Potential Problems Matching Against Multiple Ancestry Trees

[IanL]

For reasons, which seemed sensible at the time, when I joined Ancestry I created 4 trees - each one based upon a different grandparent. I've recently sent off my DNA sample to Ancestry and when registering it, as far as I could tell, they only allowed me to nominate 1 tree. My sample is currently being processed. Before the analysis is complete should I be merging the 4 trees or will I still be able to get something useful from the process for matching with people in the other 3 trees?

Thank You

Ian

 

[uncle024]

Ian, As you can unlink at any time, why not link to each tree in turn. You will see matches anyway, just the matches will not see the branch they are on. I have a similar issue in reverse, by wife's family is part of the combined tree.

 

[peter]

I too have split my tree into two, one for each parent. But I merged them in order to upload them to Ancestry - otherwise only half of my cousins would be able to find me at any given time

You really MUST do the same - switching from one to another might work when you're the one doing the searching, but it won't help your cousins. Indeed some who have found you will be confused when you don't show up the next time they search for a specific surname.

You might think "oh, I can always find them" - but what if they don't have a tree?

 

[PhilGee]

As Peter says, anyone using a name search on their matches can only find entries in an attached tree, so a combined tree is needed for this - though I am still not convinced a name search is sufficiently reliable to be effective. Also, for once, "bigger is better" as your tree and your match's can meet along any of the descending branches from your direct ancestors.

Also, even if you have four public trees, Ancestry will annotate your entry in matches as "No family tree", which will cause people searching to ignore you most times even though they could initiate a temporary attachment if they knew non-attached trees were available (Ancestry could use "Tree not attached" for that case instead, if they were helpful!).

Phil

 

[Tim]

I would combine them, much easier and simpler for everyone involved.

 

[Leona5329]

I too have split my tree into two, one for each parent. But I merged them in order to upload them to Ancestry - otherwise only half of my cousins would be able to find me at any given time

You really MUST do the same - switching from one to another might work when you're the one doing the searching, but it won't help your cousins. Indeed some who have found you will be confused when you don't show up the next time they search for a specific surname.

You might think "oh, I can always find them" - but what if they don't have a tree?

I too have 4 trees on Ancestry - one for each grandparent line - so can you merge FOUR trees, not just TWO? Or would you merge two, then the next one to it and so forth?

 

[peter]

I too have 4 trees on Ancestry - one for each grandparent line - so can you merge FOUR trees, not just TWO? Or would you merge two, then the next one to it and so forth?

Merging isn't a feature that Ancestry offer, to the best of my knowledge - it's something family tree programs do. I use Family Historian to merge trees - I don't think it can merge more than one at a time, but you can repeat the exercise as necessary.

 

[IanL]

Thanks for the advice. I'll take the plunge and merge the trees. I haven't found a way to merge the trees on Ancestry so I agree it looks like I will have to use Family Historian.