Hi Tim
Thankyou for that information, must have been hard to lose three
children out of six.
Pat
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 10:37 PM, <catley-request(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
Today's Topics:
1. Re: CATLEY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44 (Tim Cattley)
2. Re: CATLEY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44 (Tim Cattley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:24:52 -0000
From: "Tim Cattley" <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [CATLEY] CATLEY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44
To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
Message-ID: <C507C97B24414138B063CF382EDB7C23@NewUser>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Good morning Pat,
I have two big Somerset Catley trees listed on my main "all Cat*ley bmd
spreadsheet" :-
1) Emery of Midsomer Norton
2) Thomas of Welton
Logic tells me, given the geographical closeness, that these two lines are
probably linked together but so far, I do not think that anybody has been
able to make a connection. (We have a dna test on Emery's tree on file with
FTDNA as part of their Cat*ley name project).
I have Robert Suple and Robert John as 2/6 children born to Robert William &
Ann Nee Brodribb and 2/3 of their children who died in infancy. My
information comes from Glynis Brown an Emery of MSN Catley tree member who
did a lot of research on both trees a few years ago now. We also have on
List :- Jann Parks and Andrew Hayes who are co-lateral members of this tree
and should also be able to confirm if the data is accurate.
Happy Christmas Tim Cattley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat H" <patsm2010(a)gmail.com>
To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 4:08 AM
Subject: Re: [CATLEY] CATLEY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44
>I have come across the following information on public trees and was
> wondering if anyone could verify whether this is correct or not. The
> following are listed as the children of Robert William Catley and Ann
> Mary Brodribb but I have not been able to find them in any "official"
> records.
>
>
> Robert Suple Catley
> 20 Nov 1833 - 21 Nov 1833
> Born: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
> Died: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
>
>
>
> Robert John Catley
> 15 Jul 1835 - 30 Jul 1835
> Born: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
> Died: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
>
>
> Thanks and Merry Christmas
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM, <catley-request(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Public trees available on research sites (Tim Cattley)
>> 2. Re: Public trees available on research sites (Chris Newall)
>> 3. Re: Public trees available on research sites (Tim Cattley)
>> 4. Re: Public trees available on research sites
>> (Jocelyn and Bert Prvanov)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:05:39 -0000
>> From: "Tim Cattley" <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
>> Subject: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>> To: "catley @rootsweb" <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Message-ID: <1B0C5442641E427CB6E0A4610C41B092@NewUser>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
>> found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that crop
>> up on internet research sites?
>> All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
>> contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>>
>> It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my case)
>> are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees connected
>> by marriage events which in many instances, took place less than 100
>> years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each surname in a
>> frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then proudly post the
>> results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on the grounds that
>> "bigger is better" ?
>>
>> It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought about
>> by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research mistakes
>> being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own original
>> research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been avoided.
>> In my case, there are numerous instances where would be genealogists have
>> managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees in to one by
>> mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a Garforth tree
>> female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>>
>> It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
>> "I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role of
>> policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
>> them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct. However
>> such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment with no
>> guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention the
>> possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the facility of
>> modifying/editing information already contained.
>>
>> What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
>> attempt change?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:43:54 +0000
>> From: Chris Newall <chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>> To: catley(a)rootsweb.com
>> Message-ID: <uFCussBq3K1QFwXG(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
>>
>> When I was a novice researcher I made an assumption which resulted in me
>> assigning the wrong set of parents to one of my ancestors. Another
>> researcher pointed out to me where I was wrong. I am eternally grateful
>> to him for that and have been much more careful since then. I now shun
>> assumptions like the plague unless they cannot be avoided, in which case
>> I make clear that my conclusions are 'provisional'.
>>
>> So I generally try to point out to such people the errors in their data,
>> along with the facts as I know them. This rarely results in a published
>> correction but at least I have tried. To try to get them to correct the
>> error of their ways as well is a task quite beyond me.
>>
>> A very Happy Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and [hopefully] Prosperous
>> New Year to all in the Catley study group.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Tim Cattley <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk> writes
>>>I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
>>>found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that
>>>crop up on internet research sites?
>>>All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
>>>contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>>>
>>>It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my
>>>case) are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees
>>>connected by marriage events which in many instances, took place less
>>>than 100 years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each
>>>surname in a frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then
>>>proudly post the results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on
>>>the grounds that "bigger is better" ?
