Ancestry Public Trees versus Private -an invited Referendum

[PhilGee]

As Ancestry have mentioned, there is only one significant difference between Public and Private trees. Data in both trees are equally viewable.
The one real difference is that you can't view a private tree. You can see the people and their data and you know it comes from a private tree.

IIRC the viewable data just echoes (some of) your matching search data and hides the rest. I'm not sure it is reliable, anyway, as a quick check using name, year and place of birth produced three private tree entries (one being my private tree), without confirming the place of birth and then adding the year of death resulted in nothing

 

[peter]

I HAVE taken the private route where alternatives were not available, but few were worthwhile, and many were frustrating. In all the time I have been researching I can truthfully say only once was the private route a success. (Even that was not on a par with finding two cousins -and whole new families - via the public route).

Bob, of course it's easier for you when the other person's tree is public - how could it not be?

You have to remember that there are actually 4 options for Ancestry members:

• public tree
• searchable private tree
• unsearchable private tree
• no tree at all

(It's also possible to have multiple trees with different settings.)

There will always be a significant proportion of researchers who are not prepared to give away information about themselves (and their family) to absolutely anyone with an Ancestry subscription. No doubt some would be prepared to allow access to a limited subset of subscribers, eg DNA matches, but that isn't an option Ancestry currently provide.

Whether an Ancestry member responds to a message clearly isn't determined by whether their tree is public or private. Inevitably you find it frustrating when a cousin with a private tree doesn't respond, but the other side of the coin is that there are many people with public trees who do not respond when errors are pointed out to them. For someone whose close family members, sometimes people they knew as a child, are misrepresented that is not only frustrating but can be very hurtful.

The argument, therefore, is not about whether public trees or private trees are best, because that is a personal decision. Unless Ancestry change the system my tree will remain private no matter what you say, just as yours will remain public no matter what I say. We are both making informed choices.

But there are many who do not make informed choices, hence my occasional newsletter articles on the topic. Even those of us who believe we have made informed decisions might not be aware of all the ins and outs - as this discussion has proved.

And there will always be some who, whilst prepared to exchange information with cousins, don't feel it's right for their cousins to take information without either asking or reciprocating. If your cousins have chosen to have a searchable private tree you should be grateful - they could have had an unsearchable tree, or no tree at all.

Now that DNA testing has come to the fore there are more choices to be made.

When you test with Ancestry you have the option of being matched with others who share the same DNA segments, and if you choose to enter into the matching process (as all family historians presumably will) there's then the decision about which tree (if any) to attach to your results. For those who already have a public tree it's usually fairly easy to decide, but the rest of us it's much more difficult.

Some might choose to attach a public ancestors-only tree to their results, but have a more detailed private tree; I believe it would be better to do it the other way round (ie attach the detailed private tree to the DNA results), but a lot depends on the search strategies that your cousins employ.

 

[peter]

IIRC the viewable data just echoes (some of) your matching search data and hides the rest. I'm not sure it is reliable, anyway, as a quick check using name, year and place of birth produced three private tree entries (one being my private tree), without confirming the place of birth and then adding the year of death resulted in nothing

Unfortunately Ancestry have recently reduced the information shown in search results from private trees - it does somewhat reduce the functionality for those doing conventional research, but it doesn't make any difference to those using DNA.

 

[Pauline]

Perhaps it is the username option that causes the problem although I cannot see why, other than an out of date email lodged with Ancestry?

I think perhaps the issue was that I missed a couple of capital letters in the middle of the username. When the person first appeared in my DNA match list the username was showing, but then they switched to using their own name as the display name. So I was relying on memory, and although I did first check I had the right username by doing a member search, it seems that search isn't case sensitive whereas the tree invite function is. It was only when I later got an email alert that the person had replied to my message that I got to see the username again, so I copied and pasted it (with all its capital letters) into the invite, and this time it worked.

 

[Tim]

(a) is on a par with redactions in the 1939 Register*

It's hardly comparable is it? If data from a private tree is displayed, you can read it, you have a link to contact the owner if you choose to. 1939 on the other hand is pretty much final. The people redacted are assumed to be living until proven otherwise or the correct length of time has elapsed. Yes they might be equally frustrating to you.

I need to be able to make decisions on the spot or within the same research framework, then accept or move on. Not 'chew the fat' to decide whether it worth my while to message a private tree owner and wait -perhaps indefinitely - for permission to view even with the odd, perhaps slim chance, I may strike gold.

Wow, is this impatience creeping in Bob? I would have thought that everyone here on the Forum is pretty serious about being perfectionists when it comes to their trees. And that does mean having to wait for paper copies to arrive or responses from people and organisations.

