Ancestry Public Trees versus Private - a new debate

As anyone who has been following the ‘Ethnicity’ debate in the Forum knows, the discussion led to Public versus Private Ancestry Trees. Some thought it time for a new debate (it has been aired in the Forum before of course) and suggested I should set out my own stall and invite others to comment or set out their own arguments for and against. So, here goes.


I began researching in the late 1990’s saving my data on a delightful FH program called Family Tree Legends (FTL). I used Genes for my research but as the FH bug took hold I looked around and discovered Ancestry, but at the time could ill afford the subscription so concentrated on the ‘freebies’. Eventually I bit the bullet and subscribed. At that time, I never gave any thought to ‘Public’ versus ‘Private’ - it was just an Ancestry Tree which by default was Public.

I began to use Ancestry in earnest (I was too busy working and far enough away in Kent from my Warwickshire ancestry base for ‘hands-on’ parochial research). What I enjoyed most was the ability to explore other Trees (Hints had yet to arrive) and in contacting fellow researchers. In no time at all I had a circle of contacts most of whom shared my own research in one way or another.

Then I came across Trees which were different. They required me to obtain permission to view and remained closed to me unless I did so. Ancestry advised to “ask nicely”, so I sent off ‘pretty pleases’ .. and guess what? Very few replied. Those that did of course joined the “circle” and I was able to pass them on to others with interests closer than my own. I could count on the fingers of one hand those from the Private fraternity, whilst my Public Tree contacts were in the dozens, and my messages backwards and forwards in the hundreds.

Without realising it I had become used to Public Tree ‘laissez- faire’ approach and disliked from the start the ‘ring the bell and take a seat’ regimentation that went hand in hand with contacting someone with a Private Tree. Luckily for me Private Trees -on my research round – were few and far between.

After joining the Forum, I came across the original Public versus Private Tree argument and Peter’s advice -more a three-line-whip - to always keep Ancestry Tree’s private. It had never been a concern for me having had an Ancestry subscription for many years, but here was new advice which (by my own analogy) was … ‘keep your cards to the chest’ and ‘Big brother might be watching’. I gave it much thought but was not convinced, then or since; here are further reasons.

Ancestry excels because of its rasion d’etre (free flowing) approach. Public Trees are open and to a greater extent honest (in so far as the Tree -and therefore its owner - merits that label) but it is not difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff, and the more experienced one gets, the easier it becomes.

One can communicate to tell someone where you think they have gone wrong and I have been both thanked and rebuffed in doing so. In fact, hand on heart, I have received my own ...”I think you have gone wrong” messages and when in agreement, been thankful, and where not have explained why I disagree. This is the Ancestry I know and love (warts and all so to speak).

It would be far less enjoyable if my Tree became private. Leaving aside there are far more Public Tree owners than Private I can certainly attest to the fact that it is the norm to receive a reply from a Public Tree owner -after all they can see your Tree, and you theirs - whilst, sadly, the norm from a Private Tree owner (even though they can view your Tree) is the exact opposite; however ‘pretty please’ the communication.

It is almost as if one is asking those in the ‘Big House’ to answer the door to a neighbour from the nearby council estate. Nowadays, from experienced gained, I seldom bother to make Private Tree contact unless my instinct (with what information is available) tells me it might be ‘pukka’ - but do not hold my breath awaiting a reply. A sad state of affairs and so, so different from Public versus Public contacts.

As for Public versus Private from an Ancestry DNA point of view I think this is, if anything, a 'no brainer' for making ones Tree Public. I can find out what I need to know with a few mouse clicks and if necessary make contact and at least expect a reply as each can check out the other. (I have had one or two no shows, but rare). Whereas communicating with Private Tree owners – like its conventional counterpart – all too often finds no one at home and a complete waste of time.

I think that will do for now even though I have only skimmed the surface, but it makes the case, for having a Public Tree and I leave others to counter or expand on my arguments.

 

I should perhaps have included the most important Ancestry clause for those considering Public Trees: "...this setting allows other users to view all content in your tree—except information about living individuals and private notes...Information about living people is automatically hidden and will NOT be included in searches.”

 

I am very much "undecided" on this matter and currently have trees allotted to private searchable (and offer access to my relevant tree if contacted) and public. The latter includes a "DNA specific" tree, which provides basic data and uses "town" level locations rather than complete addressing as I prefer not to include a street address on public trees, and a "Family links" tree covering only direct ancestors of myself and my wife. I also do not include anyone under 18 on my internet trees. All my tree names include the "family name", location and a "by xxxx", eg "Blackmore of Sampford Arundel by .....", and one or two "private" trees will be in searches/hints that include my public DNA tree.

