Roger de Chesney, II - Roger & Alice and children'sbirth dates

There are some clueless "researchers" and "genealogists" who use "first date of reference to the person" as "date of birth", when it's usually 20+ years too late. I've run into this from time to time.

This one http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hwbradley/aqwg697... thinks c. 1070 is more likely, and they may be right.

Another possibility, reflecting less on the researchers than on software failure, is that the information came from a bad GEDCOM dump in which the dates went all haywire. This can happen because GEDCOM is no longer standardized and different sites use different fields for the same info.

Sorted them out, and some other relatives, to the best of my current ability, adding some more pertinent documentation.

And then I got this: "Roger de Chesney, II is your 27th great grandfather. "

How come almost every time I wind up fixing somebody's profile, they turn out to be a direct ancestor? Is that weird, or just a factor of only highly prominent lines going back that far? :-D