William Glasson Pool

[Cornish Terrier]

It sounded as if you did rely on them.

Once you have had the time to read through more of the threads on this board you will discover exactly what I think about the bulk of the online family trees.

And once you have found out that you will change your mind about that statement.

But I can't see how incorrect or bad information can be useful as the place where it originates from is usually bad as well

Incorrect information is often only incorrect because it has been applied to the wrong subject.

Applied to the correct subject this same information therefore becomes correct.

The thing is to find the subject to which the information should be applied and that is where clues and answers can be found.

Use the Monumental Inscriptions for Towednack as another different example.

I found that I needed to research the families of a number of Andrew Berrymans over the last couple of days so that I could identify the Andrew who married Mary Vivian Stevens/Curnow.

On the OPC site I found burials for two different Andrew Berrymans.

In one case I already had the death date which had been sourced from the Towednack MIs.

Andrew Berriman died 16th October 1874 age 49

This information is then immediately followed by details of his wife Mary Quick Berriman.

The OPC site shows that this same Andrew Berriman of Chytodden was buried on 2nd January 1874 age 44.

The OPC shows the burial of another Andrew Berriman:-

Andrew Berriman of Georgia age 49 buried 19th October 1870 at Towednack

So the date and age of the first Andrew (of Chytodden) actually belongs to this second Andrew of Georgia.

A clear case of Correct information being applied to the Wrong Subject.

The information itself was correct.

[Deleted]

'It sounded as if you did rely on them', thats the way I read your comments on that post.
I didn't base my comment on what I had read before.

'Incorrect or bad info', not everyone will look at information the same way that you do and they will take things at face value so the 'bad' information will be carried on.

[sue]

Heh heh!

Anyone who relies just on snippets or doesn't read things carefully or who neglects to consider sets of information from various perspectives is building their genealogical house on sand!

CT – and others – have so many times over the years pointed out in this forum that published family tree info cannot be relied on; but trees do have some use, as he says. CT is terrific at using original source information to help others, and then he adds depth to that by applying the “known facts” to people's queries and teases out the red herrings from the good propositions. Hmm, that should probably be the other way round! ;D

But come on! I guess we all feel a bit argumentative sometimes. I think for those of us here in the UK maybe the storms today are getting to us; the weather & its clear message of Winter Ahead is certainly making me an irritable bunny.

On with more and new queries now! I am myself brewing up some queries for posting soon, when I have thought through how I'm going to explain them!

Sue

[Deleted]

I entirely agree with you, Sue.
Everybody needs to read everything carefully but there are a lot of 'genealogical houses built on sand' out there.

All I have done is comment on one post! I wasn't intending to be argumentative as you put it.
It was just a query about using Ancestry online family trees and whether they were being relied on.

The storms in England have nothing to do with this.
I also think CT is perfectly capable of sticking up for himself!

Good luck with your new queries.

Lamorna

[Cornish Terrier]

Okay - facts established

One and All!

[cornishglassons]

Nov 7, 2010 13:57:37 GMT -5 @lamorna said:

Hello Carole

I've had a look on the NBI for a burial for William but I can't

see anything.

Looked around other likely places but there is just no sign

of him.

Sorry

Lamorna

Oh don't be sorry, Lamorna because that's actually helpful to know. I wonder if he emigrated, or perhaps, if rumours of the smuggling are true, was even in prison? I will keep looking!

Thanks so much!
Carole

[cornishglassons]

Nov 7, 2010 14:23:51 GMT -5 Cornish Terrier said:

Hi Carole - not your William Glasson Pool but possibly a nephew I think.

William Glasson Pool age 43, bachelor, agricultural labourer of Trink (son of John Pool) married Mary Christopher age 39, spinster of Carbis Bay (daughter of Christopher) 20th March 1883 at Lelant

CT

Thanks for that, CT. And for all your subsequent information on the other William! It does seem likely that 'my' William went abroad.

Yes, I saw many trees stating he died in 1894 with, as you said, zero evidence. Also several other trees have both William Glasson Pools as the same person - again with no evidence. Sometimes I think you could make up some extraordinary or impossible fact, add it to an online tree and then sit back and watch as news of it spreads.

Best wishes,
Carole

[Deleted]

I've kept looking, Carole since my last post to you

but no luck with finding him.

L

[cornishglassons]

Nov 9, 2010 13:47:50 GMT -5 @lamorna said:

I've kept looking, Carole since my last post to you

but no luck with finding him.

L

Thanks so much, Lamorna. I appreciate it

Carole