My private trees are "per family name" for each direct ancestor "family" I have researched further and contain more detail and supporting references.

So, I believe both types of tree have their place, possibly excluding the private "not searchable" subset which seems to be an "I want to see your research but I'm not going to let you see mine" viewpoint.

Regarding responses, I have have at least as many public tree "no responses" as from private trees - including one case where the person corrected their tree without acknowledgement.

Phil

 

Actually, and this may surprise some, I do have a 'Virtual' Tree (still under construction) which I have made Private Non-Searchable. When I explain it is an exercise carried out for a close relative to see if I can identify a 'potential' (repeat potential) birth mother for HER mother who was given up for adoption almost immediately after birth, you will understand why.

Her mother's adoptive line is included in my Public Tree but all that is known about the birth mother is a surname, a location and of course the father is totally unknown. Unless and until the mother - who was given a total new identity by her adoptive parents - takes steps to discover her true birth mother using adoption protocols (if this is possible), the situation will not change. I was asked by her daughter (with the mother's permission) to see if I could isolate perhaps a front runner candidate, and I believe I have found one such, but she is and will remain 'virtual' until the true birth mother is known, or I take the Tree down. Otherwise I agree with you, without such a situation, having a Private -Unsearchable Tree has little or nothing to commend it.

As for the rest of your posting Phil, I accept your reasonings to segregate Trees into Public or Private make a deal of sense regardless or whether or not I would have done the same. 'Circumstances alter cases' as my Virtual Tree shows.

 

Everyone must do their family history how it suits them. I used to have a public tree but changed to private when someone added my relations to their tree who had nothing whatsoever to do with them! The trouble with Ancestry trees is that you can't just open the relevant section and show any contacts just that part of the tree. It is all or nothing! Some beginner family historians can't seem to recognise that not ALL of a contacts relatives will be related to them - just one part of the tree will be related to them not the whole tree. However, I still wanted to help people so switched to private tree. I did this because I think there are too many badly constructed trees and false research out there and didn't want to add to it!

My main research is carried out on my offline family tree program which is Family Historian. I only update my Ancestry Tree occasionally so even if I had a public tree it would not reflect my latest research. If someone contacts me I verify how we are related and then just send them a family group sheet report from my Family Historian program. These reports contain all my research and I have been complimented on them. Someone even asked me where I got the template. I always add if there is any further information they require please do ask. I will also send photos separately if I have any. I make a point of giving them my email address and hope they do the same as the Ancestry Messaging system is so clunky. The lure of family photos usually persuades them to share email addresses with me!

I can see why people like public trees because you can just look and take. However this also encourages people not to contact the owner of the tree. They could have photos that are not on the tree and if you don't communicate with them other than looking at their research and/or copying it, you could miss out on further info/photos. I may have a private tree but my profile clearly states I am willing to help others. I usually find it is me giving info away rather than receiving any (apart from the odd photo or two). No one has complained about my methods. The only complaint they might have is that I have left them nothing further to research!

That's my twopennorth. I will respond to various points on the thread later as am off out now but glad to take part in the debate. Let us keep it polite

 

This debate has been about for many years and I well recall one from 2012 which can still be found on "You Tube" posted by the "Barefoot Genealogist" - Crista Cowan. (Barefoot' borrowed no doubt from the Cookery lady who styles herself "The Barefoot Contessa'. Both of course are American)

Crista owns to having her own views but -as she says, tries to list the pro and cons of the subject as fairly as she can. You can find the link here PublicPrivate. It is about 26 minutes long so be prepared but it covers the subject well.

*You may need to make some allowance for the Ancestry information she shows as being a little outdated, but not overly so in my opinion.

 

Like Phil, I must say I often get no response whether the people have a public or private tree. Also, regardless of whether the tree is public or private you still have to hope and wait for a reply on the Ancestry Messaging system. I'm sure some Ancestry users have changed their email address and have not updated it on Ancestry. I think Peter has had similar problems with his Lost Cousins newsletter. I suppose it is a way of sorting the wheat from the chaff as keen family historians would ensure their contact details are up to date. I urge you to contact people with private trees Bob as you have nothing to lose. If they don't reply what have you lost? 10 minutes of your time maybe?

