Public or Private Ancestry Trees

Nice one Tim and well said but as you might imagine my views remain unchanged. Each to his own as they say and I will now shut up shop. Oh dear does that mean I go private?

 

My tree is private on Ancestry and some time ago I was asked by someone who had some common ancestry, and had found me through a "hint", whether I would give her access to my tree. I agreed and thought little more about it. Today I was browsing around and came across the common ancestor (a Grand Uncle of mine) who has a picture that I added from the other person's tree. I decided to have a browse around of her tree, which she keeps "public". I noticed that she had added information from my tree (accurately) and I don't have an issue with that as no personal details are shown for people who are alive.

The problem is that my brother and I are shown as deceased and this has caused our names and dates to be displayed. I have written to her and asked that the dates of death be removed in order that we revert to being shown as "Private".

 

I have encountered similar myself although I must say not where actual death dates are shown but where the relative is certainly living. Ancestry has an auto default which if not overridden (with a date entry) can show someone as 'living' or 'deceased' . This takes the form of a dotted bullet and can of course be changed. I have been guilty of not picking up the auto default myself and have had to return to edit. Most often it is to revert someone to a living status, but could, as easily, work in reverse. In which case one returns to change the status to 'deceased' with or without a death date.

Of course in Norman's case the other Researcher has clearly and mistakenly (thank goodness) entered a death date so the default may not apply. I mention it to remind that Ancestry can second guess a living/dead status all on its own and people should be aware that this can happen. Be Alert...Britain needs Lerts!

 

I sent her a message yesterday asking that she remove the date of death. I have received a message today, apologising profusely, and telling me she has deleted us from her tree. I have told her that I didn't have a problem with myself and my brother being on her tree but that we should be shown as "Private" to anyone other than those who have been invited to see the tree.

 

My disappointment has come when i dont get an answer to the question of the source of information people have in their ancestral trees! I have recently asked someone, who seems to have traced back a part of my direct ancestor's family to the 1200's, how they came by this information, and if there are any copies available of the documents. So far i have not had a reasonable answer, apart from a quick email apologising for not getting back to me properly but they are busy and will write soon. I would love to copy the information as it all looks plausible.......it's Spanish and Portuguese ancestors....but it could also all be wrong. The email did say they had got it from someone elses tree

I have a private tree on Ancestry.co.uk and admit to being pretty choosy who i allow to access it. I will ask any person making a request to see it if we have a common ancestor and how. Maybe that sounds a bit mean and i do understand Norman being happy to allow someone to take that information but i have been 'bitten' once too often. Finding a picture of my grandfather on someone elses tree who was only very distantly related by marriage was a bit of a cheek i felt and it would have been nice to have been asked. I will quite happily share information but i would prefer it to be with someone connected to the family in some way. I have also learnt the hard way that posting a picture on some forums can mean it ends up on the world wide web where i have no control over who sees it. In one way i suppose that may be a good thing as typing in the name of that person does come up now when it is typed into Google, and the picture, so someone searching could find a connection to me, but i still find it disconcerting.

 

Recently, I have been researching a tree for a relative (started in July last year) as she wanted to be able to tell her father about his paternal line and she wanted to surprise him with it for his 80th birthday in the November. I explained that I may find very little but amazingly, because they were Londoners I found several generations.

Anyway, I posted a query on another forum (LC wasn't running then) about her grandfather and the first regiment he served with prior to WWI. Found his service records which showed he'd been awarded a DCM in WWI.
AMAZINGLY, in February this year a man from Canada contacted him to say he had recently purchased a DCM in a garage sale for a very small amount and that it belonged to the man I had posted a query about!!! I told him that the man's son was still alive and that the medal had been sold in the early days to 'provide for the family'... The man in Canada sent the medal to the son for no remuneration (although the granddaughter and I did purchase a small gift for him and his wife). I find it truly amazing the generousity that this man displayed and restores my faith in human nature. He son was thrilled to receive the medal and sadly, he passed away a couple of weeks ago but it meant such a lot to him

Also, a few months ago, I was contacted by someone in Australia who thought that a particular person was her 2xgt grandfather but felt unsure as I had him as my 3xgtg/f and she felt she had the wrong person but from the outset of her first communication I thought he was one and the same and so it proved to be!!! I lost him after he retired from the army in 1875. It turns out he remarried and emigrated to Australia and had another family - no wonder I hadn't been able to find him!

