Log in
Sign up
View all  |  Close all
#
Subject
Posted by
Actions
1
Family Trees with bad data, it seems intentionally
Leanna Loomer
- Close

I have noticed one family tree with the same family name as mine (Loomer) that has a pattern of inaccurate data -- and I mean obviously so.   Each member of the family dies at the age of seventy.  They are born at two-year intervals.

Because we share the same family name, I already have some of the data for these ancestors, and I know this person's data is WRONG.  This kind of garbage threatens to corrupt a lot of family trees if we use Smart Match.

 Has anyone else had experience with a site user like this?  What if anything did you do about it?  It certainly seems like sabotage to me, and with a tree with ovre 7,300 records, I do NOT wish to rebuild from scratch. 

Leanna Loomer
Connecticut
- Reply
2
RE: Family Trees with bad data, it seems intentionally
Leanna Loomer
- Close

Thanks for responding.  Since I wrote I also came across another family tree where many (but not all) of the death dates were 100 years after the birth -- the birth years were fine, but i happened to know some of the death dates, and they weren't 100 years after.  it just makes me more careful looking at other people's data.  i won't even look anymore at the first one i found screwed up.

My own problem has to do with marking people as deceased (with no death dates).  My family has a great gift for longevity, and I want to assume family members are alive (on the tree, anyway) until I hear otherwise.  I end up getting a few notes from family members who tell me their uncle passed away twenty years ago when MyHeritage is still generating birthday notices for him.  Anyone have a solution for that?  I give people the benefit of the doubt up to age one hundred, but a few of my family members live past 100, too! 

Thanks again. 

Leanna Loomer
Connecticut
- Reply
3
RE: Family Trees with bad data, it seems intentionally [2]
Eric Dalton
- Close
Ran accross this again in searching for something else. Were you able to satisfy your concerns? I personally would not give the benefit of the doubt past the age of 100 even in your case where you say some people in your family do live past that age. If you find out for certain that a person is still alive you can always change their status from dead to living.
Eric Dalton
- Reply
4
RE: Family Trees with bad data, it seems intentionally
Eric Dalton
- Close
That may or may not be intentional, especially on the level of the particualar tree involved. Yes, there is a lot of obvious junk that someone started at the beginning, probably as a joke which has been copied by everyone who comes in contact with it. Another genealogy website, which shall remain anonymous, has a way of copying info without even looking at it. It's easy to see how everyone got the same ridiculous info. A lot of them have the same person at the same place on the same tree(Three Johns being born to the same father like John 1 being born in Jan, John 2 being born in March of the same year, and John 3 being born the December before them both. Even if the dates are wrong, the likelyhood of the same parents having three sons named John is rather slim in my opinion. Not  just repeated elsewhere, but on the very same line. Others have obvious mistakes like having parents dying before the child was even born, or a person in the tree having dates two or three hundred years different from their siblings. Others have Jesus or King Arthur as ancestors. I think I even saw a tree which went back to Adam and Eve. All photocopied from the very same origin. It pays to really keep an eye out on family trees websites like this one. Even info placed with the best intentions that looks right may still be wrong.
Eric Dalton
- Reply
5
RE: Family Trees with bad data, it seems intentionally [2]
Leanna Loomer
- Close

The 70-year and 100-year date designations bother me just as much when it is a young person or child who is given an age of 70 years old.  Since information in my family includes biographical data, I know in many cases that the loss of a child was particularly traumatic (i.e., "Buried Hopes" on their gravestone, dying of disease a few days before their mother did, so she would have seen or known of their passing) and to put "70 years" is so inappropriate.

I will continue to leave my relatives of unknown death date listed as alive up to a point, but maybe I will lower the age at which I will show them has having died.

Thanks for your response.

Leanna  

Leanna Loomer
Connecticut
- Reply
 
Loading...
Loading...