Family records tell me that Robert Laws and Elizabeth Thompson are the parents of my great-grandmother Elizabeth Laws Doyle. Family records stop with Robert and Elizabeth so, in truth, I don't know who Robert's parents are. Maybe they are Robert Laws and Ann Maddison but if they are, wouldn't it have been kind of the person who added Robert and Ann to have also added sources, or at least a reason statement, to help document this parent/child relationship as well as their marriage?
When I search for Ann Maddison I find no record on FamilySearch or Ancestry that connects her with Robert Laws, let alone Elizabeth Laws Doyle. But the fact is, I can't definitively say that Robert and Ann are not the parents of Robert Laws. However, other sources on FamilySearch seem to indicate that Robert's parents may be Margaret Burton/Buston and George Laws.
Maybe I'm too careful. I don't add individuals to my genealogy software program (let alone an online tree) until I have enough information to be relatively certain of names, relationships, and dates.
I would like to ask my cousins and other relatives who add people to FamilySearch Family Tree to please leave "my" tree alone. But I won't. While it may be frustrating, challenging, and annoying to have people on the tree without any documentation, I know having these unknown individuals and relationships will encourage me to research more and, hopefully, make me a better and more careful researcher.
Ah, the joys and challenges of a shared, online family tree. And the challenge of mytreeitis. I'll recover.
--Nancy.
Copyright ©2017 Nancy Messier. All Rights Reserved.
.
Luckily no-one has fiddled with my small tree on Familysearch. When they do I think I may develop a bout of mytreeitis.
ReplyDeleteYou ARE lucky, Jill! I don't mind people adding ancestors if they get it right and include sources. It's when they go off in the wrong direction that I begin to feel very possessive about my ancestors and my tree. Thanks for visiting and leaving a comment.
DeleteOh I hear ya! I don't have a tree on FS, and I only recently started one on Ancestry, but judging by some of the stuff I see connected to my ancestor, I want to stop. One gal has attached a photo of a couple and child to our shared ancestor with a common name even though it's impossible for that photo to be of this ancestor. She even admits it isn't our ancestor but won't remove the photo. Another person has attached my ancestor (again with a common name) to parents who would have been over 100 years old when she was born. UGH - Where is the EJECT button?
ReplyDeleteOh, Wendy, how frustrating that she knows it's wrong and won't change it. That would drive me nuts. Well, it will probably happen to me and it WILL drive me nuts. It's too bad people are equally careful and consciousness when working on family history. We'd all be in better shape, huh?
DeleteThis is an ongoing conundrum Nancy, but it is one of those situations where there can be a silver lining (as you have resolved to view it).
ReplyDeleteI do not have any trees on FS, but I have several on Ancestry -- all of which are private and by invitation only. I do this for a few reasons, but one of the principal reasons is the ability to tell relatives and ancestors that it will not be generally available to the public and only by invitation to those I determine are "family" to some degree. This makes folks feel more secure about sharing information, photos, etc. not only about themselves and their immediate family members -- or those ancestors about whom they have info that is not in the public record (photos, letters, and the like). Ancestry does give folks clues that I could have info and photos they might need/want and they can then contact me through Ancestry to ask about details. This prevents entry of false or misleading data into my trees. I think this provides the best middle ground for sharing, but doing so with some level of confidence about accuracy and security. In Ancestry, I always view what is often the #1 "hint" of other public tress mentioning a person I am interested in as a "last resort" for clues I might have missed . . . and even then I initially look only at those trees having sources for the person I am investigating.
I think if I had an open, public tree on FS, I would treat that tree as like a huge "hint" resource not unlike the lone green leaf on Ancestry that is the public trees left after all the sourced hints have been reviewed and either absorbed or rejected.
John
You know, John, if I didn't need to add ancestors to the FamilySearch Family Tree, I don't think I'd bother with it at all. In fact, I doubt I would have any tree online.
DeleteThe thing about the FS Family Tree is that it doesn't belong to just one person. It's not anyone's tree, it's everyone's tree. And therein lies the challenge: not everyone is equally careful about their research and sources. And, it seems, many people have many different opinions. It's a challenge.
Here's my version of mytreeitis. I'm keeping my trees private for the foreeeable future. https://genealogylizgauffreau.wordpress.com/2017/06/11/how-dare-they-call-asa-browns-research-into-question/?preview_id=3313&preview_nonce=772cc1b5b6&post_format=standard&_thumbnail_id=-1&preview=true
ReplyDeleteWhat a frustration for you, Liz. I keep my real tree on RootsMagic but I need to use FamilySearch which, I guess, promotes cooperation with other researchers.
DeleteI may change my mind about sharing my trees in the future, but for now I want to build my research and citation skills.
ReplyDeleteI think that's a great idea, Liz. I know it's personal preference to share trees or not and I probably wouldn't if I didn't need to use FS Family Tree.
Delete