Comments on: Ancestry Member Trees reach 500 million names

By: Connie Grant

Connie Grant — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:36:43 +0000

looking for my ancestries, cherokee need to find there roll number

By: Angie Bird

Angie Bird — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:35:54 +0000

I’m not too happy with my research. My husband’s ancestor is shown on 50 different family trees and One World Tree with wrong data. Someone loads One World Tree and everyone thinks it must be correct. We have had DNA testing done and know the info you have is incorrect. Is there any way to correct the record after so many people have loaded the erroneous data?

By: J. Quinn C. Bradlee

J. Quinn C. Bradlee — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:41:50 +0000

What happens if you have traced your family back to God?

By: Ann Love

Ann Love — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:39:11 +0000

Ancestry does not identify family members that “they believe to be living.” I have a number of relatives who are still living in their 80s and 90s. Is there a way that I can manually block their information? You should add a feature that allows one to identify who is still living.

By: H. Mitchell

H. Mitchell — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:50:22 +0000

I agree wholeheartedly with Patrick (March 29 2008) when he refers to questionable data in trees. There are many people who have my oldest sister b in Ireland (she was actually b in New Zealand) but much worse than that is that they have her m to a man b in 1723! Utterly ludicrous, particularly as some of them have her (and my) father with his correct y.o.b. of 1899, 176 yrs after my sisters alleged husband was born. I contacted many of the people a year ago and most of them insisted they were right. I was even told to educate myself in genealogical research!
I believe a lot of people on Ancestry just want to collect a lot of names so they can boast about how big their tree is, and they cant be bothered to check things out for themselves.
I consider them to be pirates, who have stolen my sister’s identity.
(One angry sister) Huia.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:20:27 +0000

I like many others over a period of time and adding hundreds of names to my family tree unfortunately have duplicates. Is there any way in ancestry,com that these can be removed or merged with others? This is a feature in FTM but I haven’t seen it here.

By: judy adams

judy adams — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:29:16 +0000

First you need to contact the owner and ask them their sorce pointing out that the people concerned were YOUR direct ancestors whom you grew up knowing personaly( persumerbly),whom you spoke to MANY times and for whom you have official documents (persumerble). there fore the info THEY ARE showing is not corect and could they please explaine why they think it is. put this ALL on the coment page as well where others who are interested in having correct info for there tree can see that the person has not been too cearful and has proble trawlled for info with out backing up.

i know how you feel as i have had my own tree screwed up by the ONE WORLD TREE and now about 30 people have the wrong info and still more are copying it some after my approching this way have amended the tree to the correct version but others just dont care which is why i say LEAVE A COMMENT on the wrong tree itself. keep on at them too challenge them to provide official document citations which can be checked up”

By: Rabbit10

Rabbit10 — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:12:30 +0000

Some twit took my family tree and incorporated his/her stinkin’ ancestors onto my father and grandmother. When I clicked on “Contact Information” my name as the contact displayed. I never submitted the ancestors for my grandmother that are shown and I resent the supercilious twit who messed around with my family tree. How do I correct this?

By: judy adams

judy adams — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:59:23 +0000

Ancestry never seems to learn do they!

They have moved around all those bells and whistles on this over graphic burdened AMT in an effort to show they are LISTENING TO US THEIR CUSTUMERS they even moved the research notes up to a more visible position but the fact remains there are no improvements at all. The research notes are now where you can see then IF YOU OWN THE TREE but it seems they are still INVISABLE TO ALL BUT THOSE THAT THE OWNER OF THE TREE INVITE. The page is less informative on the family than before.

ancestry are acting just like a party magician they think that a little bit of slight of hand will impress and quieten our concerners but we know illusion when we see it especially badly preformed illusion. At the end of the day we have gained no improvement yet again we will protest while ancestry goes off to try to learn a new trick to enthral us. Ancestry needs to remember we know how magic works.

I wish we could turn back time and go back to the way things were before the OWT WAS EVEN CONCIVED BECAUSE THATS WHEN THE ROT SET IN but that is an impossible dream mean while we have to watch as the site which we all once loved and wanted to be with for life changes in a direction which will inevitable end in divorce by many customers when they don’t renew their subscriptions that they have possible have had for years. it such a shame when the record collection is so vast and important to us the customers that the improvements which are being rolled out on NEW SEARCH and AMT are angering us the customers rather than pleasing us that we are all begin to fall out of love and we slowly look more and more towards the only solution left open to us.

DORVORCE

By: Mary Jones

Mary Jones — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:14:04 +0000

I am very concerned that so many people are ignoring the fact that a lot of the family trees posted on Ancestry are not sourced or are take from One World Tree. Most people do not read the caution that these are to be used as secondary tools for research. They are being posted as primary sources when in fact it amounts to no source at all. Would it be possible for Ancestry to make it more clear that unsourced trees are proof of nothing. The LDS site is doing the same thing…but at least they are posting very visiably where the info came from. I am very concerned that so many people are putting out trees the back avidly as proven fact when in fact there is no real proof at all.