Ancestry Public Trees versus Private - a new debate

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Good idea Peter

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have to disagree with you about no need to contact the owner of the tree. What if you spot a mistake? If it was a major mistake you might wish to inform them. Admittedly they might not take any notice but if I felt strongly enough I would send a message

I was really referring to making contact with a Private Tree owner. Of course I will do this if I believe such a Tree 'appears' (and appears is as best as I can put it because of the restrictive nature of information available) to offer something which is lacking within Public Trees revealed by the same search parameters. It would be foolish not to do so, and providing I get a response (sadly hit and miss, mostly the latter) I will be quite happy to follow through to our mutual advantage.

I cannot say that all Public Tree owners respond but I cannot recall the last time I had a no show, and -besides - these days those contacting me far outnumber me contacting others and when I do decide to contact it is invariable to further mutual understanding and rarely to criticise. I respond to all who contact me often before the ink has had time to dry! Most of my Contacts are names I recognise time and again and one Public Tree contact in particular asking..."who is X to you as she is my great-grandmother (X being my maternal grandmother) " is now part of family legend.

This contact led to me discovering two first cousins once removed (of whom I was previously unaware) and learning that their respective mothers (my first cousins) were nieces of my mother who she last saw as babies after the death of her sister aged 25. The children were then separated by their father. (A long story which I have told in some depth in the Forum previously). Sadly this came to late to tell my mother who had died before this momentous revelation , but her only surviving sibling (a brother in his 80's) received the news with joy and soon was able to speak with both nieces who lived in separate parts of the country. As I say a family legend so yes, I do believe in making contact and in answering contacts from others.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Hi Bob, Why mention the word "stealing"?

That was not intended to relate to a post of yours, hence I made it stand alone and apologise if you thought I was alluding to you. In fact it was triggered partly by a remark made on the You Tube video, and partly from re-reading extracts from a similar debate held on line a few years back in another Family History Forum. Both sources mentioned the fact that the topic that came up time and again for keeping Trees Private was the statement ...“I dislike others stealing MY Tree research”. I was reacting to that.

As I am at complete odds with the remainder of what you said in that particular post (except agreeing we all make mistakes and no I do not think you are arrogant) just someone who speaks her mind, as I do, I think it best if we leave it that and I have said before to Peter best if we just agree to disagree.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Hi Bob, Even with a Private Tree I've also made long lasting contacts. Notably a third cousin who sends me birthday cards and I send them to him too. One advantage of exchanging email addresses (rather than relying on Ancestry's clunky messaging system) is that if I make further momentous discoveries or acquire more photos, I can go back to these contacts and update them. People are far more likely to respond to emails than Ancestry's clunky messages. Another valid point for not being wholly reliant on public trees and ensuring that contact details are exchanged via email.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Hi Bob, yes I think we have both made our points of view clear and can only leave it to others to add their opinions if they wish to do so.

 

[peter]

I cannot say that all Public Tree owners respond but I cannot recall the last time I had a no show, and -besides - these days those contacting me far outnumber me contacting others and when I do decide to contact it is invariable to further mutual understanding and rarely to criticise

Reading between the lines, I wonder whether the reality is that much of the time you take the information you want from public trees and don't contact the owners? It's easily done - especially when there are multiple Ancestry users with overlapping trees (and also given how difficult it can be to work out whether the tree owner is a cousin or not). If so, it would certainly explain why you can't remember the last time one didn't reply.

Also, when you do contact someone with a private tree, what do you say to them - do you, for example, ask for access their tree? That's probably a very good way to ensure that most of them won't reply.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I agree with Peter. I never ask to see their tree. To me that just smacks of saying: "Can I copy your work"? I usually offer to send them detailed info and/or photos. If they are close relatives of the relatives we are discussing, I may ask a few questions about them and once a conversation has been initiated they ask me questions about the people on the tree too.

 

[palfamily]

Should we be too concerned about everyone else’s motives in family history research? I agree that lots of Ancestry trees are a joke. I think Ancestry makes it too easy to have an incorrect tree with their hints, which invariably are nonsense. I have a public tree which I think is as logical as it can be given the historical records available. If someone uses this differently I think it is their problem rather than mine and anyone who copies that information, or mine, without doing their own research does not understand what they are doing.
I decided to make my tree Public because I agree with Bob about “good information counteracts bad”. I wonder how two people both with Private Trees manage to trust and communicate with each other and also wonder if Private Trees are any more accurate than Public ones.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I have communicated with other private tree folks. It is easy. You just start with the Ancestry messaging system and go from there. Good communication is key. I then send out custom reports from my offline family tree software. The trouble with some owners of public trees is that think Ancestry and their tree system is the only way you can conduct your research. I am not concerned with other people's motives. I just don't want my ancestors and relatives turning up on a tree where they have no business to be Although I have subs to Find My Past and Ancestry, I get just as much good info from free sites such as Free BMD and Free Reg. Sometimes sites like Ancestry tend to make beginners think their website is the only one with decent info or the only place to create a tree. Are private trees any more accurate than public? Who knows but that is another disadvantage to public trees, others can see your research warts and all!

