Gritting My Teeth About Online Family Trees

We've all seen them. I'm talking about the online Family Trees that are rife with errors. Many genealogists wonder if it is worthwhile writing to the owner of the tree to provide them with corrections. 

A few weeks ago I conducted an experiment.  I  found 21 Family Trees on Ancestry.com that had the wrong death date for my great-grandfather Joseph McGinnis. It's actually an easy error to make as the death record is for a different Joseph McGinnis. It was an error I too made many years ago (pre-internet) and one I shared with a few other researchers. When I discovered that it was the wrong man, I wrote to anyone I had previously shared with and told them.

So I was taken aback to discover these 21 trees with the wrong death for my ancestor. I decided to write a letter explaining the error and directing the owners to  a blog post I wrote going over the facts and clarifying the two Joseph McGinnis males.

My Note Explaining the Error

Here's what I wrote. I deliberately kept it short and to the point. My experiment was to see 1) how many tree owners would respond and 2) how many would correct their error. I should add that I verified that the owners are active and are online every few days. So they have had plenty of time to respond to my note.

Hello [fill in name of tree owner]

Your death date of 1877 for my ancestor Joseph McGinnis (husband of Fanny Downey) is incorrect. The Joseph who died on that date was a different man. I have documentation to prove this.

For the facts, please see my blog post at http://olivetreegenealogy.blogspot.ca/2013/01/a-case-of-mistaken-identity.html

Lorine McGinnis Schulze
Olive Tree Genealogy

 The results of my experiment

6 out of 21 tree owners responded. All responded favourably and thanked me. Did any of them correct the error?

1. 1 owner signed in as recently as today. She has not corrected the error.
2. 1 owner signed in yesterday. His tree is now private.
3. 1 owner removed the incorrect date. She is a woman I have also corresponded with many times over the past 16 years.
4. 1 owner told me had made the correction. He has not. His online tree still shows the same error.
5. 1 owner removed the incorrect death date but entered a different year and location that is not correct 
6. 1 owner wrote to me and gave me her private email asking me to share information. I replied 2 weeks ago with info and have not heard back from her.  Her tree no longer has Joseph McGinnis or his wife in it

Was My Time Well Spent?

So the final summary is that of 21 tree owners, 6 responded and only 1 removed the incorrect death year (without substituting more incorrect details)

I hate to say this but the time it took me to write to each of these people and then read and respond to those who responded, was not worth my time. It irritates me to see bad or incorrect genealogy perpetuated but from now on I am going to grit my teeth and spend my time on other more worthwhile genealogy pursuits such as bringing more free genealogy records online to Olive Tree Genealogy website!

Credits Image by stockimages on FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Rant Time! - The Wrong Way to Ask For Help

I should have called this blog post "How to Annoy the Person Who Offered to Help You"

The email I'm about to share with you is the kind of email that makes me want to throw my hands in the air and say "I give up. I'm done. Why am I bothering??"

As a preface, many of you know that I maintain several websites and blogs. For anyone interested, the complete list of my 20 blogs and websites is on my About Lorine page. 

My main website is Olive Tree Genealogy which I started in 1996. One of my blogs is Ask Olive Tree, where I try to help readers with their challenging research puzzles.  At no time in the 17 years I've had a website online have I ever charged anything to view the  content I have transcribed and published.  All content on all my sites and blogs is free. Ask Olive Tree blog is one of the free services I offer.

So I'm pretty busy bringing free content online and trying to help other genealogists as much as I can.  I happily give up my own time to do this.  I have to get the content, then transcribe or index it. I have to  maintain the sites, fix broken links and so on.  And having been online the past 17  years makes me an official internet dinosaur!

I don't talk about the financial aspect much but I also spend my own money to acquire content to publish for free. And of course, I pay for my webhosting and other incidental expenses out of my own pocket.

I'm not whining about my workload or asking for applause or sympathy, just setting the scene so my readers understand why the email I received today annoyed and bothered me so much. I get emails like these once in awhile, and usually I just sigh and shake my head in disbelief, but this one managed to push me over the edge.