I don't have my tree on Ancestry - just can't bring myself to put it on there. Don't like the fact that they have full rights to do what they want with it. At the moment all is well but it is the future and what they will do that worries me...

Both of the above examples show that very relevant contacts can be made through other sources...

 

I have a contact on Ancestry who has provided some useful info, but when I told her how impressed I was with her public tree, she said all the photos are "what I have got off Ancestry". Closer examination of her tree (of mutual ancestors ) showed up some poor record entries that 'seemed to fit'. On the whole the tree is good with sources shown, so I sent the correct details of some ancestors in as diplomatic a way as possible...we are still on good terms and I have a peek at her tree occasionally. I continue to keep my trees private, and share any info I come across with her and my 2nd cousin in Canada(whom I discovered through her).

Another tree owner I contacted, hoping for a mutual family connection, admitted all her tree was copied from 'Ancestry Trees'....very disappointing

 

Really lovely stories and very uplifting. For my own part I have to own to owing Ancestry a lot for my most cherished contacts. (My mother's sister who died in her 20's leaving two baby girls who were split up and seemingly lost for ever). The girls grew up and married and later a child of each (cousins) and I (second cousin) had a Public Tree in Ancestry. One contacted me and shortly after the two cousins discovered each other; Bingo! Soon we were all acquainted. The Eureka moment came when I learned the two sisters had made contact after 40 years. I owe Genes Reunited for similar contacts all beginning with a seemingly casual enquiry.

I put a lot of store by seemingly casual enquiries that often lead me to find other Researchers who are perhaps only exploring a small wing of my Tree, or me of theirs. One good example came after someone contacted me after latching on to just one person in my Ancestry Tree who happened to coincide with his own. He was researching his Australian ancestors who were part of two major pioneering families who left the UK for Oz in the mid 1800's. It so happened my nephew in Australia had married into the self same family and I had extended the line as best I was able. From this small acorn (quite an apposite comment) began mega communications with many researchers ( so huge was the family line) and I ended up with a huge amount of information, far more than I could ever justify using. However I passed it all on to my original contact who could, and did indeed put it to good use. My real reward came in finding a lady in Australia who happened to be the Aunt of my nephew's wife and I was able to put each in touch as they had not had contact for many years.

The moral of the story I believe is that its an 'ill wind that blows nobody any good'. The more foundations you lay, the better the chance of making contact with someone who relates. The raison d'etre behind Lost Cousins in fact -and a good one it is. But one should not overlook the joy of making contacts via Ancestry, Genes and Forums in general. They too can be quite priceless.

 

Tim’s comments remind me of the game “Chinese Whispers”, where the much quoted mix up occurs between ‘Send reinforcements we’re going to advance’ ending up as ‘send three and fourpence, we’re going to a dance’. Ancestry can at times be much the same.

We have to remember each Tree owner has different motivations and to illustrate this I will quote three examples; myself and two second cousins. Each with his/her own Tree in Ancestry and different ways of going about populating their Trees. They share my maternal line and I will call the cousins Jane & John,

Jane is a meticulous researcher and wears out foot leather to visit churches and local archives as well as subscribing to Ancestry & FMP. She has a fantastic knowledge of internet genealogical resources and was the one who passed on a newspaper clipping about a shared relative who died in a disaster in 1856.

Unless she can support information with fact, it does not appear. She would not accept my word for anything however good the family information imparted. For instance I have intimate childhood knowledge of my grandparents who were her great-grandparents. But this is not enough; she did not know them and so seeks proof. We get on fine and it is encouraging every now and again to find she has cribbed information which I long ago passed on, but which only now is accepted. She is a supporter of Public Trees and doesn’t mind in the least who copies what from her Tree. I know this because she has often told me so.

