Genealogy Chat

A salutory tale. Once again proving the necessity of checking for yourself in the Primary Sources. The Transcript is only ever as accurate as the Transcriber. Jim

Whilst I know that there are inaccuracies, might I just put in a happy story? I had a gentleman on the 1881 census living with his wife, giving his date of birth as 1854. A kind person looked up looked the family up on the 1851 census and found my gentleman, d.o.b 1847. Obviously the parents did not invent a son three years before he was born. I found his pedigree file thing on LDS, also giving his birthdate as 1847. I have since checked on 1837online. There was no-one of his name born in the correct county in 1854, but miraculously there is one baby boy recorded in 1847 with all the right details, down to his middle initial. It turns out that my gentleman was in his thirties when he got a teenage girl pregnant and spent most of his life lying through his teeth about his age to make himself look respectable. Which is a longwinded way of saying that without LDS, I would still believe that the man was born in 1854 and wondering why the heck I couldn't find him.

Hi Gwynne, Thanks for that information, its sometimes not clear where certain information has been compiled from and its handy to know. As you say, if you know, then you know whether to confirm elsewhere and to use certain sources as guidelines only. Thanks. Sarah

Hi, The vital records are only transcriptions - like the 1881 census (and many others) so are not a primary source. Transcription errors are very easy to make, I know this from my own transcribing from records, so to be absolutely sure you should check the Parish records the transcription came from. Having said that, it isn't up to me to tell others how to research. If you pass information to others and you have noted the source it's up to them to check if they want to. For my direct line I always check the primary source but for siblings, cousins etc I'm happy with information from transcribed sources unless it looks obviously wrong. Gwynne

Hi everyone, I have found quite a few births on the IGI and kind people have also looked them up on their VRI discs, for further information as they seems to give ages and sometimes fathers names. I have found that a lot of the dates differ slightly, usually by a month or two and this has always concerned me. After reading the above, can we say that the VRI discs are likely to be accurate. I'm not sure where the information for the VRI comes from, but this would help confirm dates as I have been keeping notes of both dates. But obviously the IGI is hit and miss and like you say, to be used as a guide. Anyone got any advice on this! Sarah

I hope newbies take note of what has been written above. It's sometimes the first resource people find online and it's a very useful starting point and might give you an outline of your family tree, but every detail needs checking! No doubt about it, the LDS provide us all with invaluable resources...the microfiche of pre-1837 parish entries, the 1881 census (and it's the only British census available online for free!) but...... BEWARE OF the ANCESTRAL FILES and PEDIGREE RESOURCE FILES!! I think I've said this before on this board, but I had my whole tree submitted to the IGI. I was a bit miffed as I had checked everything (if nothing else, I'm meticulous about my research and refuse to publish anything I haven't checked or had checked by people I know are equally conscientious). Despite that, there are STILL inaccuracies on the site because the LDS researcher refuses to let go of the 'facts' which were established before I disproved them. However, at least the IGI online is free and as long as you take it with a huge pinch of salt, it can be useful. What has really made my blood boil is the LDS One Great Family Project! I signed up for the 7 day trial, for which I had to give my credit card details. I've done that before with other sites and immediately cancelled. Up to then, I've never had any problems. However, it took me three months to get my membership of One Great Family cancelled!!!!! I had to go through a process of replying to numerous emails (which I did) but still my credit card was debited with three months fees. I was curious to see what they had on my family and was horrified to see that my complete tree (the one I had let somebody else have) had been submitted, including details of living people (I no longer let anybody have these details) and the errors from the LDS were still there, so the tree didn't actually make any sense. I gained nothing from membership; in effect I had been charged for seeing my own research! Eventually my membership was cancelled and I'm still in dispute to see if I can get my subscription back, but I'm not holding my breath! This is my personal opinion, but to anyone thinking of contributing to One Great Family, my advice is DON'T! You're much better off sticking to this site, rootsweb message boards, individual family websites, etc. Phew! Got that off my chest....hopefully can enjoy the rest of the weekend now. Happy hunting! Sue

One branch of my family moved to Wisconsin from Northants in the 1850s, parents and children. The father is now listed in the LDS site as having been born in Northants, and also in Wisconsin. They should have just stuck to the facts, and not confused the issue with fabrication. In fact I've found other instances like that. Maybe they should be listed and sent to the head office in Utah.

My wife's grandmother was "pinched" by someone from LDS. She appears in IGI (not ancestral file) as an entry added after 1991 by a member of the Church. They got her married to the correct person in the correct year, though not with the actual date included. They also got her day and month of birth correct, but put it back three years (even though the correct year appears on the index of deaths) and moved it to a different county. No-one of that name was born in the quarter of the year they picked, so they have created a completely false ancestry for themselves. We know where she was born, and the detail is confirmed in both the 1891 and 1901 censuses. However short of time they were, this is not just a case of inventing someone of the right age to fit a marriage, which is the usual problem I find, but taking a real person and transposing her into a false one. Stan

I have contacted people about their entries on the I G. I Ancestral Files about Blackburn Marquand Oversby names in my Family tree and only the Oversby had any connection. The others replied to say although they were researching their families they had no connection with my surnames Blackburn & Marquand and couldn't understand why their name and address should have been on there Other people didnt reply at all I checked the address on American yellow pages before I contacted any one Bren

I found one about family also with an address and the submitter has my mothers maiden name. They can date from 1978 and it does not seem possible to find the date of submission. They may be dead! Bob

Just a passing visit. I have found that a lot of entries on LDS are, shall we say, a bit out in dates and info. I have also found that info that was there - isn't there anymore. I have found that in some cases it is best to use it as a starting point only. Paul

Thanks Gwynne I've cooled down a bit now you've reminded me that it is just a guide. A red mist just descended when I saw it! I suppose one way to put things straight would be for me to submit the correct information. I'm going to Beverley Archives next week to search the parish registers so I will know for sure whether the info I have is absolutely right. (No look ups for others this time as it is my 1st time. Sorry!) Jeanette

Hi, You are not alone. There are many instances of this. The IGI was created by and for the LDS church for religious reasons. In the early days of the church members were encourged to estimate dates and places of events that they did not know. Two IGI ancestral files of my family names in Suffolk are works of fiction. Unfortunately, at the moment, it is impossible to correct these mistakes. This is why it is vital to check anything you get from the IGI against the primary source document - usually parish records. I have been in touch with submitters of incorrect information and have been told that children often just resubmit the data their parents had. Please remember the IGI is a religious resource not an academically researched index. Gwynne

I agree I have found a number of mine that are incorrectly recorded. Its irritating when you are working hard to find things out and you know somone has been slapdash along the way which might throw off others on the same lines.

I have just seen one of my ancestors listed on an ancestral file on the LDS site. The entry goes:- Benjamin Greenley born about 1894 Hull. Married Blanche Yull 17 April 1924. Benjamin was actually born c1882 in Argam with Grindale. He did move to Hull and did go on to marry Blanche in 1924. Do I assume the person who entered this data was more interested in the Yull side of their tree? They obviously didn't reseach the Greenley side very well. A name and address of the submitter is given but how long ago was this info submitted? Will the person still live there? Feeling a bit miffed at the moment! Jeanette

See below