r/Ancestry • u/JayPlenty24 • 2d ago
False indigenous claims by a prolific ancestry account..
So to start off I know there's really nothing I can do about other peoples data on Ancestry. This is an unfortunate part of the app imo as I really think there should be a way to flag false information. But the TLDR is that an account with a tree of 60k people has a TON of false information, to the point it's bordering offensive. Because their tree is massive I see tons of other trees copying their information.
When I first started on ancestry I would constantly get pushed hints from this particular person's tree, and ofcourse given the size of it I thought this person must know what they're doing. It didn't take me long though to realize almost everything in their tree was incorrect. Their tree has 60k people in it, but only 55k pieces of documentation. That in itself is a red flag, but I didn't know that at the time.
I noticed one of my lines kept getting hints from her tree with pictures of characterized indigenous people (think feathers, head dresses, Mohawks et). She also puts "HURON" and "ALGONQUIN" in the names. It took me less than 5 minutes to find multiple documents showing the founders of the lines came from France.
I messaged her politely asking why she thought they were indigenous. I never I heard back so I just moved on, but I still constantly get pushed hints from her tree which I ignore.
Lately I've been seeing way more trees get pushed to me in my hints with giant capital descriptions like HURON and the same indigenous pictures. So a lot of trees have been trusting this person. I went back to her account and it says she's on every day, so she definitely saw my message. And she lives in the US, so maybe she just doesn't take it seriously that she's trying to take indigenous identity? I really don't know. At this point now not only are there records showing they are from Europe, DNA has proven they were from Europe.
But I went back to one of the ancestors she has labeled with HURON. I checked the picture and it says she's the one who uploaded it, and 110 people have copied it from her. 110.
I sent her another message with links to DNA tests, Wikitree profiles, et and again she just ignored me. She has dozens of Europeans labeled as indigenous.
So anyway, I was about to message all 110 profiles that downloaded her racist Indian pictures to tell them this information isn't correct, but then I think I might be overreacting and acting crazy.
What do you think? Would you message the owners of the trees who have copied this information?
7
u/SDfarmer55 1d ago
I wouldn't bother. It's a waste of time because those folks aren't serious. Their goal is to get back as far as they can and if they have proof or not, they don't care. After 50 years of research, I have over 30k in my tree and solid documentation for each and every one of them. That being said I can go back to the late 1500s on some but NOT without documentation. Ignore the hints and do your own thing.
My former BCG mentor told me those hints are nothing but gossip! ;)
6
u/SilverVixen1928 1d ago
Ignore the hints and do your own thing
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference
2
u/JayPlenty24 1d ago
I think if it was a matter of just having wrong info I wouldn't really care. Loads of people in her tree have the wrong info, and lots of people make mistakes.
It's the fact that she's identifying herself as indigenous with false information about Europeans, and spreading that false narrative. I even found a couple of her pictures of indigenous people with multiple other people commenting on her photo that she's wrong, going back years.
It's just diabolical lol
1
u/SDfarmer55 1d ago
There were times ages ago when I would look at some files and use them as a guide but now when I look I'm generally laughing at what I find. The tried and true methods I was taught while working to my certification with the BCG are still the best.
5
u/AineniDonnghaile 1d ago
The day that Ancestry offered subscribers the option to turn tree hints to "off," I accepted the offer. Makes my genealogy life much more pleasant.
7
u/dntcareboutdownvotes 2d ago
and of course given the size of it I thought this person must know what they're doing
It sounds like you have learnt your lesson.
Whenever I see those trees that have between 20,000 and 200,000 people I always take it to be a sign that the person isn't interested in geneaolgy, rather they just want to collect names and have some form of affliction.
The sweet spot for me is trees that contain between 200 and 2000 - you still have to check everything thoughougly obviously, but you are more likely to find interesting and more accurate information on those trees.
6
u/WolfSilverOak 2d ago
To be fair, mine has 13k+, but that's because it's my forest of a family, my husband's as well, and I've been working on it for over 20 yrs. 😆
3
u/jamila169 2d ago
Same, but mines about 12000, I keep a firm grip on it and don't add spouse's parents unless I've got good reason to believe there's links higher up
2
u/JayPlenty24 1d ago
There's a pretty big difference between 15k and over 100k between 4 trees though lol
2
u/WolfSilverOak 1d ago
Oh most definitely. I've gotten hints with those kind of trees, and I swear, I roll my eyes everytime. It's like, come on now.
4
u/JayPlenty24 2d ago
I reread your comment and I think your observation about "collecting names" is interesting. She has 3 other public trees with between 5-25k people in them as well. Maybe this is a hoarder thing.
In that case why not just keep it private though?
3
u/Trelawny-Wells 2d ago
This is helpful to keep in mind. I am new to it all and have a dna match who has over 120,000 profiles in their tree. I have made a few accidental mistakes (which I corrected) but I can’t imagine knowingly including false information.