Let me pose this to you. What if all Trees on Ancestry were Private? Would anything have changed? The people you reached out to would still have replied? The ones who didn't reply would still not have replied? So Public and Private are not the real issue here, it's people.

So please correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember other posts in different discussions where you've said that you hold your main detailed tree on Tribal Pages where you invite family to view, and your tree on Ancestry is a cut down version. So basically you have a Private Tree like the rest of us but just on a different site.

 

[Bob Spiers]

The argument, therefore, is not about whether public trees or private trees are best, because that is a personal decision. Unless Ancestry change the system my tree will remain private no matter what you say, just as yours will remain public no matter what I say. We are both making informed choices.

I have long believed that to be the case, but I thank you for saying so and for the rest of your posting which makes a lot of sense. I suppose it is no different from making other choices in life from political persuasions to supporting this or that football team (or in my case none at all).

My mother, referring to me - and mainly addressed to my father after my refusal to eat something put in front of me at the dinner table, which he would remind had been bought and paid for with hard earned money (my father's regular mantra) - would say..."leave him be, he's like the horse you can lead him to water but you can't make him drink". She was not always successful mind, but I learned that it was best to pay lip service to my father's orders by eating (for instance) semolina pudding, grain-by grain which would have kept me there until midnight. In the end (with mother's connivance) he would finally give in and I would be told to leave the table and go out to play!

But what goes round come round, and so now it is my turn to sit in bewilderment when at family get-togethers, I hear why others cannot eat this and that because they have become vegetarians, or -heaven preserve- vegans. I dread to think what Dad would have made of it all

 

[Bob Spiers]

Wow, is this impatience creeping in Bob?

I'll answer this part of your posting first as I have to go offline soon to prepare our evening meal. But just say I found your posting informative and interesting, and will get round to the other points you made tomorrow.

So am I impatient? YES INDEED - and it is a good job my wife is not answering for me. Patience is not one of my virtues - except strangely enough with computers and some aspects of research; more of that in a moment. I am not alone in this hence: "Patience is a virtue/possess it if you can/seldom in a woman/never in a man". I avoid all queues (my wife insists I sit in the car), dislike adverts or trailers interrupting viewing (so even watching BBC is no solution) and as for traffic jams, don't go there. Yet, even my wife will admit if I have a problem with one of my computers I will sit for ages, taking them apart if necessary until normal service is restored. I am also diligent when researching and refuse to give in until all avenues are tried and tested. But woe betide when FMP refuses to accept anything except minimum data or Ancestry dishes up nonsensical garbage; then life is not so good. But awaiting a certificate causes me little trouble. I just want things to flow and are not impeded by someone damming the stream.

 

[peter]

I have long believed that to be the case, but I thank you for saying so and for the rest of your posting which makes a lot of sense. I suppose it is no different from making other choices in life from political persuasions to supporting this or that football team (or in my case none at all).

Interestingly people can change their political persuasions but they rarely change their choice of football team, even though the former - being dependent on beliefs - ought to be more deeply rooted. The difference, I suspect is that we choose the political party that we believe is best (whether for us, or for the country, depends on how selfish we are), whereas few of us can have any illusions that the football team we support is the best.

I do not believe that a non-private family tree is always a mistake, and I do have a pedigree at FTDNA which any of my supposed cousins can view (FTDNA don't provide the option of a private tree); GEDmatch I'm less happy about, as any registered user can potentially view any GEDCOM.

I just want things to flow and are not impeded by someone damming the stream.

So do I. But when I come across a private tree I don't blame my cousin, as you possibly do, I blame the system that has discouraged her (and me) from posting our trees more openly. And there's always another part of my tree I can turn to in the meantime - after all, the further we research the more 'brick walls' we have.

 

[Bob Spiers]

So please correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember other posts in different discussions where you've said that you hold your main detailed tree on Tribal Pages where you invite family to view, and your tree on Ancestry is a cut down version. So basically you have a Private Tree like the rest of us but just on a different site.

Point one:

your tree on Ancestry is a cut down version

Yes and No: Yes because Ancestry is NOT my chosen place to store images, other than immediate ancestors. (They are all stored in TP and now total several hundred). No because Ancestry is the sole repository* for all Data found online. ( TP may give account of such but does not contain searchable Data itself).

*other than FTM of course when synced

Point two:

So basically you have a Private Tree like the rest of us but just on a different site.

Yes but they serve different purposes. Ancestry is my chosen OPEN medium for my Public Tree and has all supporting data attached to it and a few photos of immediate ancestry. Others can view its content (living persons excepted) and make contact if they so wish. As important, or possibly more, I can view other Public Trees again with living persons excepted. The other major difference is of course that searches can be carried out in Ancestry, but not in Tribal pages.