>>>
>>>It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought
>>>about by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research
>>>mistakes being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own
>>>original research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been
>>>avoided. In my case, there are numerous instances where would be
>>>genealogists have managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees
>>>in to one by mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a
>>>Garforth tree female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>>>
>>>It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
>>>"I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role of
>>>policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
>>>them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct.
>>>However such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment
>>>with no guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention
>>>the possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the
>>>facility of modifying/editing information already contained.
>>>
>>>What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
>>>attempt change?
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>-------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>>>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>> --
>> Chris Newall EMail : chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk
>> Ealing, London, W5 Website:
http://www.rebus.demon.co.uk/
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:39:40 -0000
>> From: "Tim Cattley" <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Message-ID: <6DE2A2EEBA8D4308AE7CA7A4D9A17A87@NewUser>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> Thank you Chris,
>> I take it that you proffer helpful corrections privately or is it via the
>> public comments provision that the web sites provide? The latter
>> would have more impact for obvious reasons but would that be a
>> step too far?
>> Tim
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chris Newall" <chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
>> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 6:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>>
>>
>>> When I was a novice researcher I made an assumption which resulted in me
>>> assigning the wrong set of parents to one of my ancestors. Another
>>> researcher pointed out to me where I was wrong. I am eternally grateful
>>> to him for that and have been much more careful since then. I now shun
>>> assumptions like the plague unless they cannot be avoided, in which case
>>> I make clear that my conclusions are 'provisional'.
>>>
>>> So I generally try to point out to such people the errors in their data,
>>> along with the facts as I know them. This rarely results in a published
>>> correction but at least I have tried. To try to get them to correct the
>>> error of their ways as well is a task quite beyond me.
>>>
>>> A very Happy Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and [hopefully] Prosperous
>>> New Year to all in the Catley study group.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Cattley <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk> writes
>>>>I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
>>>>found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that
>>>>crop up on internet research sites?
>>>>All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
>>>>contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>>>>
>>>>It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my
>>>>case) are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees
>>>>connected by marriage events which in many instances, took place less
>>>>than 100 years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each
>>>>surname in a frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then
>>>>proudly post the results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on
>>>>the grounds that "bigger is better" ?
>>>>
>>>>It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought
>>>>about by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research
>>>>mistakes being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own
>>>>original research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been
>>>>avoided. In my case, there are numerous instances where would be
>>>>genealogists have managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees
>>>>in to one by mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a
>>>>Garforth tree female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>>>>
>>>>It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
>>>>"I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role
of
>>>>policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
>>>>them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct.
>>>>However such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment
>>>>with no guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention
>>>>the possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the
>>>>facility of modifying/editing information already contained.
>>>>
>>>>What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
>>>>attempt change?
>>>>
>>>>Tim
>>>>
>>>>-------------------------------
>>>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>>CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
>>>>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Newall EMail : chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk
>>> Ealing, London, W5 Website:
http://www.rebus.demon.co.uk/
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>>> quotes
>>> in the subject and the body of the message
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by iomartcloud.
>>>
http://www.iomartcloud.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:30:49 +1300
>> From: "Jocelyn and Bert Prvanov" <prvanov(a)xtra.co.nz>
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Message-ID: <00b001cddfdb$97a55880$c6f00980$(a)co.nz>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> Hi there Tim,
>> Often I ask people how they have come to their conclusions, and
>> invariably
>> there is no response, as I am truly interested in case I have made a
>> mistake
>> somewhere. My view is that everyone has to be aware that unless there is
>> documented proof, then its someone else's assumption.
>> Jocelyn
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: catley-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:catley-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
>> Behalf Of Tim Cattley
>> Sent: Saturday, 22 December 2012 12:40 p.m.
>> To: catley(a)rootsweb.com
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>>
>> Thank you Chris,
>> I take it that you proffer helpful corrections privately or is it via the
>> public comments provision that the web sites provide? The latter would
>> have
>> more impact for obvious reasons but would that be a step too far?
