...there's your tree.<br /><br />I wanted to see how my trickiest line would do following your example. I put in my Grandmother and her parents. All California roots. <br /><br />My leaves were very shaky indeed. While it found my Grandmother in the CA Birth Index, my Great Grandfather in the CA Death Index, it missed the family in the 1920 and 1930 census. Interesting, it found my Great Grandmother in 1910, but the same suggestion was not made for my Great Grandfather. These are all records that I know exist. <br />I got a couple of tree suggestions on my Great Grandfather but they weren't matches. <br /><br />Maybe I will try the Portuguese names next. I'll probably break the system. LOL I have a feeling that this isn't a very good tool for those with West Coast genealogy or common names (the example tree I did is Jones/Jackson)Melhttp://researchjournal.yourislandroutes.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-18955763897854053882011-07-29T08:06:50.406-07:002011-07-29T08:06:50.406-07:00I also laugh at this commercial. I have a friend w...I also laugh at this commercial. I have a friend who believes anyone can go on ancestry.com and easily get their family tree. I personally don't include any information found in ancestry.com's family trees UNLESS I contact the owner of the tree and they share their sources and permission to cite them personally as my source. I am also careful not to use any information from ancestry.com if the source is cited as an online database of information credited to its members. IF I do use a date of this type, I cite it as "Unsourced from ancestry.com." It is sort of like gossip--if you don't know the source how do you assess its credibility?Joanhttp://Gemsofthepast.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-44826926132948287452011-07-29T04:52:48.496-07:002011-07-29T04:52:48.496-07:00I've had incredible luck over the years follow...I've had incredible luck over the years following up with other people's trees. I usually add the member connect feature and contact the person who posted the tree and ask them what their interestin or connection to a person we may share in common. Just last week I got to speak with an 81-year old woman who has pictures, a written family history, etc. on a family I am researching. We're both going to share things we have. We are third cousins once-removed. Some of my best genealogy finds (and new cousins) have been discovered this way.Kathy Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09417754385375586302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-84914235630391693272011-07-28T18:40:25.896-07:002011-07-28T18:40:25.896-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-17600941153782321902011-07-28T18:39:55.885-07:002011-07-28T18:39:55.885-07:00The "do it without thinking much about it&quo...The "do it without thinking much about it" trend is saddening (not much different from the LDS trend to give newFemilySearchTree users an easy ride).<br /><br />If you want to try out some pitfalls in the approach, use John Barrickman, born about 1775, d. 15 Aug. 1851 in Monongalia County, (West) Virginia. He is in many trees, a fairly well researched version in just one public tree.<br /><br />Which wife would you choose? There are pitfalls in ancestry given for either one.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-58539304727478925812011-07-28T18:16:38.712-07:002011-07-28T18:16:38.712-07:00These have always bugged me. I never thought of it...These have always bugged me. I never thought of it from the same angle you have, which is a very good one - is it misleading advertising? It's not, it appears, at least from your singular survey, which was a very interesting experiment to read about. Regardless, it still bugs me - when have I ever gone looking for anything - and not known what it was - that ended well? The last time I did that, I was hungry, but I wasn't sure what I was looking for, and the search probably packed on another five pounds of bad decisions. Now imagine packing on five pounds (or generations) of ill-chosen clicking? Ancestry may be trying to make itself available to the lay public and make genealogy seem easy, which could be great for drawing in those daunted by the concept. But can't we do it in a way that's not so dumbed down? Can't we do it in a way that suggests there's 'assistance', but not 'perfect answers with one click? *grumble*<br /><br />If you want to try it one someone else, I'd go with someone obscure and everyday - more likely to get fewer hits than the people already well-researched, like presidents and so on, I'd assume. Either way, great experiment, and good post!Danahttp://www.justfolks.usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-84512676059812542332011-07-28T14:11:28.531-07:002011-07-28T14:11:28.531-07:00That tag line has been used in TV (and radio?) com...That tag line has been used in TV (and radio?) commercials that I've seen/heard going back to last year. My guess is that it's been effective; there seems to be quite a few newbies looking at the same records/people I have (thanks to the updates I get on my Ancestry home page).<br /><br />I used to contact these people, thinking I might be able to establish contact with a new cousin, but I stopped. Too many of these updates are being generated by people that cannot apply common sense to looking at something as basic as a census record. I suspect some of this is being driven by the shaky leaves, which generate a lot of bogus possible matches. I'd hate to think people were finding these "bad matches" on their own and adding them to their family tree. I suppose another possibility is that people add these records to their trees for future analysis, but I thought that's what the Sandbox was for.<br /><br />I love Ancestry and it's well worth the price, but these ads are annoying.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06134991180844241435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-26035608374248687782011-07-28T12:39:09.072-07:002011-07-28T12:39:09.072-07:00I'd love to find some proof of the parents of ...I'd love to find some proof of the parents of my Ursula WRIGHT, born abt 1783 in Stillwater NY.<br />She married Nathaniel SEARING, b 1 May 1781 in Hempstead Nassau County, NY<br />and died about 1826.<br />Their daughter is Martha b. 10 March 1808 in Stillwater, NY and d. 23 March 1839 in Albany NY,<br /><br />I have written about what I've put together on my blog,but haven't been able to find any definite documation on her birth or parents.<br />http://ursulawright.blogspot.com/Ericahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225103411139373556noreply@blogger.com