Millennium file records... ?

[georgian1950]

AncestryDNA must laugh all the way to the bank with its deceptions, leading people to think a tree match is a dna match without doing segment matching. And, especially if you and your dna match have multiple tree matches, how are you going to know which is the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) without proving it.

I talk about a video game known as Ancestry.com.

I do make good use of historical databases, but my instincts have been to pass over things like the Millennium file.

It's probably best not to post a good ancestral pictures. Someone that likes it will find an inappropriate way to put it into their tree.

[Biblioteque]

According to the many blogs I read, Millenium file records are scoffed at, and not considered valid records by serious traditional genealogists. I have 18,000 people in my tree and I have never even looked at, or attached a Millenium file.

And, yes, much of the "stuff" at AncestryDNA is "For Entertainment Value". I draw the line when I see a man who marries his grandmother, or a child who is born before his parents, or a child who is 200 years older than his parents.

And, the trees that have DNA icons plastered all over them because people think that a tree match is a dna match without doing segment matching. That does not even make any common sense.

AncestryDNA must laugh all the way to the bank with its deceptions, leading people to think a tree match is a dna match without doing segment matching. And, especially if you and your dna match have multiple tree matches, how are you going to know which is the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) without proving it.

[hnoor0066]

same question
What do people think about the Millennium file records when researching genealogy???????


_______________
NOOR

[gena]

Thank you

I was beginning to think I was mad!!!! and then realized there is a whole bunch of delusory info in the records I've been looking at for a particular family. Unbelievable...but I am not really surprised...thank you very much those of you who posted to this thread for interrupting my increasingly distraught attempts to match reality/records with the "hearsay" posted through the Millenium File "records"!

A bit more info from googling.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/richard-price/7/503/838
Richard Price, the person who was formerly the research director of the organization,
and is now a private-enterprise family history researcher.
His affiliations include the Mormon church.

http://genealogy.about.com/u/sty/gen...Your-Niche.htm
Another professional genealogist, who says of his time with the organization:
"Started with the Institute of Family Research in S.L.C. in 1975. When checks started bouncing, ..."

http://www.bizapedia.com/ut/INSTITUT...EARCH-INC.html
Company Name: INSTITUTE OF FAMILY RESEARCH, INC.
Status: Expired
Filing Date: 03/17/1971
Entity Type: Corporation - Domestic - Profit
Company Age: 42 Years, 6 Months

It's evidently just a for-profit corporation set up by some Mormons, that seems to have focused on researching a few families (there are a couple of publications, the name Kimball figuring prominently), and that apparently is no longer in operation.

For ancestry.com to present it as some sort of credible source for anything ... well, what does one expect ...

[Kountz]

The only time I've ever even seen parts of it, were when it was used as a source in several trees that were supposedly linked to mine. The connections were spurious. They all had the appearance of outright invention.

[gtc]

I generally think these things (like a lot of family trees at Ancestry) should come with the same warning as psychic readings: "For entertainment purposes only."

Ancestry.com's logo should be a grain of salt.

[djparlette]

It is about as reliable as the IGI files. I certainly have found errors in it!

had never heard of it!

And googling, that blurb is about the only thing I find about it -- and it seems to originate with Ancestry.

The Institute of Family Research itself doesn't appear to have much of a presence. It's based in Salt Lake City. I think this tells us something.

Your description reminds me of the old IGI, and how one had to be careful to check that one was looking at an "extracted record", one transcribed by the "official" Mormon teams who transcribed parish records in England, e.g., and not a "submitted" record, one that had been offered by an individual, in many cases in fulfilment of the Mormon requirement that they document their ancestors back X number of generations. The latter could have been the result of scrupulous on-site research and careful transcribing, or they could have been made up out of whole cloth.

I generally think these things (like a lot of family trees at Ancestry) should come with the same warning as psychic readings: "For entertainment purposes only."

[Neves]

What do people think about the Millennium file records when researching genealogy?

I’m starting to think that they are not very reliable. Through the Millennium files I have now linked 3 lines to King Edward III 1312-1377 and one line to King Robert III of Scotland 1337-1406

When I googled the Millennium file I got this… [The Millennium File is a database created by the Institute of Family Research to track the records of its clients and the results of its professional research. It contains more than 880,000 linked family records, with lineages from throughout the world, including colonial America, the British Isles, Switzerland, and Germany. One of the focuses of the Millennium File is linking to European nobility and royalty]

While some of the records can be backed up with birth records etc… others are not documented at all except these records.
Who really creates these files?
They may be a good “pointer” tool but is it really pointing you in the right direction? are they reliable?

I'm interested in hearing your opinions
thanks