>> Tim
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chris Newall" <chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
>> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 6:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>>
>>
>>> When I was a novice researcher I made an assumption which resulted in me
>>> assigning the wrong set of parents to one of my ancestors. Another
>>> researcher pointed out to me where I was wrong. I am eternally grateful
>>> to him for that and have been much more careful since then. I now shun
>>> assumptions like the plague unless they cannot be avoided, in which case
>>> I make clear that my conclusions are 'provisional'.
>>>
>>> So I generally try to point out to such people the errors in their data,
>>> along with the facts as I know them. This rarely results in a published
>>> correction but at least I have tried. To try to get them to correct the
>>> error of their ways as well is a task quite beyond me.
>>>
>>> A very Happy Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and [hopefully] Prosperous
>>> New Year to all in the Catley study group.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Cattley <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk> writes
>>>>I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
>>>>found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that
>>>>crop up on internet research sites?
>>>>All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
>>>>contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>>>>
>>>>It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my
>>>>case) are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees
>>>>connected by marriage events which in many instances, took place less
>>>>than 100 years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each
>>>>surname in a frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then
>>>>proudly post the results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on
>>>>the grounds that "bigger is better" ?
>>>>
>>>>It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought
>>>>about by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research
>>>>mistakes being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own
>>>>original research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been
>>>>avoided. In my case, there are numerous instances where would be
>>>>genealogists have managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees
>>>>in to one by mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a
>>>>Garforth tree female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>>>>
>>>>It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
>>>>"I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role
of
>>>>policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
>>>>them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct.
>>>>However such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment
>>>>with no guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention
>>>>the possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the
>>>>facility of modifying/editing information already contained.
>>>>
>>>>What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
>>>>attempt change?
>>>>
>>>>Tim
>>>>
>>>>-------------------------------
>>>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>>CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
>>>>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Newall EMail : chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk
>>> Ealing, London, W5 Website:
http://www.rebus.demon.co.uk/
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>>> quotes
>>
>>> in the subject and the body of the message
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by iomartcloud.
>>>
http://www.iomartcloud.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>> quotes
>> in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> To contact the CATLEY list administrator, send an email to
>> CATLEY-admin(a)rootsweb.com.
>>
>> To post a message to the CATLEY mailing list, send an email to
>> CATLEY(a)rootsweb.com.
>>
>> __________________________________________________________
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com
>> with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the
>> body of the
>> email with no additional text.
>>
>>
>> End of CATLEY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44
>> *************************************
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> ___________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by iomartcloud.
>
http://www.iomartcloud.com/
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:37:12 -0000
From: "Tim Cattley" <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [CATLEY] CATLEY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44
To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
Message-ID: <7B2F78C2C5054FC98CE6730240599575@NewUser>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Further to my earlier e-mail:-
Robert William Catley + wife Ann Mary nee Brodribb and all six children incl
Robert Suple C and Robert John C are confirmed members of the Thomas Catley
of Welton family tree.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat H" <patsm2010(a)gmail.com>
To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 4:08 AM
Subject: Re: [CATLEY] CATLEY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44
>I have come across the following information on public trees and was
> wondering if anyone could verify whether this is correct or not. The
> following are listed as the children of Robert William Catley and Ann
> Mary Brodribb but I have not been able to find them in any "official"
> records.
>
>
> Robert Suple Catley
> 20 Nov 1833 - 21 Nov 1833
> Born: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
> Died: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
>
>
>
> Robert John Catley
> 15 Jul 1835 - 30 Jul 1835
> Born: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
> Died: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
>
>
> Thanks and Merry Christmas
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM, <catley-request(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Public trees available on research sites (Tim Cattley)
>> 2. Re: Public trees available on research sites (Chris Newall)
>> 3. Re: Public trees available on research sites (Tim Cattley)
>> 4. Re: Public trees available on research sites
>> (Jocelyn and Bert Prvanov)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:05:39 -0000
>> From: "Tim Cattley" <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
>> Subject: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>> To: "catley @rootsweb" <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Message-ID: <1B0C5442641E427CB6E0A4610C41B092@NewUser>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
>> found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that crop
>> up on internet research sites?
>> All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
>> contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>>
>> It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my case)
>> are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees connected
>> by marriage events which in many instances, took place less than 100
>> years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each surname in a
>> frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then proudly post the
>> results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on the grounds that
>> "bigger is better" ?