TP on the other hand is a Private site which family know about and can get access using a passcode (changed at intervals I might add and family re-notified). It is deliberately FAMILY ORIENTATED with PHOTOS (often several with many provided by family) and NOTES shown on all ancestor pages. Plus a plethora of STORIES written by me (over many years) and shown separately. All are exclusive to TP. However, unlike Ancestry, TP contains NO supporting Data other than references to same within page notes. Those who wish to view the Data are directed to the family Ancestry page.

PLUS: all that I have said above applies to other subsidiary Ancestry Trees for specific family members (including my wife's Tree) and some, not all, have a separate supporting Tribal Page Tree of their own, written and maintained by me, and accessed with different access codes.

I sometimes wonder what I did before I took up family history research...oh yes, it was called work.

 

[Bob Spiers]

but the other side of the coin is that there are many people with public trees who do not respond when errors are pointed out to them

I know how difficult it is to tell someone they have taken a wrong path. Especially after my experiences with My Heritage (MH) where I received everything from being blasted out of the water (sorry can't relate as before the watershed) to being treated almost like a simpleton with a 'says who?' response. In the end I just gave up and carried on regardless! But leaving MH aside (the best option) the most frequent responses from Ancestry are either none at all or 'you go your way and I'll go mine'. A begrudging 'I'll think about it' is a small step in the right direction.

Yet I recall being told by someone researching my maternal line (with whom I was in meaningful contact anyway and we had swapped information at around Gtx2 levels) that he believed I had taken a wrong turn with one of the Gt x 3, leading on to wrong Gt x4 of course. I also recall thinking 'what a Charlie' (apologises to all named Charles), and indeed 'says who', and my immediate response was along the line of 'I'll look into it' ... and that was only because I had got on well with the person prior to this bombshell. I might otherwise have ignored him.

To cut to the chase, he was right and I was wrong as simple as that. The error was by no means obvious and I could have made a case for having the right information, BUT the evidence for his take on the line became overwhelming and late proved incontrovertible. I thanked him profusely and recall he told me he had checked his own facts over and over before making contact. Even so he had expected to be rejected.

The main point from my experience is that we were in contact anyway and had established bona fide rapport. That certainly sugared the pill for me, even if only by a small margin. Who likes being told they are wrong anyway? I am no counsellor on human behaviour (that would bring a smile to a few faces) but with the hindsight of my own experience, I would advise first contacts should not be to wade in with both feet. Find a way to sugar the pill, perhaps by asking why he/she chose a certain route and even ask what they thought of your different route (explain briefly of course with a few facts to support). Somewhere along those lines lies the right approach. Worth thinking about anyway.

Otherwise leave things be or expect to be told to go away; although perhaps not quite so politely.

 

[peter]

The main point from my experience is that we were in contact anyway and had established bona fide rapport. That certainly sugared the pill for me, even if only by a small margin. Who likes being told they are wrong anyway? I am no counsellor on human behaviour (that would bring a smile to a few faces) but with the hindsight of my own experience, I would advise first contacts should not be to wade in with both feet. Find a way to sugar the pill, perhaps by asking why he/she chose a certain route and even ask what they thought of your different route (explain briefly of course with a few facts to support). Somewhere along those lines lies the right approach. Worth thinking about anyway.

Quite right. I usually begin by saying "I can see why you went down that route" and following up with "starting from where I was it was easier to get right". Which is often the case - frequently the genuine errors (as opposed to sloppy mistakes) are because an ancestor was baptised late (or not at all, or under a different name).

But when I initially come across a discrepancy, my first thought is that I could have got it wrong. I go back and double-check my research in case there's any possibility of an error, particularly in the parts of my tree that I've barely looked at for 15 years. It's only when I've satisfied myself that all the evidence supports my version that I prepare to contact the other person (which may involve further research - so that I can present a case that is as robust and compelling from their point of view as it is from mine).

 

[Bob Spiers]

But when I initially come across a discrepancy, my first thought is that I could have got it wrong. I go back and double-check my research in case there's any possibility of an error, particularly in the parts of my tree that I've barely looked at for 15 years.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more and that's really what the other researcher I referred to later told me he had done. I have more than once undertaken further research after finding even a minor inconsistency between my Tree and another, and discovered I was the one out of step. No messages exchanged and a silent nod of appreciation to the other person.

Even if I stand by my research (on relatively minor issues) I tend to place a comment on my ancestors page explaining why my facts may differ from others and explain simply why this is so. Either way, making a small adjustment to your own, or leaving a comment when you believe you are right are both good for the soul.

