It appears I did not make myself clear.I am looking for verified (from documents) data.All my data is from original documents handed down to me from FAMILY members. I then did computer data bases research and used my genealogy.com research subscription to further verify data of recorded genealogical data and statistical archives.
No person on my tree was ever added without seeing public records such as birth certificates, marriage certificates and the like.
90% of my tree was created from family archives not data bases, I spent the time to document further.
If you do not trust my information, don't contribute.If you do and have documented data I will still run a search on your tree to see if we are on the same lines.I do this to protect the intergity of my tree.
Is your data documented?I have some Bartlett's in the tree.I have original birth certificates and hand written documentation such as wills and family records to back mine up.
I go back to VA in the Bartley line.John Bartley was my GGGGGrandfather.I have records beyond that but they are to sketchy to continue.
When I posted this notice I expected to get some criticism.I will verify any contributions.All trees recieved should have a source that is verifiable in the file for each person.Does yours?Mine does!
If you doubt the validity - don't contribute.I have had others attach their files to an email.They were pleased to find that my tree answered gaps or resolved errors on their tree.
I have had trees sent that had kids born before the parents were married, at age three, born the same day as a parent, after the parent died, age two married, etc.That is why I run error checks. I have seen trees with 7 of the same individual.When I had them merge the data together loose ends were tied.I then ran data base and public records searches to verify and revise the data to read correctly.
If this is not what you want to insure accuracy in research or chose not to assist others in getting reliable data then don't do it.No one is expected to do anything they don't want to do for what ever reasons they may have.
I personally am tired of searching dead end and unverifiable leads.I have neither the money of the inclination to bark up the wrong tree.If yours is not part of my tree and have verifiable data on mutual entries I would not wish to have it.
Here are a few surnames that may jog your memory. Litle, Bartley, Speaks, Randolph, Fletcher, Hays(Hayes), Childers, Doane, Hamilton, Caulkins, King, Pace, Patterson, Moyer, Maitlan, Skyles, Carpenter, Fairis (Farris, Ferris), and Carmony to name a few.
If these are not on your tree then you are not on the same branch as me.Even if they are you may have errors that you don';t know.I have corrected a few errors of my own after recieving documentation from more reliable source others have provided me.Pride does not get in my way of accuracy.
I currently have over 2,000 fully documented and verified entries on my tree. Your information may conflict or not even be relevant. I have encountered trees that do not even approach my branch of the tree as they had no matching individuals even though the data was verifiable.Someday, I will make a connection by contributions that will link the two together.Others have submitted theirs and found that every one of their entries coincided with my data.This gave them a big boost and I continue to correspond with them with updates in both directions.
If you do not want to be a part of this, don't.I am doing the same on every branch of the tree (not just the Bartley's).
I am a trained researcher and take extreme pride in the accuracy of my data.No data is included before it is verified.This often takes time and many emails or letters to resolve questionable data. Those associated with me are glad they joined the program.They cleaned up their trees and contributed data that solidified the tree.Gaps have been filled and family histories are being added daily.
I own family histories, wills, birth certificates, have tombstones, public documents, private diaries, wills and the like to support my data and expect the same from those that contribute.
Amazingly I have had good results on all lines.I have 23 regular contributors and 50-60 more that add information from time to time.
I hope to put this up on the internet on a website for others to use by Christmas, time permitting.
I hope you will take time to think about this data and my reasons for research verification.If you are not interested, so be it.You have not as yet provided any proof of your tree or correlation to my information.
I appreciate that you like the idea of a verified tree to search.. If yours meets my stated criteria and you desire to contribute you are welcome. If not tell me and I will search on other contributions.My research goes back on some lines to the 1500's.
Let me know.Any others reading this reply please be sure you are ready to contribute or do not reply.I do not seek naysayers - only validated and documented verifications that may be reproduced.My data is accurate is yours!