Then there is John – her cousin –although they have only dim memories of meeting way back and live in totally different parts of the Country. His mother (also my mother’s cousin) I knew as a child (unlike Jane’s mother who I never met). Probably because of her acceptance of my bona fide, he accepts everything I pass on to him as read. He also admits to cribbing (with permission of course) from both our Trees, and from others with or without. When I pointed out that he need not copy my paternal side as it did not relate he told me well it sort of connects doesn’t it? When I mentioned this to Jane she just said ‘I give up’ and said she had lost count of the times she had warned him about adding data without first checking her Tree or mine, or asking us to comment.

My own approach more closely follows Jane’s, although I am quite prepared to take on board new data providing it gels. If it relates to our maternal connection I ask Jane to check it out (it would not work asking John unless it was strictly modern day family). Unlike Jane I do relish family information, even if as often happens it turns out to be misinformation, but it’s fun checking it out. Being that much older and researching longer I can and do often ‘sus’ out the baddies or ‘fly-by-nights’ as I call them. I weigh up facts and try to verify elsewhere often with other researchers from my contact list or via a particular Forum. Of course I have stumbled along the way but am not too proud to change things when I know I have taken a wrong turn. I also leave an Ancestry Comment to say why things have changed.

So in conclusion all I want to say is that experience counts for a lot and if I pass on advice that is not taken up, well so be it. It is their loss not mine. Just concentrate on getting your own information correct, or as near as it can be, and let the Devil take the hindmost!

 

What emjay says illustrates the variation between different researchers and shows how contacts can be symbiotic (someone passes on your name and so on). If nothing else Ancestry encourages people to make a start on their own Trees and copying information from a Public domain is an obvious place to begin. Knowing what to take on board and what to reject will only come through experience.

My Ancestry Tree is deliberately 'Public' and so data and any photos I include are welcome to be copied. Although I can do the same, experience has taught it is best to make contact first as indeed one must if seeking information from a Private Tree. If the contact becomes 'positive' it often leads to being accorded 'Guest' status which I invariably reciprocate. Once you have Guest status Ancestry notify updates made to the Guest Tree, and vice versa of course. This often opens up new communication opportunities.

I have my own 'Private' Tree in Tribalpages which is now 5 years old and is full of stories, photos and of course family data covering every branch and limb of the Tree. Although the web page can be accessed publically, living persons and all stories and photos can only be viewed with an access code. I pass on the URL address and access code to family who can view as they wish. I also accord the privilege to 'family' dedicated researchers (many with their own Tribal pages which are opened to me). I have upwards of 700 photos in Tribal pages and the family pass new photos on to me as keeper (literally) of the Family Tree.

So each to his own!

 

and to which I add keep an open mind. I recently visited Mundia , the public tree site/forum part of Ancestry and found someone I've spent two years trying to contact. Mostly these sites are full of nonsense but you never know. I am not a fan of 30,000 plus trees but today I happened to look at one that I "share" but haven't visited in ages and had a good laugh. I started to search the name list when I typed "Co" by mistake and up came "Concubine" and a link to Charlemagne (742-818). I am feeling a bit sorry for myself as a sore throat is threatening to develop into something I could do without and this is just the tonic I needed.

 

I've been trying to research my Jewish ancestors that lived in London and have been amazed at an error that seems pretty clear to me....I think...and yet not to the large amount of people who have added information to their tree.

I have been told my Jewish ancestors originally came from Portugal but as the Bevis Marks Synagogue does not hold records far enough back for me to trace an ancestor I suspect was born around 1690, I have not been able to verify his parents. Imagine my excitement when I found a number of trees all showing the same information about this ancestor, Jose Nunes Martinez, on Ancestry.co.uk. They all had my very ancestor, and his spouse, and their marriage details from the Synagogue......but interestingly none of Jose's siblings were born in London, neither did any of them ever leave Puerto Rico where they were born , and neither did any of their own descendants. It just seemed strange to me that out of a possible four siblings none of them were born in London except Jose? I suppose his parents could have randomly visited London, had him there, gone back to Puerto Rico (which is not where I thought my ancestors came from any way) and then when he was older Jose returned alone to London and married and stayed there, as did all his descendants?? Anyway having asked a few of the tree owners where they got their information from...and indeed some of the trees seem to go back to the 12th century...it appears every one of them had taken their details from an ancestry tree. I can't seem to find the 'first' tree owner but I must admit the last person I emailed also said he thought maybe the parents and consequent ancestors of Jose were incorrect yet he still had them in his tree. I think the information is wrong. To be honest I think there may be a Jose Nunes martinez with the parents everyone has cited in their trees but I don't believe it is my Jose who was born in London. As a result I won't add the details unless I can show a different source of proof of birth.....