 

[Pauline]

Just looking back at the newsletter item which prompted Bob to start this thread, and one thing I don't think has yet been much commented on, is whether private Ancestry trees are perceived as being less likely to contain rubbish than public trees.

Before doing a DNA test I probably hadn't looked at that many private trees and had certainly found a fair bit of rubbish in public ones. Now, looking at the trees of my DNA cousins, one of the worst trees I've come across is a private one, and when contacting that cousin, there was no way I could have approached the glaring errors leading to our supposed shared ancestor hint with the comment "I can see why you went down that route".

My guess is that, overall, public trees are no worse in this respect than private one, we just get to see the errors more.

 

[Tim]

It's a good point Pauline, Private or Public does not relate to quality.

As I've already mentioned, I'm happy to share data and my tree, I just want to make contact with these people first. And that is the only reason I have a private tree.

 

[emjay]

I make contact first, usually stating my relationship to the ancestor/s in question. Even on Genes Reunited I would never just give access to my tree as many do, but exchange messages first. (Not that I service my Genes tree these days, but it remains a source of possible connection so long as I subscribe)

 

[Bob Spiers]

My guess is that, overall, public trees are no worse in this respect than private one, we just get to see the errors more.

Interesting comment Pauline, as is Tim's agreement that neither tree relates to quality. My experience viewing private trees is minimal, and the only one I have spent time viewing (after receiving guest status) was top class. But I have viewed many public trees of the same order as well as the 'penny dreadfuls' which sooner or later pop up and colour judgements.

Logic tells me that both Tree types must be governed by the "crap in = crap out" syndrome and , as you rightly point out, Public Trees are the ones in the spotlight.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Even on Genes Reunited I would never just give access to my tree as many do, but exchange messages first.

Yes it's been so long since I used Genes Reunited as I once did long ago -although I own to renewing my subscription annually and uploading update gedcoms once or twice year - so I had forgotten GR used to have a default 'tick' in the box beside 'let them view my Tree' (or however it was worded) when people first made contact. I'm not quite sure why I took exception to that but more often than not I removed the tick. I rarely withheld permission once communication was established and many a meaningful contact resulted.

I wonder if the Genes experience caused others to opt for private trees in Ancestry, whilst I seem to have been drawn by the good contact experiences and opted for Public Trees.

 

[peter]

Interesting comment Pauline, as is Tim's agreement that neither tree relates to quality.

I only wish that ALL dodgy trees were private trees. Most of the problems are caused by people posting public trees that are full of guesses and maybes without any warning to unsuspecting bystanders.

The ONLY way of reliably warning others that information in an Ancestry tree could be wrong is by choosing an appropriate name for the tree, hence my provocative article.

Full marks to those who realise their tree is likely to contain inaccuracies and keep it private.

 

[Bob Spiers]

The ONLY way of reliably warning others that information in an Ancestry tree could be wrong is by choosing an appropriate name for the tree, hence my provocative article.

The only problem with that Peter is those with the worst trees are not aware of the inadequacies lurking within them. In fact I would go so far as saying they probably think 'their trees are the bees knees' (I knew I had poetry lurking in me somewhere); themselves as well no doubt.

I think we all know by now that you believe novice researchers will be tainted by the tree transgressions of others if the results are available for others to view 'on demand' as it were. In a way not far different from the things picked up in the school playground; apocryphal tales mostly based on misinterpretations of truth. In time with maturity, education, and most of all experience, we learn to sort the good from the bad and then have the choice of keeping things to ourselves, or pass them on to others; just as you do rather well in fact.

Not an answer to public over private -or vice versa- merely another viewpoint.

 

[Pauline]

Full marks to those who realise their tree is likely to contain inaccuracies and keep it private.

Was that intended to be provocative also?

I think most reasonably experienced researchers will be aware of the possibility of inaccuracies but will nevertheless take care to ensure their tree is as accurate as possible. If all researchers (not only genealogists) kept their research private to avoid any possibility of publishing anything inaccurate, not only would we all miss out on the benefits of research, but researchers themselves will also miss out on valuable peer review. (And yes, I know having a private tree doesn't preclude peer review though it may limit it.)

I agree it would be good to be able to add a general proviso to an Ancestry tree, as I do on my own genealogy website and whenever I am sharing information with others, that I am not infallible. On my own site I use question marks and the word speculative when I am unsure of specific events, but I tend not to add folk into my tree unless I'm pretty sure they belong there.

With my Ancestry tree I likewise avoid adding folk without good grounds for doing so, but as well I use the description field with events to add any provisos or explanations. Thus it is plainly visible to anyone viewing the profile of someone in my tree if, for example, I am not wholly sure I have the right burial.