 

[peter]

I decided to make my tree Public because I agree with Bob about “good information counteracts bad”.

It would be wonderful if that were true - but there's no evidence that it is. If you look at the recent research into 'fake news' it was found that fake stories spread far more quickly and far more widely than genuine ones.

As far as online trees are concerned the problem is that:

• people who simply collect names rather than doing research end up with the biggest trees
• the bigger the tree, the more likely it is to show up in search results
• beginners are more likely to trust big trees than small trees (assuming, in their ignorance, that the owners are more experienced!)
• most people are beginners

I wonder how two people both with Private Trees manage to trust and communicate with each other

These days most new connections are made between people who are DNA matches - they're not people picked at random. So there's an initial presumption that the two researchers are related.

But in any case LostCousins and Genes Reunited have been going for around 15 years without public trees, so clearly it's possible for cousins to trust each other. When cousins with private trees exchange information they don't give the other person their entire tree, only the bit that's relevant.

And look at the alternative - given a choice of trusting your own cousins with a small part of your tree, or having a public tree which involves trusting the Ancestry subscriber base of 2.5 million people with your entire tree, you're not going to choose the latter, are you?

and also wonder if Private Trees are any more accurate than Public ones.

I'd expect private trees to contain errors - that's the advantage of having a private tree, nobody is going to be misled by the content. In my own tree I highlight speculative links in red as a reminder to warn any cousin who I share that part of my tree with. And if I do upload a 'direct ancestors only' tree which I make public, I won't include the speculative bits.

 

[PhoebeW]

I agreed with most of what FamilyHistoryGal said and with Peter's last post.

I use my main private trees on Ancestry for research and there are lots of speculative branches and work in progress. I really don't want to be part of the Ancestry drive for misinformation and wouldn't dream of making these trees public! I do have some branches that are firmed up and searchable and shared with relatives/ interested parties. I also have a public skeleton tree linked to my DNA test - just enough to show up in DNA searches; any speculative bits are in the comments.

I think that gets me a balance of accuracy and helpfulness.

 

[Susan]

Now that DNA is becoming so important I am considering attaching a tree to my DNA results which is public, but includes only my direct ancestors. This reduces the chance of the tree being found in a search by someone who isn't a cousin to the absolute minimum, whilst making it easier for my DNA cousins to figure out how we are connected.

Most of my trees are private, but while waiting for my DNA results to come through I created a direct ancestors only public tree, and then attached my DNA to that tree.

Even though my main tree is private, people do contact me to ask if so-and-so in my tree is the same as the person in theirs. I always reply to these messages but usually it is to say sorry, it's not the same person. Just once a message enabled me to fill in a branch of my tree and it led to a visit from an Australian second cousin I had never known existed.





I too am frustrated by the 'no tree' in DNA matches. All three of my 3rd cousin matches have no tree. Two have not replied to messages, but I knew who the third one was having made contact with her years ago and met her in person on several occasions. The reason she has no tree on Ancestry is because her tree is on Genes Reunited (where we made initial contact, I no longer have a tree there) and she only uses Ancestry for searches and DNA.

 

[peter]

The reason she has no tree on Ancestry is because her tree is on Genes Reunited (where we made initial contact, I no longer have a tree there) and she only uses Ancestry for searches and DNA.

Can't she download her tree from Genes Reunited and upload it to Ancestry? She'll find it far easier to resolve her DNA matches if she has an Ancestry tree, even if it's a private tree.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Reading between the lines, I wonder whether the reality is that much of the time you take the information you want from public trees and don't contact the owners?...

You can wonder on Peter, as it would take far too long to explain how I use Ancestry although it might well improve your understanding of how to get the best out of using Public Trees.

....(and also given how difficult it can be to work out whether the tree owner is a cousin or not). If so, it would certainly explain why you can't remember the last time one didn't reply.

'Non sequitur comments I'm afraid. For a start, I am not in the least interested in working out if a tree owner is a cousin when messaging, and what would that have to do anyway with forgetting when they last responded. As you well know, I meant I cannot recall the last time a Public Tree contact message failed to draw a response. By that I meant out of memory recall time, say 6 months or more.

..Also, when you do contact someone with a private tree, what do you say to them - do you, for example, ask for access their tree? That's probably a very good way to ensure that most of them won't reply.

