General Chat

Actually, this time its not really their fault ...has anyone ever had any success in getting them to remove an incorrect, very misleading, entry? (The entry is repeated, with variations, six times, all wrong). Let me explain. I have been going demented, trying to find the baptism of a Timothy Holden, who later became known as "Owd Timothy o't'Looms". Many thousands of Holdens around the world fondly think they are descended from this man, based on a very inaccurate book written in 1887. There are six entries on the IGI, all giving the information that he was baptised on 22nd July, 1700, however, the details vary, including one which has him baptised in a Chapel which wasnt to be built for another 51 years! Me being me, I had to check this out. I sent for the Parish Reg film - he wasnt on it, neither that date, nor the previous nor following five years. I wrote to the Church (well, Cathedral actually and asked if it was possible to see the original register. They pointed me to Lancs Records Office who hold the original, and I had to quickly get someone to go and look for me! He wasnt on it, five years either side. I gave up in disgust. But today, looking at something else entirely, I found, in amongst baptisms, a document labelled "miscellaneous document of obscure purpose" (The researcher's title) and Timothy was on it, 22nd July 1700. Still not impressed, hardly a baptism was it? Much further on, the document appears again, but this time it is explained as "the names of such children that (sic) was born not baptised after the Sermon of the Church of England 1697-1706" Good Heavens! Its the Vicar's "Snitch list" of children who HAD NOT been baptised according to the rites of the C of E (pretty important then). This would fit nicely with the fact that Owd Timothy came from a raging non-conformist family "who worshipped secretly on Pendle Hill". So, how do I convey this info to the IGI, that this date is the NOT baptism of Timothy Holden, and save potentially thousands of people from misery! Incidentally, this now lends credence to information I had that he was born "about 1698", which I had discounted, cos it was so woolly.

Hi, The LDS never alter information submitted to the IGI. Although we use the IGI as an index for family history purposes that is not why it was created. It has religious meaning for church members and they will not remove or alter anything. I have found many errors and the only thing I was told I could do was submit the correct information and hope that future researchers would see a conflict and check it out. It is really annoying, isn't it? My ancestor is shown as fathering children after he died and I know his widow had no more children. To make matters worse his father is shown as being born in Germany. He wasn't, he was born in Wrentham. And there are many other errors in other branches of my family. To make matters even worse people who don't check original sources have lifted stuff from the IGI and put it on gencircles, worldwide tree and other sites, including this one. My name and email addy is on a few county surname lists and several times I've been contacted by people claiming a relationship to me from info they have found on the IGI or other websites. I reply with proof that there is no relationship or that they have the wrong branch gathered from incorrect info on the web but still these trees are out there. It seems some people are more interested in numbers than accuracy and happily grab other people's ancestors who seem to fit their requirements. In defence of the LDS they do say that any information you get from their site or the BVRI should always be checked against original sources (as should all transcriptions like census etc). But some people are too lazy to do so which means more and more incorrect info is being put on the web every day and copied down by others who don't bother to check sources etc etc. The Ancestral files compiled by LDS members are the worst offenders. Some on my family are totally bogus. I've given up writing to website owners or submitters telling them they have incorrect information, there is just too much of it and I can't be bothered. All I can do is ensure that my own information is well researched and verified from original sources. Rant over, Gwynne

I'm in the same boat as the rest of you. Loads of info on my family entered by LDS members and most of it wrong. The one that really bugs me is the entry of Bella as a sister to 5 of my relations at the beginning of the 1800's. I have found no evidence that she is their sister at all. And she certainly doesn't appear in the parish register for the place these poeple say. The only instance I have found of her so far is on the 1841 census and she is living next door to one of the boys. Ok she has the right surname but that could well be her married name. And what's even more annoying is that the LDS members don't seem to be aware of the existance of their real sister Christiana. One Lady has copied the LDS info and put it as her tree on Rootsweb. She refuses to change it even though she has been given the proper info. Unfortunately as Gwynne says, there isn't a lot we can do about it. Except go off on one every now and again! lol Jeanette x

The only thing to do is to annotate every entry in your tree with the source, as I believe that you should in any case, and to be aware that only those items which you have verified with original documents are definite. That way, even if you give someone else access to your data, they are made aware of the provenance of the information.