In his first email this person wrote to Ask Olive Tree blog and demanded (not asked - demanded) to know why I do not have any ships passenger lists online sailing from England to Virginia between 1635 and 1700 on my Olive Tree Genealogy website. I would think a little common sense and reading my articles about ships passenger lists to USA might give him some guesses why..... here's a few answers that come to mind immediately:

1. I am lazy and didn't feel like putting any online (not likely but it's an option as an answer)
2. I ran out of money and/or time to transcribe them and put them online (very possible)
3. My health prevents me from working on my sites as much as I'd like to (that's true)
4. I have a life outside of genealogy and the internet (some would disagree with this but it really is true)
5. Before 1825 ships passenger lists to USA didn't have to be kept. So finding any for this earlier time period is a bonus as very few exist. (Bingo!)

That email was a tad irritating to me but his followup email was the one that got me. Here it is

if Olive Tree can only partially answer queries - why would I what to pay and join Olive Tree to begin with ?  If you guys don't have a clue like you said you did and can't help find the answers to my questions- why should I sign up?

I'm sure my readers have instantly spotted the huge misconceptions this dude has about me and my site. But let's break it down to the errors and the demands found in his email:

1. "partially answer queries"?? I cannot  respond to every query that comes my way. I'd need 72 hours in the day and no down time with family and friends

2. "Pay"?? Where on any of my sites do you find me asking for money??? Oh, where I sell my books. But you aren't asking to buy one of my books, you want me to answer your query. No charge for that buddy and I defy you to find where I say you have to pay me to help you.

3. "Join Olive Tree"? What the heck are you talking about? Where do I have anything on my sites that says you have to "join" ???

4. "You guys"?? What "guys"?? There's just ME. One person. And what's with this "don't have a clue" Gosh I consider myself fairly knowledgeable but I freely admit I do not know the answer to every single genealogy question that comes my way!

5. "Sign up"?? For what? Again, where do you find something on my sites or blogs that requires you to "sign up" for my free services or my free content!

Phew. I feel better now. I needed to vent and I hope my readers understand that sometimes - rarely but once in awhile - I need to share my frustration with you. Thanks for listening and please don't send me emails telling me if I don't like what I'm doing and can't take the heat I should give it all up.

Because as much as I sometimes feel like throwing in the towel when I see emails like the one this morning, I love doing this. And I love meeting (albeit virtually) my readers and site visitors and interacting with them. Thanks for listening. I think my blood pressure is slowly returning to normal.

The Frustration Over Online Family Trees Gone Bad

This morning on my personal Facebook page I posted a rant for my status update. I ranted about online family trees that were rife with huge errors. Errors that included linking a census record for a man aged 29 to a man of the same name who was over 70. And yes, the owner of the tree had his birth year correct in the tree.

A second error involved a marriage to his wife, correctly identified in this online tree. Children born to the couple were also correctly identified with birth years beginning in 1801. But the tree owner linked to a marriage in 1832 stating this was for the man and his wife. Not only is that impossible given the birth years of their children but a quick click on the link showed the marriage to be in a different state and for a man with the same name but marrying an entirely different wife!

And so  I vented, expressing my dismay at the public posting of a tree so obviously incorrect. And the fact that at least six other researchers had copied the mistakes and posted them to their own public trees.

My rant, to my surprise, generated a heated discussion! It's been very interesting and some excellent ideas and suggestions were given for combating these types of errors without becoming the genealogy police.

It's tricky to critique another person's tree. Most of us don't take kindly to being told we're wrong. And it doesn't seem to matter how gently or kindly you express it, the bottom line is - you're telling someone they goofed.

Most of us agreed that the best method is to instruct through online tutorials, webinars, video how tos, to be come a mentor and to lead by example.  I often write  articles that I hope will guide those new to genealogy and help them become better genealogists.  You can find some of these on Olive Tree Genealogy blog under the topic heading TUTORIALS in the right side nav bar.  And there's an abundance of material out there to allow all of us, from the beginner to the experienced, to learn something new.