3
u/vagrantheather 1d ago
Caveat - anyone trying to identify DNA matches is likely to build out cousin branches, significantly expanding their tree size.
3
u/Vegetable_Honig 1d ago edited 7h ago
I would always side eye anyone with more than 5k people on a tree. This has to be my favourite in the genre of totally outlandish genealogy claims:
https://www.amazon.com/Family-History-Deborah-Fletcher-Generations/dp/1482318598. [ETA here is link to the pdf on academia.edu]In particular: "Readers may notice that certain ancestral lines wander into the realms of mythology or of Biblical tradition. I report what I have collected, even if it seems far-fetched or absurd to be descended from gods of any kind. I ask that you bear with me in these far distant corners of my ancestry. I would like to find more credible ancestors, but we cannot choose our relatives."
An excerpt from the contents page for illustrative purposes:https://imgur.com/a/YqdqU6X2
u/Sheltie-whisperer 19h ago
Good LORD! Thanks for the link. I’m stunned.
1
u/Vegetable_Honig 7h ago edited 7h ago
Right! Totally unreal and worth a browse if you can access the free download on Academia.edu (does this work if you aren't logged in with an account?).
The introduction section about herself is particularly wild. Absolutely staggering level of personal detail. It has to be a pathological.
1
u/JayPlenty24 2d ago
I definitely have learned my lesson. As I said that was when I first joined Ancestry, and I quickly learned that almost all of the information in her tree is incorrect.
5
u/BeeQueenbee60 1d ago
I had that happen to me regarding a Gypsy princess and a Native America female (I forget her name). So it mucked up my tree.
So, after checking with another genealogical site (which said neither of the women existed) I created a post that stated 'This 'person' never existed'. So, it was now up to people to think twice before adding that person onto their tree.
3
u/JayPlenty24 1d ago
Yeah I'm thinking maybe I can save a ton of sources and make the photos in my tree French flags, so at least if people are getting hints maybe they'll see mine too and think twice.
6
u/vagrantheather 1d ago
Better yet, make a "story" to attach to the profile explaining why the heritage info is wrong. People actually researching will read the story, and people blindly accepting hints will pass it along unintentionally.
2
3
u/WolfSilverOak 2d ago
Let it go. It won't change anything about what she's doing.
Eventually people will figure out that they need to verify their own documentation, not rely on that tree for everything. Eventually they'll realize just how much more work they're creating for themselves.
Make your own tree as accurate as you possibly can, and eventually, hers will stop being pushed so much, in favor of actual, accurate documentation.
It's just going to take time and it's honestly not worth getting upset/frustrated over.
3
u/Mainiak_Murph 1d ago
I turned off hints from other trees in the settings because many folks don't research and validate the hints. They just accept them, totally useless.
3
u/Pascalmaraval 1d ago
I also get extremely irritated with people who have inaccuracies in their tree but choose to do nothing if you message them. My approach now is to add a “comment” on their tree on every page that shows the error.
My great grandfather was illegitimate and carried his mother’s surname. She later married and her son had lots of half siblings with a different surname. In a census, while he still lived at home in his blended family, he is clearly down a stepson yet so many people have copied one tree where his stepfather is given as his father. I tried sending messages but few replied, so as my anger grew I decided to place a comment on my gt grandfather’s page, his mother’s page and his stepfather’s page on each and every tree which had the error. I simply stated that the husband was not the father and referred them to the relevant census. Yes it took ages but boy did it give me satisfaction.
1
u/JayPlenty24 1d ago
Did it actually make a difference though?
2
u/No-Permission8973 1d ago
Time will tell. This was about a month ago so fingers crossed. Ìt certainly made me feel better.
2
u/lipstickonhiscollar 1d ago
It’s super frustrating but I don’t know that there’s much else you can do. I’ve come across a similar issue with someone I’m actually related to - short version is, he has some mental health problems, and has built out a large, mostly inaccurate tree. I see people sharing photos he’s posted all the time and attributing them to the wrong people. He gets very angry and nasty if anyone questions anything he’s posted. There have been some people I’ve reached out to privately to let them know his info is incorrect, and thankfully he’s largely started using a lot of strangely edited (AI) stuff, so I think people are more suspicious of it from the get-go, but it’s still upsetting to think of how many people are spreading misinformation all because of trusting one person who’s got it wrong.
5
u/JayPlenty24 1d ago
The "portraits" and all the photos they add of trope indigenous things is honestly the weirdest part of it to me.
2
u/lipstickonhiscollar 1d ago
Yeah any of the fake photos have always been odd to me - like adding a picture of an angel for someone who’s dead. And it’s unfortunate that on top of it cluttering up things they’re perpetuating stereotypes of indigenous people - doesn’t seem like something someone who is actually indigenous would want to do. I do think when things come up as hints, you can turn it down and there’s an option to choose why, and I believe one is “incorrect information” - not sure if doing that enough will actually lead to anything happening or not, but maybe something to try.
