Ancestry Public Trees versus Private - a new debate

I always explore Ancestry's hints. Some are complete dross but some are right on the money. It is a shame there are so many duplicates. I will always favour those hints that contain the actual record rather than a transcription. The key is not to let the hints build up too much. As stated before I dislike when they start giving you hints for the children when you haven't completely fleshed out the parents. I tend to leave the hints leading to the kids until the end of my hint investigation session.

I also have to check Find My Past hints because my Family Historian programme comes up with online hints too. Between the two databases I can normally come up with a fairly complete picture of the person I am researching.

By the way, never meant to insinuate anyone on here was a name collector. I'm sure none of you are. I was just pointing out that some people who are eager to see your private tree rather than opening up a dialogue could be suspected of being potential name collectors.

 

Yes that was and is what I believe this debate is all about and agreed with much what you said, until you spoiled it by saying you would -if you had your way - impose what amounts to security shackles on Ancestry Public Trees - to match FTDNA - and then promoting the fear of 'Reds under the bed' to use a phrase of the 50's.

Signing a visitors book for goodness sake and restricting access to genetic cousins would render Ancestry impotent, and certainly of little or limited use to man or beast. I agree there are fraudsters around almost every corner, but one cannot spend ones life living in dread of what could happen. That is why we look both ways when crossing the road and trust in "Caveat Emptor" (Buyer beware) principles. I agree one should pay heed to ones own security, and 'take care' (not just an empty phrase) in everything we do. That should be sufficient for most people otherwise we are literally 'Nannying' everyone!

 

They must be masters of disguise. I think that I have found only a couple (4th cousins) from within over 2,500 blood relative references.

 

It does sometimes feel that there are lots of private trees behind the DNA matches. When I looked at my matches only 11% had private trees; 64% had public trees and 25% no tree at all. It struck me as odd that over a third of those matches who had a public tree hadn't linked it to their test, so they don't show up in searches. I know that some of those will have a tree that doesn't really support their test but I can see that some of the trees are informative. I just wondered about the logic.

So in order of usefulness:
32% Linked public trees with more than 10 entries
5% Linked private trees with more than 10 entries
And a large part of the 23% Unlinked private trees

 

I too have subscribed to Ancestry for many years, and my main Tree and some ancillary ones, have been Public Trees from the start. As I couldn't remember the exact year I joined I checked it out and see I first joined June 2002 - and that does not cover the odd short term uses I made of Ancestry prior to biting the bullet (and affording) to subscribe -so more than enough experience to be aware of its merits and demerits.

As I see it subscribers fall into two brackets, those whose glasses are 'Half empty'or 'Half full'. (There may be sub-sets within each category but that will suffice for now). The half empty brigade will always find fault with what others are doing and bemoan how Ancestry lets them get away with it. The half full brigade -not unaware there are others who are merely 'sightseeing' and not true researchers - will accept the status quo and get on with things. It would be interesting to add 'sub-sets' for each which might get to the bottom of why some prefer Private Trees and others Public and would not be surprised to find both brigades claiming credit for their choice!

As for how much Ancestry is to blame for (as you put it) allowing its "functionality" to spread errors I am undecided. Certainly Ancestry has responsibility for curbing excesses (however defined), but to what extent further action is needed would have to be judged by what impositions this would impose on my research. On that my jury is out!

 

I don't know which category I fall into then! I am aware of Ancestry's strengths and shortcomings. I still get on with things however. I've just been looking at hints for some newly added people to my tree.

I suppose no system is perfect. One of my relations told me that he hadn't been too sure how Ancestry worked and as a result he'd made a lot of errors which he later had to correct. I think he must have blindly added hints without checking. I sent him some reports with images as proof and he realised how badly he'd got it wrong. So yes, Ancestry can lead you astray. More experienced and longer serving subscribers just get on with things mindful of Ancestry's shortcomings. The word hints is a clue. They are not facts they are hints to possible facts.

 

I find the hints rather humorous. They like to tell me about a census listing that I knew about 10 years ago or think my great grandfather who never left Liverpool might still be alive in USA 10 years after his death.

 

Exactly that.

"Get on with things mindful of Ancestry's shortcomings"

 

That is clearly true. It is nevertheless possible to publish a tree online responsibly by restricting the information it contains to what is already in the public domain.

 

Oh dear, how I HATE that expression! I consider a container half full if being filled and half empty if being emptied. However, I can see the underlying sentiment that you are trying to express and agree to a large extent. I would also add that someone with a glass half full is hoping for future enjoyment whereas someone with a glass half empty is already living the dream.

In my own case, my science and computer development training always promoted a sense of searching for potential errors with a view to elimination or at least minimization. Until errors are identified, corrections cannot be identified and applied. During my career, I was often accused of being too negative when really I was just trying to make improvements and protect the interests of those higher than me. There are always hidden reasons why things are done a particular way and we need to discover those before blaming others for their actions, or lack of.

 

I try to see Ancestry as a learning curve... unfortunately, there are always some people who either won't learn from the experience (those with a tree full of errors) or who simply don't want to use the tool in front of them (the ones who don't have trees at all).
Those hints are self-perpetuating annoyance sometimes - I revisit a part of my tree and Ancestry takes that as a challenge and collates a mass of hints to go with it... even though I finally got that person's hints cleared. That and occasionally they can give you hints for things you've already added or ignored - I swear I've ignored the same hints about 30 times on the same person.

I am loving this debate by the way, it's a lot of fun to read!

 

Maybe a thread about Ancestry generally. I would prefer “Things I like about Ancestry” to “Things I dislike about Ancestry”. Could have both and see which is the most used.

 

OK. What about people’s hints (rather than Ancestry’s) about how to get the best out of the site.

 

Well said, that's exactly how I treat them and as always some make me laugh, some make me cry...then bingo one that makes sit up and take notice.

 

Moving back to the issue of public versus private trees, and having thought further, I am not really sure where you are coming from with this.

In #71 above I mentioned restricting any information we publish online to that which is already in the public domain. Essentially that means anything from our research into publicly available records. I haven't inherited any family papers nor have I had access to privileged information, so anyone so inclined could do the same research that I have done and draw up my family tree.

Or to put it another way, I don't own any of the information from which my tree is constructed. My input is the time and money spent doing the research, any expertise I have acquired along the way, and the conclusions I have drawn from the available records.

So my feeling is that it is up to me (and only me) to decide whether or not I want to make my research publicly available. Since I always omit living people from anything I make public, I don't feel I need to seek anyone else's permission.

 

A fair appraisal Peter except I received no such advice about using my own name AT THE TIME I JOINED (2006 I believe). The only advice you gave then was not to use my own photo, which advice I took and switched to the one I have used ever since. I recall much later reading generic advice for newcomers to create a 'User Name' and if I recall correctly you made an allusive reference to one person -which had to be me - continuing to display his own name. I chose to stay as I was, likely paying lip service to my mother's advice to 'tell the truth and shame the devil' It is true I prefer to use my own name wherever possible although sometime I create a user name from my surname and initials. I do have a stock selection of non specific user names which I keep in reserve for times when I believe anonymity to be essential.

But for the rest of your post, as I said at the start of this reply, a fair appraisal and yes I do understand why others feel differently and every right to do so, just as I do.