>>
>> It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought about
>> by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research mistakes
>> being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own original
>> research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been avoided.
>> In my case, there are numerous instances where would be genealogists have
>> managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees in to one by
>> mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a Garforth tree
>> female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>>
>> It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
>> "I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role of
>> policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
>> them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct. However
>> such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment with no
>> guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention the
>> possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the facility of
>> modifying/editing information already contained.
>>
>> What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
>> attempt change?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:43:54 +0000
>> From: Chris Newall <chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>> To: catley(a)rootsweb.com
>> Message-ID: <uFCussBq3K1QFwXG(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
>>
>> When I was a novice researcher I made an assumption which resulted in me
>> assigning the wrong set of parents to one of my ancestors. Another
>> researcher pointed out to me where I was wrong. I am eternally grateful
>> to him for that and have been much more careful since then. I now shun
>> assumptions like the plague unless they cannot be avoided, in which case
>> I make clear that my conclusions are 'provisional'.
>>
>> So I generally try to point out to such people the errors in their data,
>> along with the facts as I know them. This rarely results in a published
>> correction but at least I have tried. To try to get them to correct the
>> error of their ways as well is a task quite beyond me.
>>
>> A very Happy Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and [hopefully] Prosperous
>> New Year to all in the Catley study group.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Tim Cattley <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk> writes
>>>I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
>>>found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that
>>>crop up on internet research sites?
>>>All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
>>>contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>>>
>>>It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my
>>>case) are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees
>>>connected by marriage events which in many instances, took place less
>>>than 100 years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each
>>>surname in a frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then
>>>proudly post the results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on
>>>the grounds that "bigger is better" ?
>>>
>>>It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought
>>>about by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research
>>>mistakes being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own
>>>original research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been
>>>avoided. In my case, there are numerous instances where would be
>>>genealogists have managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees
>>>in to one by mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a
>>>Garforth tree female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>>>
>>>It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
>>>"I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role of
>>>policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
>>>them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct.
>>>However such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment
>>>with no guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention
>>>the possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the
>>>facility of modifying/editing information already contained.
>>>
>>>What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
>>>attempt change?
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>-------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>>>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>> --
>> Chris Newall EMail : chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk
>> Ealing, London, W5 Website:
http://www.rebus.demon.co.uk/
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:39:40 -0000
>> From: "Tim Cattley" <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Message-ID: <6DE2A2EEBA8D4308AE7CA7A4D9A17A87@NewUser>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> Thank you Chris,
>> I take it that you proffer helpful corrections privately or is it via the
>> public comments provision that the web sites provide? The latter
>> would have more impact for obvious reasons but would that be a
>> step too far?
>> Tim
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chris Newall" <chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
>> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 6:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>>
>>
>>> When I was a novice researcher I made an assumption which resulted in me
>>> assigning the wrong set of parents to one of my ancestors. Another
>>> researcher pointed out to me where I was wrong. I am eternally grateful
>>> to him for that and have been much more careful since then. I now shun
>>> assumptions like the plague unless they cannot be avoided, in which case
>>> I make clear that my conclusions are 'provisional'.
>>>
>>> So I generally try to point out to such people the errors in their data,
>>> along with the facts as I know them. This rarely results in a published
>>> correction but at least I have tried. To try to get them to correct the
>>> error of their ways as well is a task quite beyond me.
>>>
>>> A very Happy Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and [hopefully] Prosperous
>>> New Year to all in the Catley study group.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Cattley <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk> writes
>>>>I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
>>>>found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that
>>>>crop up on internet research sites?
>>>>All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
>>>>contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>>>>
>>>>It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my
>>>>case) are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees
>>>>connected by marriage events which in many instances, took place less
>>>>than 100 years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each
>>>>surname in a frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then
>>>>proudly post the results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on
>>>>the grounds that "bigger is better" ?
>>>>
>>>>It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought
>>>>about by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research
>>>>mistakes being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own
>>>>original research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been
>>>>avoided. In my case, there are numerous instances where would be
>>>>genealogists have managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees
>>>>in to one by mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a
>>>>Garforth tree female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>>>>
>>>>It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
>>>>"I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role
of
>>>>policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
>>>>them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct.
