No Replies from Ancestry Contacts

Yes, some people can be very sensitive about it and particularly so, I've found, if it was someone else in the family who did that bit of research. Quite possibly the original researcher would have been perfectly happy to re-examine their research. After all, what matters most is getting the right ancestors in your tree.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that I do not. And it is contradicting DNA matches that are the culprit.

 

Probably, a lot of previous researchers were constrained by what they could access at the time - my grandfather did a lot of research on his own paternal line (we have his notebooks) but as a lot of his ancestors were born in South Australia and his branch of the family had moved to Victoria, he was limited in where he could go and what he could access.

As far as we know he took one trip to South Australia (it's an approximately 9 hour drive to Adelaide from Melbourne) and did a bit of research on the way. His notebook includes the cost of petrol! From that he created a family tree, which has a few errors in it, but by and large is correct. He couldn't of course travel to the UK to research any further back. He unfortunately died in 1995 (in his 70s), so all of his research was done pre-internet!

I don't mind fixing some of his mistakes and I don't think he would have minded either - he shared what he knew and the tree with each of his children, he gave each a copy of the tree and the story that he had put together. If he could have done more, he would have.

 

I have great respect for previous generation researchers who had to do everything the hard way, from getting to records offices round the country to writing up research and trees by neat hand.

One branch of my tree was first done in this way and although there are mistakes I like to credit her with the work she did. On my husbands side a family tree also done the old way has been the basis for many subsequent trees on Ancestry. Again there were understandable errors which I have corrected where I can in my tree but most other trees based on the original are still showing the errors. Just shows people take previous work as 'right' and never bother to recheck it.

When I pass on copies of the tree to members of the family I include a note which says 'Future researchers will be able to correct any mistakes I have made', as I am sure there will be some.

 

...and often refuse to challenge anything they hold sacrosanct, and when this happens closer to home -as in my case- can cause all sorts of rifts and accusations of meddling. My maternal aunt (married to my mother's brother) had asked me to add her line to my Tree and I willingly agreed. She told me about the family Bible (with dates and names written into the flyleaves) which was held by her sister. I was given a copy of the notes and found them invaluable as a starting reference point. Then sadly and inevitably, I had reason to challenge some of the information, not so much dates, but on who fathered who at great/grandparent levels. I spoke first to my Aunt (then well into her 80's who could only recall what was common family knowledge) who suggested I contact her younger (by 2/3 years) sister and talk to her; someone I had only met a few times at major family gatherings.

To cut to the chase, I tried every-which-way to approach the variations for which I had (or strongly believed I had) contrary information and was told in no uncertain terms it was all 'poppycock and nonsense' more or less asking who was I to challenge facts recounted in the notes of their family Bible, held dear and fully believed. So I quickly withdrew and only much later when talking with my Uncle and he to his counterpart brother-in-law, did they agree to allow 'Bobby' (yes sorry about that) to record things that could be proven or supported with fact. I did this and then -within my Tribal Pages - wrote a story to explain why I believed information as recorded in the family Bible may have been deliberately recorded for reasons unknown but probably to save face... and in so doing ended up as apocryphal fact.

So this likely explains why so many refuse to accept contradictory evidence and either make no bones about telling us we are wrong, or more likely, just ignore us completely.

 

I just tried sending messages again - this time to the four names listed in my possible 3rd cousins list that do not already match with one of my other branches. Hopefully, this time at least one of them replies. They all have shared matches with each other, so hopefully, are all connected somehow to my unknown grandfather.

I also cancelled my Ancestry membership, which comes due again in September. If I get no replies from any of these four, I do not see the point to continuing, although I may join again if I get a good price, as others have mentioned.

 

I agree that it is very annoying when people do not reply. Did you check to see how long ago it was that each person you wrote to logged into Ancestry? You can find that out by clicking on their profile. If they have not logged in for sometime they probably have not read your message.

 

Well I can probably expect nothing from three of them, since they last signed in months ago, but one was there 2-6 days ago; maybe he will see his messages.

 

You may get a "response" like I did - the contact read my message and shortly after "The user is not accepting messages" appeared under my message!

