WilmaM, I totally agree!
I look at these trees and for the most part, the worst ones have only "Ancestry Trees" as their sources
Others have sources but because they see people with the same name and the same area they assume, and you know what assuming does...……..
I have several trees on Ancestry that are branches of my family that are a relatively rare surname so I think that way back possibly only c400-500 years ago we stemmed from one original family but obviously once we get back from 1855 it becomes harder and harder to prove relationships. Thankfully, I have one, what I might term, "gateway" ancestor as he is relatively famous in one of the two most common areas in Scotland for this family and he has had books written about him. On one of these "branch" trees, I have contacted two members who have the parents of the last person with this surname on the tree, but he died in 1845 so no parents' names on his death OPR and no info in his Glasgow Herald obituary. One of these members has thousands and thousands of seemingly well researched people on her tree, yet she has not replied, and the other said he had just copied others and if I thought he was wrong could I tell him what was right
. In another case, in my own particular branch, people have one James marrying two different women at the same time and having the first wife's children with the second wife. They even mess up the "second wife's" name which is either Ross or Rose (depending on the document) but they have her on many trees as Rolf or Rolfe because of the symbol for double "s"
they don't even seem to spot that these two men have totally different occupations
I have now resorted to putting information on my tree in capital letters stating that these people are different families so that members when they look at it will perhaps reconsider what they are typing and entering!