>>>>However such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment
>>>>with no guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention
>>>>the possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the
>>>>facility of modifying/editing information already contained.
>>>>
>>>>What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
>>>>attempt change?
>>>>
>>>>Tim
>>>>
>>>>-------------------------------
>>>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>>CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
>>>>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Newall EMail : chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk
>>> Ealing, London, W5 Website:
http://www.rebus.demon.co.uk/
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>>> quotes
>>> in the subject and the body of the message
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by iomartcloud.
>>>
http://www.iomartcloud.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:30:49 +1300
>> From: "Jocelyn and Bert Prvanov" <prvanov(a)xtra.co.nz>
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Message-ID: <00b001cddfdb$97a55880$c6f00980$(a)co.nz>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> Hi there Tim,
>> Often I ask people how they have come to their conclusions, and
>> invariably
>> there is no response, as I am truly interested in case I have made a
>> mistake
>> somewhere. My view is that everyone has to be aware that unless there is
>> documented proof, then its someone else's assumption.
>> Jocelyn
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: catley-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:catley-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
>> Behalf Of Tim Cattley
>> Sent: Saturday, 22 December 2012 12:40 p.m.
>> To: catley(a)rootsweb.com
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>>
>> Thank you Chris,
>> I take it that you proffer helpful corrections privately or is it via the
>> public comments provision that the web sites provide? The latter would
>> have
>> more impact for obvious reasons but would that be a step too far?
>> Tim
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chris Newall" <chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
>> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 6:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>>
>>
>>> When I was a novice researcher I made an assumption which resulted in me
>>> assigning the wrong set of parents to one of my ancestors. Another
>>> researcher pointed out to me where I was wrong. I am eternally grateful
>>> to him for that and have been much more careful since then. I now shun
>>> assumptions like the plague unless they cannot be avoided, in which case
>>> I make clear that my conclusions are 'provisional'.
>>>
>>> So I generally try to point out to such people the errors in their data,
>>> along with the facts as I know them. This rarely results in a published
>>> correction but at least I have tried. To try to get them to correct the
>>> error of their ways as well is a task quite beyond me.
>>>
>>> A very Happy Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and [hopefully] Prosperous
>>> New Year to all in the Catley study group.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Cattley <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk> writes
>>>>I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
>>>>found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that
>>>>crop up on internet research sites?
>>>>All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
>>>>contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>>>>
>>>>It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my
>>>>case) are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees
>>>>connected by marriage events which in many instances, took place less
>>>>than 100 years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each
>>>>surname in a frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then
>>>>proudly post the results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on
>>>>the grounds that "bigger is better" ?
>>>>
>>>>It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought
>>>>about by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research
>>>>mistakes being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own
>>>>original research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been
>>>>avoided. In my case, there are numerous instances where would be
>>>>genealogists have managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees
>>>>in to one by mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a
>>>>Garforth tree female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>>>>
>>>>It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
>>>>"I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role
of
>>>>policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
>>>>them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct.
>>>>However such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment
>>>>with no guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention
>>>>the possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the
>>>>facility of modifying/editing information already contained.
>>>>
>>>>What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
>>>>attempt change?
>>>>
>>>>Tim
>>>>
>>>>-------------------------------
>>>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>>CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
>>>>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Newall EMail : chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk
>>> Ealing, London, W5 Website:
http://www.rebus.demon.co.uk/
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>>> quotes
>>
>>> in the subject and the body of the message
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by iomartcloud.
>>>
http://www.iomartcloud.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>> quotes
>> in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> To contact the CATLEY list administrator, send an email to
>> CATLEY-admin(a)rootsweb.com.
>>
>> To post a message to the CATLEY mailing list, send an email to
>> CATLEY(a)rootsweb.com.
>>
>> __________________________________________________________
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com
>> with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the
>> body of the
>> email with no additional text.
>>
>>
>> End of CATLEY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44
>> *************************************
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> ___________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by iomartcloud.
>
http://www.iomartcloud.com/
>
>
------------------------------
To contact the CATLEY list administrator, send an email to
CATLEY-admin(a)rootsweb.com.
To post a message to the CATLEY mailing list, send an email to CATLEY(a)rootsweb.com.
__________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com
with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the
email with no additional text.
End of CATLEY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 46
*************************************