I have found that the best thing to do with IGI is to recognise it for what it is - no more than what its name says it is - an index. Don't rely on it as gospel truth, but give thanks to the LDS for compiling it. First, use it as a guide to making a Provisional Tree and secondly verify the facts from primary sources. Good Ancestor Hunting, Bernie

May I plead Guilty. Several years ago I researched my family tree and submitted it to the IGI. It then seemed as accurate as I could make it. However I have only recently discovered via the 1851 Census that the Elizabeth who married Joseph Norris was not the one I had selected. Therefore I had to delete and amend several ancestors. I have updated my information but regret to say that I have no way of correcting the info on the IGI. Pleease forgive me, I didn't mean to mislead you all. Jim (Bowing his head in shame)

Hi Les, I thought I'd made it clear I wasn't moaning about the LDS, I understand their position. I was moaning about people who take IGI information as gospel and perpetuate the mistakes on other websites (this one for example) by not checking original sources. I use the LDS FHC near me once a week and I'm very grateful for their work and for the way they let non LDS members use their facilities. Gwynne

After all, much of the IGI is just the Family Trees which members good, bad or indifferent submitted. Then the Church started to take a proactive role and microfilming Parish records etc. I just wish they would now go back and PROPERLY photgraph them using modern Computer Technology, so that we don't spend so much time looking at images which are either too dark or too light to read. The same goes for these CD sellers. Some of what we buy as supposed Census returns could be classed as misdescriptions under the Trades Descriptions Act. (Allegedly.)

I am not knocking the LDS - without the help of their Family History Centre I couldnt have verified ANYTHING! I spend a lot of time there too, and have nothing but praise for the volunteer helpers. I am also very grateful that there is such a thing as the IGI, its a wonderful resource. But what a pity that it has degenerated into a welter of inaccuracy - there is plenty of sound stuff in there, but no way of knowing whats right and whats pure fantasy. Jim - couldnt you resubmit your correct info? Yes, I know it will just add another entry - thats my point, maybe some of the people who submitted wrong information now know better, but even if they submit the correct info, the wrong info stays on, to confuse people like me. I also realise that the IGI has a primarily religious purpose - surely all the more reason for them to want it to be accurate?

It's a good starting point. I've since rechecked any information local to where I live. Sometimes though, the info on the IGI is not incorrect as far as their entries go. I had an ancestor with an unusual name, Moses Trenholm, who on all baptism records is shown as the father along with wife, Jane. On the baptism for one of their daughters, the wife is listed as somebody else (Mary or Ruth, I think). I checked the baptisms at Teesside Archives and it's says the same on the microfilm. Yet the father is the same and so is the place and there's no-one else in the area at that time with that name! I'm not worried about it as such as the daughter didn't survive beyond infancy. Andy.

I'm glad to say that everything I found about my family on the IGI which I've been able to check has been accurate. The Ancestral Files on the other hand are full of inaccuracies and obviously so - I found one potential relative who had cleverly managed to get married several years before he was born to a woman who died before the wedding ceremony! nell

According to the LDS one of my ancestors emigrated to America and died there. Unless he was pretty prolific with another wife before he left none of my ancestors should have existed including myself! Would like to find out where the subscriber found the information! Marion

If nothing else, you've demonstrated the triumph of dogged determination and proper research. I'd be blowing the party poppers and cracking the bottle of champagne. Congratulations for demolishing your brickwall! Brenda

Brenda - I do have to admit that I'm a nit-picker!!!! I am brilliant at spotting minute flaws in everyone else's research and I want everything to be PERFECT! This standard of course, applies to everyone except me - I am allowed to make stupid mistakes. And yes, you are right, Im glad Ive found at least evidence that Owd Timothy really did exist, that will be a great relief for about ten thousand of his descendants (I kid you not)