What's your opinion? 

Credit: Image from Fotolia

Debunking The Post Family Genealogy Myth

Let me DEBUNK THE MYTH of the POST family, and the completely erroneous 'lineage' published in The Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey, Vol. X, No. 1. January 1935, under the title "The Post Families of New Jersey" by Dirk P. De Young.

This article sets forth a completely unsourced and non-viable lineage for Adriaen Crijnen Post. To his credit Mr. Young gave more than one disclaimer in his article:

"it [the lineage presented] must be accepted with the usual reservations until documentary proof of the connection is forthcoming"

However, this disclaimer is widely overlooked by researchers, and the suggested lineage has been repeated and sent forth into the genealogical community for so many years that many Post researchers accept it without question.

Let's take a critical look at Mr. Young's theory:

He suggests that Adriaen Crijnen Post was the son of Pieter Adrian's [sic] Post who died in The Hague in 1637. The major flaw in this proposed father for Adriaen is the patronymic of Crijnen which is attached to Adriaen. If he were indeed the son of Peter his patronymic would be Pietersz. (or variations such as Pietersen, Pieterse).

The second flaw is that the author presents no baptismal source to substantiate his proposal. I suspect Young simply found some promising POST names in The Hague area and tried to slot Adriaen into the family.


What we do know is that Adriaen Post, who may have been from The Hague, Netherlands, resided in Brazil in the West India Company's colony with his wife Clara (Claartje) Moockers. Their names are found in the baptism record for Adriaen's daughter Maria who was baptised in Recife Brazil in June 1649. [Source: Doopregister der Hollanders in Brazilie 1633 - 1654] At this baptism Adriaen's patronymic of Crijnen is recorded.

The author of the incorrect lineage, does, in his favour, state very clearly

"That Capt. Adrian Post was a son of Peter Adrian's [sic] Post who died in the Hague in 1637 is inferred only, from circumstances"

This disclaimer is unfortunately overlooked by many Post descendants who continue to use this flawed lineage as if it were fact.

If we look at the author's 'circumstances' for inferring the fatherhood, there are 3 extremely weak arguments:

1. "Capt. Adrian Post must have been born about 1600"[My question: "What is his source and/or reasoning???"]
2. ".. and he came to America from The Hague" My comment: That is like saying that all people with the name of xxx who lived in any_city, Netherlands are related].
3. "Moreover according to Dutch custom he was probably named after his grandfather"[My comment: Adriaen is a very common name]

The most glaring flaw in Young's proposed genealogy is that of his suggested grandfather for Adriaen Crijnen Post. Young gives the line as:

"Adrian Pieter's son [sic] Post b. about 1500 as father of Pieter Adrian's son [sic] Post who died in The Hague 1637"

Some mental math will reveal that a man born in 1500 would be pushing the limits to have a son who died in 1637. Assuming an age of 50 for the birth of Adrian Pieter's son, that would make the supposed son, Pieter Adrianse 87 at his death. Yes it is possible (unlikely in my mind) - but Young gives no baptismal records to substantiate his claim.

The most revealing flaw (and this in itself should be enough to make the entire proposed genealogy suspect!) is Young's outline of Pieter Post, son of Gerrit, b. ca 1300. The next generation is given as

"__ Post. A generation *assumed*, particulars unknown" (starred word is mine and given for emphasis).

Then Young continues with a Pieter Post born about 1360-75 who he gives as the son of  ____ Post. 

Without sources, it is all guesswork. It is mythology. Without sources it is simply bad genealogy and should be discarded as quickly as possible. 

Please continue reading my article on the Post family, which is fully sourced.  I hope descendants will read and search the records for themselves before jumping to conclusions. I hope descendants will use the critical skills of analysis and evaluation to think about *any* family trees they find online or in books before they eagerly merge the data into their own lineage.