I need no lessons in what to say when messaging someone Peter - Public or Private - and in fact find that quite insulting considering how long I have been using Ancestry and how many contact made over time . I have never, ever, begun any message asking for Tree access, that, like your other comment about wondering if someone is a cousin, just does not come into the picture. Any message I raise first off will always be personable and friendly inquiring about something (usually a person or persons) we both share. Apart from the fact someone may just no longer be in the picture (not having logged on say for many months, perhaps a year or more) there is no reason for anyone not to respond, even if some take their time.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have a public tree which I think is as logical as it can be given the historical records available. If someone uses this differently I think it is their problem rather than mine and anyone who copies that information, or mine, without doing their own research does not understand what they are doing.
I decided to make my tree Public because I agree with Bob about “good information counteracts bad”. I wonder how two people both with Private Trees manage to trust and communicate with each other and also wonder if Private Trees are any more accurate than Public ones.

Welcome to the Lion's Den palfamily. I like your comments, particularly the one asking how two people with Private Tree manage to trust and communicate with each other. Something that often intrigues me. No surprise Peter has responded to your post and I see even he refers to DNA being the obvious route for Private Tree contacts. I just wonder how the non DNA 'private' brigade manage?

 

[Bob Spiers]

I agree with Peter. I never ask to see their tree. To me that just smacks of saying: "Can I copy your work"? I usually offer to send them detailed info and/or photos. If they are close relatives of the relatives we are discussing, I may ask a few questions about them and once a conversation has been initiated they ask me questions about the people on the tree too.

If you read my reply to Peter you will see I never have or will ask to see a Tree upfront. That is something that may develop over time after a fair few (usually email) messages flow backwards and forwards, and then perhaps, someone might just grant Guest access and vice versa of course.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Now that DNA is becoming so important I am considering attaching a tree to my DNA results which is public, but includes only my direct ancestors. This reduces the chance of the tree being found in a search by someone who isn't a cousin to the absolute minimum, whilst making it easier for my DNA cousins to figure out how we are connected.

Well, well finally committing to a Public Tree Peter - I am impressed even though only driven to it by the obvious advantage a Public Tree brings in DNA matching, and even, may I say, given the limitations you intend applying by restricting to Director Ancestors. All the same a small step for mankind... and in the right direction. Well done.

 

[peter]

I need no lessons in what to say when messaging someone Peter - Public or Private - and in fact find that quite insulting considering how long I have been using Ancestry and how many contact made over time.

I don't know how long you have been using Ancestry or how many contacts you have made. But it would be rash to assume that you do some things the way I do when there are others that you clearly do very differently.

I suppose I was racking my brains trying to think of possible reasons why people with private trees are more likely to reply to me than to you. But it wasn't an accusation, just a question - and in my experience asking questions is one of the best ways of getting answers.

Perhaps the answer is that someone with a private tree is more likely to respond to another person with a private tree?

wondering if someone is a cousin, just does not come into the picture

This just goes to show how different your approach is from mine and - I suspect - most other family historians. The first thing most LostCousins members want to know when they make a new match is whether the person they've found is a cousin or simply related by marriage.

Someone who shares my ancestors is not only more likely to have information about my family, and to have inherited photos and other ephemera, they're also much more likely to collaborate with me on future research. It's also more likely that I'll be prepared to share the relevant part of my tree with a cousin. In most cases we also share a little information about the living members of our families, because they're cousins too.

When I find a cousin I also add them to my Christmas card list, which means they get a Round Robin from me every year, helping us to keep in touch. Most reply with a card and a note of their own.

So yes, I like to know from the outset whether I'm going to be communicating with a cousin or someone who just happens to have one of the my relatives in their tree - it often determines whether it's a brief exchange of information or the start of long-term relationship.

 

[Susan]

Can't she download her tree from Genes Reunited and upload it to Ancestry? She'll find it far easier to resolve her DNA matches if she has an Ancestry tree, even if it's a private tree.

I did suggest that but she hasn't done it yet. Both my cousin and her husband have Ancestry DNA tests, though as I'm not related to her husband he doesn't show up in my matches.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I agree that it is much more satisfying communicating with a blood relative rather than someone related to a spouse on my tree. How about sharing some data? I have 189 4th cousins or closer on my DNA matches. 35 of these I have marked with a star which denotes I have had contact with them or I know how we are related. Must admit I often don't bother to look past the good matches rarely look at moderate matches. Yes, I have a list of people I send Christmas Cards to but I think most of them were found on Genes Reunited. One of the best I've had, had no tree at all on Ancestry. He contacted ME (one of those dastardly private tree holders). He was interested in my tree because his relatives were the first children of my great grandmother, Frances Ablitt who later went on to marry my great grandfather, Walter Wilden. I got tons of info from him and wonderful photos. So if a no tree and a private tree can communicate and exchange data anything is possible! How did I trust him? He told me his relationship to my family and I easily worked out he was on the level as he is a living relative so didn't have to do much backward digging.