More frustrating than a private tree is NO TREE on Ancestry DNA matches which seem to be in the majority. One of my closest DNA matches (whom I knew before we both took the test) has no tree on Ancestry but at least he responds to messages.

I also don't find many of the public trees that good. I always link records (census, baptism, marriages etc) to my research on the tree. Whereas some people use links to other people's trees as a point of reference. That seems a rather lazy way of doing things (to me anyway). I also don't like Ancestry hints that focus on the parent but are actually hints about their child (baptism or marriage usually). I save those records to the child and ignore the hint from the parent. Otherwise your tree is full of pointless links. I prefer my tree to have direct links to the person. But as I say I do my tree how it suits me and others must do the same but that is probably why I don't gain much from public trees (they aren't always record specific) or just link to someone else's tree which I find disappointing.

Forgot to add that I don't have to worry about young children on my offline tree. On my reports I just snip the younger generations off from the report

 

Some good points FHG:

My top drawer GRRRR -pure stowaways!. I just hope they enjoyed their ethnicity results.

Yes, typical Ancestry - a little lower down my list but a pesky nuisance without doubt.

Or possibly demised sad to say; so best to check when they last logged in. But bear in mind if a Public Tree owner no longer lives, his Tree will remain for full viewing. But what use is a Private Tree after the demise of its owner?.. this features in the 'You Tube' video clip I mentioned previously.

I accept you pays your money and takes your choice, but for me, possibly because I have a high incidence of contacting Public Tree owners for a second or more time -and have limited Private Tree contact even for a first time - I find Public Tree responses more often than not bear fruit. Private Trees, possibly if the wind is in the right direction?

 

You could look at public trees still being available online after the creator's death as an advantage, equally you could see it as a disadvantage. That tree will never be updated so will never reflect current research. Unless a family member takes the tree over, mistakes will never be corrected and questions will never be answered.

When I shuffle off this mortal coil, I would hope my family would shut down all my online accounts. I've been with Ancestry for at least 14 years so plenty of time to ask me questions and get solidly researched info! I've waited around all these years and hopefully have a good few years left in me but I have an expiry date so newbies take note and move yourselves!

 

I agree with your comment about Public Trees where people can (as you say) 'look and take'. I would just add there is often no need to contact the owner. Why would you need to do this if the only fact you have picked up is perhaps a 'long form' date as opposed to your 'short form' year. (Whether you can trust the information is another matter, and that lies in the experience of the Researcher and how you assess the Tree in other regards). My motto is and always has been, if in doubt check it out! But making contact is strictly 'if you feel there is a need ' not mandatory.

This only applies of course to Public Tree owners viewing other Public Trees where both owners know (or should know) that is the name of the game. Private Tree owners who consider everything they have is theirs and theirs alone -insular, but nevertheless a fair point - require that everyone must ask first. Its all in the mindset of the individual after all.

 

Yes but that really only applies to Descendant updates. Ancestors recorded now will be Ancestors in the future even if generationally moved perhaps. A future researcher will be more than capable of taking that into account.

 

I have to disagree with you about no need to contact the owner of the tree. What if you spot a mistake? If it was a major mistake you might wish to inform them. Admittedly they might not take any notice but if I felt strongly enough I would send a message. I recently contacted someone with a public tree to offer them a photograph and they soon answered my message! I always check info but rarely copy unless the info is more modern which is harder to access without sending for certificates. Contact is not mandatory, but I normally do wish to make contact with closer matches and share my research with them. Most seem glad of the assistance especially beginners or those who have been adopted.

I don't consider my info is mine and mine alone. As explained before I merely have a private tree to prevent beginners copying ALL my relatives from my tree to theirs whether they are related to them or not. If Ancestry could develop a system where I could just open segments of my tree then I would have my tree (semi private). But as I've said before, with Ancestry Trees it is All or Nothing. What use would it be for a stranger to copy my aunt to their tree and then for someone to send a message to the copier about my aunt when they don't even know her and are not even related to her? I on the other hand did know her. So it would be better all round if they contacted me rather than a complete stranger. I know this would only apply to more recent relatives/ancestors as none of us have met ancestors back in the 1500s, 1600s, or 1700s.

Yes, Ancestors will always be Ancestors on public trees where the creator has died but only if they are the correct Ancestors! Your advice is sound to check everything out; but sadly, not everyone with public trees does this and the false info goes around and around eternally; perhaps never to be put right. Perhaps I shouldn't care? But you can't help feeling upset when you see totally incorrect or illogical info about CLOSE relatives on public trees.

