tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post6858824966689245640..comments2024-03-26T21:29:07.190-07:00Comments on Rejoice, and be exceeding glad...: Responding Appropriately to Changes in the FamilySearch Family TreeJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-23631501568068285152016-04-22T13:38:26.872-07:002016-04-22T13:38:26.872-07:00So do I. So do I. So do I. So do I. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-66080611805125294322016-04-22T13:20:08.937-07:002016-04-22T13:20:08.937-07:00I tend to "watch" people when I have don...I tend to "watch" people when I have done actual research on them. I watch everyone up until my gg-grandparents, and then only watch those who I have checked and researched, or who I am trying to research in the (vain) hope that someone else is doing real research.Melinda Bowershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18201889846153977845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-18858172827802837302016-04-12T13:48:37.919-07:002016-04-12T13:48:37.919-07:00I note that there are yet few sources for Francis ...I note that there are yet few sources for Francis Cooke. There is actually a huge amount of research that has been done on each of the Mayflower passengers. I have been waiting for the Family Tree to get separated from new.FamilySearch.org before working on some of these lines. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-24620157610069994582016-04-12T11:06:29.333-07:002016-04-12T11:06:29.333-07:00Francis Cooke is in my familysearch familytree. I&...Francis Cooke is in my familysearch familytree. I've only confirmed Cooke ancestors back to late 1700's. I notice there are also 40 notes associated with Francis Cooke. It is tricky to make changes/merges to long standing entries, I only change entries when I have the source that proves the change is correct.Nancyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624017658497802989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-83683006751972385412016-04-12T07:56:43.468-07:002016-04-12T07:56:43.468-07:00I very much agree. It is sometime discouraging to ...I very much agree. It is sometime discouraging to see how careless people are in adding information, but that is the reason for watching and being well informed. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-74285669989067113482016-04-12T07:53:29.839-07:002016-04-12T07:53:29.839-07:00Hear, hear!
I mentioned on Genealogy's Star t...Hear, hear!<br /><br />I mentioned on Genealogy's Star the other day that it's important to start with the assumption that an online family tree could be (and probably is) wrong. It's also important to start with the assumption that *I* could be wrong.<br /><br />Where did I find my information? Who created the information? Am I making the "same name doesn't mean same person" mistake? If information was created by others, what connection did they have to the information? Were they present at the events? If so, how long was it between the events and the report of the events?<br /><br />As I've mentioned before, I'm working on slave histories. I find that the accounts left by the owners' descendants range from about half false to entirely false, when I compare the accounts to contemporaneous documentation. (Entirely false means they invented someone who didn't exist. Surprising how often that happens.)<br /><br />Humility is a valuable tool in any field of study, and that includes genealogy!Amy Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04037263182287268748noreply@blogger.com