Ancestry Public Trees versus Private -an invited Referendum

I have refrained from getting involved in this matter so far, mainly because I do not use Ancestry, I do not trust Ancestry and 90% of data linked through Ancestry I have found to be wrong or so incomplete as to be worthless. It does not help as the Ancestry site does not work reliably for me, often even the subscribe page does not load even, I have given up trying to fix this problem and so have Ancestry technical services. Cousins with trees of any sort on Ancestry know that they need to send me a Gramps XML file of their tree, or at worst a spawn of Satan gedcom file. My own tree is online on my own website where I have total control of who is included.

I did have a tree of several thousand people, back to 1500's before Ancestry came into existence but I did add a small group of people to try their service in the 1990's. I made a small mistake typing the DOB of my father, 4 days different, and corrected the date two days later, the whole tree was deleted a month later but the original date is still displayed in many places, other websites included, with the source given as Ancestry Family Trees. In many cases people with his data in their tree refuse to accept a correction even though they are not related to him and I have the original certificate. Most entries show him as still living, although I have his death certificate from 2000 but that detail was not placed on the Ancestry tree.

For several years I worked full time with Wikitree and later WeRelate, most of my time was in deleting data from Ancestry trees added by people with no idea what genealogy is. Obvious problems like the genealogy of King Arthur, a person who claimed to have proved his descent from Macbeth, the fictitious Shakespeare one not the historical one. In addition there are thousands of trees and copies of trees where impossible events are listed, people giving birth to their own father, marriages with children before people were 10 years old, or even before birth. I did come across one man who had 76 marriages, most concurrent, and something like 30 children, and that turned out to be true. I think there are more faulty trees on Ancestry than there are good ones, the only thing that makes Ancestry trees look good is the even worse familysearch one tree.

In short no tree on Ancestry is often better than the trees that are there, I assume that people on LC are genealogists and will all fall into the category of producing good trees but I still do not see why they would add their tree to Ancestry either public or private. Public might make contact with cousins easier if the cousins also use Ancestry. Private I see no point in, all it seems to do is suggest hints that are mostly incorrect and time wasting

 

Can I just say jorghes that your posting (along with Tim's who I will respond to separately) is just what I was eliciting. The pro's and con's of Public over Private. I truthfully echo many of your comments; singling out:

Yes we are all prone to make mistakes and, as I mentioned before, be prepared to be told you have mistakenly assigned some information which is not quite right, or even mega wrong. It shouldn't happen but it can and it has happened to me and I too took steps to correct.
​

Yes a point I picked up from Pauline's post when she mentioned multiple hints (being the same). It is well worth reviewing each in turn because now and again (agreed not often) one offers a tid bit of information you did not previously have.

Amen to both points.

Me too​

 

I do so love your postings Rhian, they make my day. Who would dare argue with your IT bonafides, but as you have often said in your postings (and long may they continue) you rarely find anything acceptable from Banking through to Microsoft (and all shades between); and you have even had a shot at Ancestry before. The problem is I actually agree with many of the sentiments behind your comments, which is probably of little comfort I suppose. But at least we know you do not favour any Ancestry Tree.

 

Thinking about it Tim, you are probably right. Which might explain why it's algorithm concentrates more on matching names, rather than taking into account places and dates. Even so it is more often right than not and, as commented in another post, you learn to 'ignore' the mis-matches.

I think the remainder of your post is fair appraisal of the three Tree types, although a little scant on Public Trees which is in keeping with your Private Tree preference; but nothing wrong with that, and to be fair you provide a link to Ancestry's own definitions.

Here are some comments on points you raise:

The operative words here are 'depending on your account settings'. So if you choose to be 'Man-in-the-moon' not a problem but if Tom Smith, Poacher of Ilkley Moor bah tat....then a fair cop.

This recently happened when conducting a search for a distant family member and when I mentioned someone had a photo indicated (not shown of course) on a private Tree - and clearly the right person - they asked if it was possible to get a copy as they had no idea what their great aunt looked like. I explained about it being a 'private' Tree but said I would send them a message. Despite trying twice I received no response.

No surprise for me, but disappointing for the family member. How much more open and honest had the same photo been shown on a Public tree - and it is up to the owner if they choose to do so (and hands up I have but a handful myself on Ancestry) - it would, with the simplicity of a mouse click be a moment's work to copy the photo into ones own Tree. One can often see acknowledgments of photos copied and I am sure gives satisfaction to giver and taker alike.

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would choose this option, so best if I do not comment further.

 

Of course not, you are just latching on to one word when the phrase is "open & honest". It is like using the pejorative phrase "the good, the bad & the ugly" and using one word out of context. I used 'open and honest' to convey the fact that the practice of displaying photos in a public tree had no restrictions attached; they are there for all to view and use as necessary. It would be no less honest in a private tree, but access would be by appointment only (if you can locate someone to give permission).

I view this more as bad manners, a bit like receiving a gift and not saying or sending a note of thanks. I only have public Trees and post few photos but those I do post are shown without any pre-condition. If copied by others by selecting the 'copy to my tree' method, the transfer will be recorded for all to see and there is no need for thanks. One could also (or instead) save the image as a jpeg for use in your PC genealogical software. I have done this on occasion, but invariably after being in communication with the owner and have even been known to send them a few jpegs of my own. Also not unknown to give them access to my Tribal pages or guest status on my Ancestry Tree. That is the way I go about things but accept not everyone follows suit, or even wishes to.

 

I would think both of these points result from someone only using Ancestry to build a tree, so (1) possibly using Ancestry to keep "snapshot" backups instead of downloading the GEDCOMs and (2) unlikely to even know FTA exists and they are probably too lazy to remove the "father" link. That sort of birth error would be flagged in any FT program at the time of entry - we probably all have at least one birth to a widow a few years after the husband's death and before re-marriage.

 

Sorry, but having read, and re-read jorghes posting any reference to an unindexed (hidden) Tree escapes me.

 

I find that a strange statement because I am often researching outside of any of my Ancestry Trees. In other words on behalf of others, some kin some not. I am just completing, for instance, research for the daughter of an elderly relative who is non-bloodline through his mother's adoption. He asked me to help and I obliged as I have many times before for others, including friends. This means ancestors found will not always - indeed seldom - be directly related to me. This does not stop me explaining to Tree owners (invariably Public) that I am assisting people who may well be related to them, and in general the response is good, with the odd non response of course.

Of course I need not ask for permission, and in the case of non response, I don't. I doubt they would care anyway and often one spots the Ancestry note against their user name ... 'last online June 2017' or similar.

 

Good points and I think (a) has it by a short head although not sure whether they choose or are unaware of a message. I say this because I believe Ancestry will email to their registered email address which likely the owner has long since changed.

Check when they were last online, usually you see the comment I alluded to above ..last online June 2017 ... and I recall one that showed them online over a year previous. People showing last online 3 days ago seldom fail to respond.

Of course (c) is a distinct possibility also but if it was me I would respond anyway and await being told they cannot reply without a subscription.