What this shows is that many people simply copy public tree information and that is why mine is private. I need to be able to compare ancestors and check information, both that I am giving out....as I could well have made a mistake myself....and receiving. It's one of the ways I can make sure my ancestral line is as correct as I can make it for me and any other 'cousins'...

 

Carla, I think we've all been there! in the early days of my family tree building I found several references to my 3G GF Thomas Hemsley born St John Lee, Northumberland, 1745. It turns out there is absolutely no record of a TH with this date or any near it, and the 'fact' seems to have been cheerfully copied hither and yon. My 2G GF's baptism record in 1790s said his father was Thomas (a name not uncommon in the Acomb area) and an earlier Thomas has a break from bringing children to be christened of a few years around the 1740s (and no baptismal record of a son called Thomas). So,it seems quite feasible that there WAS a Thomas in this family at about this date, but it is all very insubstantial. I have actually pencilled him into my tree (with a slightly different birth date) but on the basis of a family tradition which only makes sense if he was part of the larger family.

Britjan referred me to Mundia just yesterday and I found some useful info but mixed up with a load of rubbish. One item suggested my GGF's half brother died later than I thought, so I checked the 1911 census and found him with his daughter and several grandchildren I had known nothing about, which was very satisfying. However, I found someone had put my great uncle in their tree but with completely the wrong ancestry. On a different post I have commented on the number of Campbells in South Shields at the turn of the 19/20 century- here I think someone has 'abducted' my great uncle on the basis of his baptismal record which shows his parents' christian names, and which presumably match his family.

While I'm maundering on this sort of topic, I could mention a discussion on one of the forums where someone proposed that one of my ancestors (surname Cubitt) was a hitherto unknown illegitimate son etc etc, on the basis that said ancestor's wife had erected a monument to an older woman whose mother-in-law had the maiden name Cubitt. Actually, the ancestor's wife was honouring her mother's sister, and the Cubitt connection was totally irrelevant.

Oh and apparently I could trace myself back to Robert the Bruce, or was it Macbeth? I've been directed to the family tree [by someone who was similarly sceptical] but can't be bothered to look!

 

Well let's not be unrealistic, Alexander...
Robert the Bruce and/or Macbeth is enough for me.

 

Some years ago rather than take a course in understanding and combating racism in the workplace I ended up taking a diploma in cross-cultural communication and I have always enjoyed going further down the paths it opened up for me. There was another person I got to know reasonably well during class and assignments who was also an only child and we found an amazing area of communication based on that experience while in other ways we were polar opposites. I would describe what we have on this forum and what has been created at Lost Cousins as a "culture" I can communicate with because we have some common ground. I certainly don't understand the "culture" of public trees when they go back endlessly for no apparent reason.

Well before I started to seriously look for my roots I went to Ireland with my mother who knew she had family connections there dating back to about the mid 1800's. It was only a couple of surnames and a vague idea of the area they came from but when we walked the hills of Tara I knew that in some sense we had come home. I have always had a very deep emotional reaction to "pure" flamenco dancing ( not the tourist version) mainly that done by an unaccompanied male. Does that mean one of my ancestors was among the Spanish sailors washed up on the shores of Western Ireland at the time of the Armada? I don't of course have any idea but I prefer to trace the factual history of flamenco and the Roma people rather than speculate. Now if a public tree owner indicated an interest in and wanted to "chat" about those topics I'd be much more interested and perhaps be tempted to cross a cultural divide. Sadly I don't think public trees offer that option???