Hi Derek and Bernie,
Thank you for the comments. Seems that we are all beset by finding errors of mind numbing
silliness all created by assumptions without supportive evidence.
What I find especially vexing in this department is the evident "cribbing" of
information. Fine I suppose, where the information is accurate but it is disappointing to
see how often a known error on one tree version keeps cropping up in other's work.
As Chris indicates, suppose the right thing to do is to point out by direct message where
the problems lie, in a nice way, with supportive information but as Derek rightly says,
often this help is simply ignored and one is then sorely tempted to simply put the facts
straight into the comments box. I have only used the comments section to indicate
familytreedna tested trees in the hope that this will generate some more Cat*ley testing
(13 trees done so far) but if authors can not be bothered to even acknowledge offers of
help to get things corrected, then I think one would be quite in order to make public
corrections.
Tim