 

I will respond to your latest points later FHG as I have to close down soon, but before I do I recall one comment from the Barefoot Genealogist that struck a chord with me and it went under the heading of " Good information counteracts Bad". So if you feel you have 'Good' information (as I do and I am sure most in the Forum feel the same) then surely it is best to have this on view in a Public Tree than locked away in some Private Tree. If this happens there is nothing to counteract bad, leaving just conflicting, information. More later.

 

Tis true that good counteracts bad. However I think if people really care and care is the important word here, they will ensure their information is correct and contact people (even if their tree is private) to ensure their research is correct. I've had a few people contact me and I've contacted folks with public trees when I can see they are stuck at a place where I was stuck. They have been pleased to get past their brickwall. Sadly not all "family historians" do care. It is a hobby they take up on a wet Sunday afternoon and soon grow bored and just grab onto any likely person who could fit the bill.

I also think a lot of researchers don't realise how expensive tracing your tree can be. I have subs to Ancestry and Find My Past and I do buy a lot of certificates to prove my research (thank God for the £6 .pdfs). So a lot of researchers give up when they see how the expense mounts up. I've been researching for 16 years and I must have spent a fortune to get as far as I have. I don't mind because I don't have that many hobbies and I never expected to have a fully fleshed out tree overnight. But not everyone can afford to spend so much. I think that is why you see so many half formed/dodgy looking public trees out there. Yes, in an ideal world I would throw open my tree and let all and sundry see it. But sadly, we don't live in an ideal world. I can't counteract all the bad out there but for the avid researcher with whom I share relatives and ancestors I am easily contactable (if they can expend the energy to do so). If they judge all private tree holders by the same standards they will be disappointed. I've even seen a rare public tree which isn't too bad either, but they are in the minority.

 

Now here you and I must part company (amicably of course) as I have Public Trees (for my own and family benefit of course) but in the sure knowledge that others -and particularly beginners and novices can - can be aware of my own interpretation of my ancestral line - emulating the same procedure I went through way back. I call it the 'piggy back' process and an important learning curve’ which all must pass through and where they colloquially learn to sort “the wheat from the chaff” (Sniffing out ‘Good’ research and rejecting the ‘Bad’).

Even if they go wrong -and again it is almost a given they will at some point – time, experience, more research combined, perhaps, with contacting others, will help get them back on the right path. So what if they go off at a tangent and copy everything carte blanche -if you think Ancestry bad for this join 'My Heritage' (only joking) where the 'More the Merrier' brigade is prolific- just take comfort from coming across Trees (yes Public ones) where you instinctively know they are as well researched; perhaps even better than your own. The learning curve applies to everyone!

 

“I dislike others stealing MY Tree research” is often given as a reason for having a Private Tree. But is it just your Tree? Beyond Great Grandparents, and certainly beyond Great x 2 Grandparents, your research will coincide with hundreds researching the same ancestors, and beyond Great x 3 Great grandparents, it will run into thousands. After that it will grow exponentially into tens of thousands. So, is it now still YOUR Tree?

Perhaps what you consider 'stealing' is merely someone who has covered the same ground - from a different relationship perspective perhaps - either before or after you. But even if some or all of their work amounts to a clone of your own, is it that such big a deal? If you are happy with the quality of your own research, be grateful others think the same and are prepared to take your word for it. If you cannot accept this then - and here you get three colloquial sayings for the price of one - “Carry on Regardless” “Keep your cards to your chest” and “Let the devil take the hindmost”.

 

Hi Bob, Why mention the word "stealing"? I've already told you I pass my research on but I only pass on relatives that are blood related and their spouses to the contact. I even pass on info to those that haven't asked for my info (so how can I be worried about stealing?) I am worried about misappropriation of ancestors/relatives. I am guiding my contacts in the right direction instead of letting them be name collectors. Name collecting is not family history or genealogy. It is: "I want to make my tree bigger then my cousin Bertha's" or "I want to have the biggest tree on Ancestry". I would LIKE my contacts research to be a clone of mine! At least I'd know it was correct! I hope that doesn't sound arrogant but I am a bit of a perfectionist. I'm not saying I've never made a mistake (of course I have) But if I make a mistake I correct the mistake(s) on my online and offline trees asap.