 

Oh my, I find that very rude & probably took as long as a short personal response to you.
If people don't wish to be contacted why don't they set their settings to no contact in the first place or make their tree /DNA private & not searchable.

 

Possible, though they have been "signed in" yesterday and today. I'm actually somewhat surprised at the size of their tree. If they checked for supporting documents for each person at an assumed average rate of 10 people per day for 300 days per year it would take about 67 years to do so (= 203188 people).

Unfortunately, I supplied census and parish record references to show that someone they had as marrying twice was actually two different people, though the children shown are three from five (possibly six) of one of them, which would remove a large chunk of their tree (she and her husband are "brick walls" for a DNA match of mine; I'm on the other side) - but, of course, they must be right as there are at least a dozen trees on Ancestry that support their tree (and none that support my research)!

 

That's almost as big a tree (294,248 people) as the DNA match of mine who has our common ancestor married 4 times (all to women called Jane) with 40 children over a 130-year period, born in various parts of the world. I haven't bothered to contact her - as Peter says, probably a waste of time, as it's clearly a name collector who couldn't possibly have checked their tree (though she apparently has "signed in today").

 

Tree size was the one thing I forgot to check - last login/documented support are usually my initial guide for further attention.

 

I utterly resent that comment!!!!!!!!

I have a large tree and I ALWAYS reply to communications, even if only to say I am unable to help, but I usually offer copious amounts of assistance if I am able.
My tree is very large because I have worked tirelessly to extend it so that I can place DNA matches and hopefully knock down brick walls and I bitterly resent you advising people not to contact me simply because I have a large tree.

I have contacted thousands of researchers over the past 30 years by both letter and e-mail and latterly via Ancestry (well over 100 outgoing messages) and I have NEVER, I repeat NEVER downloaded anything from anyone else's tree. For a start I don't know how!! If I come across information on another tree which seems of interest, I check its authenticity myself and contact the tree owner if I require further information. I have carried out research at record offices for other people and I have even ordered bmd certificates for other people at my own expense to try and prove the authenticity of new DNA links.

 

I have always had a rather laid-back philosophical approach to Ancestry Trees, and the motivations of Tree Owners. In my view (and only my view) I suggest only about 60% of them are First League (of obvious substance) and, like their football counterparts, occupy various league placings.

Of the remaining 40% perhaps a quarter (so another 10% of the whole) can be regarded as Second League. The best that can be said for this category is they are not beyond seeking help or accepting advice.

The remainder (30%) are Third League and lower. Within one can expect to find general indifference to credibility; many name collectors (excluding perhaps One-Name Studies who may also qualify for First League) and most certainly those aiming for the Guinness Book of Records on Head Count. One must not overlook beginners and those who have yet to master good research techniques, so struggle at Amateur League level. These can (and should) be helped but for the others - proceed with caution. Be gratified if your message request is answered and/or advice accepted and not too disappointed if they remain unanswered.

Before messaging, one should always check out if Tree Owners have not signed into their account within the last month -or perhaps two to be fair - but take note (as Peter points out) there may be extraneous reasons why this is so. But even recent activity is no guarantee that one is dealing with someone engaged in good research. Only sight of the Tree can provide this and of course one must hope it is not a Private Tree. If it is then you need to go cap in hand to the owner and hope you get a response, which sadly is not always the case.

Then we come to Tress with MEGA numbers and whilst I do not personally regard anything untoward even if approaching 20,000 (although my own is nearer half that), I’m afraid those claiming 100,00 and above (and here I recall my MyHeritage days with many Tree owners claiming ancestry in excess of 150,000 and some topping out at 250,000). I am afraid I treat them all with a great degree of indifference.

CAVEAT: I add an important note that there will always be Trees that defy categorisation. I have come across many to whom this might apply, so I am afraid ‘caveat emptor’ always applies.

Edit: I wrote this before coming across chrissy1's posting castigating Peter for his comments on high Tree numbers. I'm afraid my thoughts closely mirror Peter's but perhaps Chrissy1 is the exception that proves the rule?