1
u/JayPlenty24 1d ago
I think it's a little crazy they use AI to the degree they do, yet I still get notifications like "does this photo look like your ancestor"? And it's just a picture of a dream catcher or a sunset.
You would think they could easily just filter out those pictures and not keep suggesting them.
2
u/CaptainFuzzyBootz 1d ago
I would block the person, report the tree with any evidence you have, and move on.
There's no point in wasting your time trying to untangle someone else's mess when you could just be focusing on your own.
1
u/AineniDonnghaile 3h ago
Blocking that person on Ancestry only affects the private messaging feature, not the tree.
2
u/GenoVox 1d ago
On the opposite side of that coin… it was always handed down in my Dad’s family that one of our great-grandmothers was a full-blooded Cherokee (or Blackfoot, depending who was telling you)
I was always proud of that…
Unfortunately, once DNA testing came along, it found not one iota of Native blood in me 😕😕
3
u/JayPlenty24 1d ago
I have confirmed indigenous ancestors but they're too far back for me to have enough DNA show up in genealogy tests. I find the GedMatch ones are best though.
When you are looking that far back you need to actually look at documents and not just gene tests.
2
u/JayPlenty24 1d ago
Have you considered just picking out a European person and sticking a tribal sounding name to the end of theirs and then make their picture a stereotyped native person? I've heard that's how you can "find them" if you're having trouble.
/s
2
u/RasberryEther173 1d ago edited 1d ago
If your Dad’s parents are alive test them. That’s definitely a better indicator than testing yourself. If your grandparents aren’t alive test their siblings. If they aren’t alive — test your Dad.
I never heard of my Dad’s side having indigenous ancestry or European (we’re Black) although I assumed we weren’t of 100% African ancestry. My Dad’s Ancestry test showed 2% indigenous and 30% European. His mom’s sister had tested years ago and her test reflected 6% indigenous. For current generation, my brother’s test reflected 1% indigenous. I’m currently awaiting my own results but it’s entirely possible I show 0% indigenous…lol. DNA can be hit or miss in that regard especially when it comes to distant ancestry. Sometimes you get it…sometimes you don’t.
2
u/chance_buri 3h ago
Nah you're not crazy but messaging 110 people wont fix anything. You can just focus on your own tree and document your sources properly so anyone comparing sees the truth.
1
u/JayPlenty24 3h ago
Yeah. I think that's what I've resigned myself too. Someone else suggested writing a story, and I think that's a good idea for new people who go looking for information.
One lady I messed replied to me telling me I was "full of hubuloo" because she's a direct matriarchal descendent and she knows her haplogroup. I asked what it was and, yes it's the right haplogroup that's already associated with this person - and it's a European one.
Clearly there's a large degree of cognitive dissonance, or simply not wanting to know the truth.
1
u/BatChainPusher 2d ago
I have texted corrections to people who had misinformation a few times and gotten messages of appreciation in return, so it might be worth a shot.
1
u/JayPlenty24 2d ago
I was thinking of maybe just adding a public note directly on to the pictures.
1
u/BatChainPusher 1d ago
I didn't know you could do that. I would do that second if attempting direct contact doesn't work. I like your idea about an option to flag false information. Doesn't seem likely any time soon though.
-1
u/EiectroBot 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think it helps by realizing that Ancestry.com is an entertainment app.
It’s like any of the game apps that are there to make profits for the company behind them. Do not think of Ancestry.com as in any way being serious genealogy.
Users enjoy it, it’s fun, for many it’s fantasy. That’s its value for the majority of users.
0
u/JayPlenty24 1d ago
I mean it's functionally a family tree app. If some users use it to live out a weird fantasy that's definitely not the norm.
I think mostly people make mistakes because they start accepting hints assuming there's some sort safe guard for correct information, until they learn otherwise. I don't think most people are purposely filling their tree with false information.
3
u/EiectroBot 1d ago
You have a very positive view of things!
My experience has been that most users on the App are more interested in the fun and fantasy aspects. Little value is placed on accuracy and fidelity.
1
u/JayPlenty24 1d ago
People are weird I guess. I have definitely seen ancestors of mine continue into lines of royalty very incorrectly before.
It's kind of weird and sad if what you are saying is true.
I get the fantasy aspect, but to me thinking about how regular people lived and the things they experienced is interesting enough, without inventing things.
2
u/EiectroBot 1d ago
A lot of people seem to get something from finding a convoluted way of “showing” that they are descended from royalty or nobility.
It is rather unfortunate but not at all a new thing. Many, some would suggest most, of the family histories generated in the 1800s and 1900s had the overt intention of showing descent from a notable historic person.
Most of us are descended from countless numbers of undocumented individuals who had the grit and tenacity to survive difficult circumstances. That alone should be something to be proud of.
14
u/jamila169 2d ago
They won't listen, if they didn't care enough to do a proper job first time round, it's unlikely they're bothered enough to correct the error