Ancestry Public Trees versus Private - a new debate

[Bob Spiers]

So my feeling is that it is up to me (and only me) to decide whether or not I want to make my research publicly available. Since I always omit living people from anything I make public, I don't feel I need to seek anyone else's permission.

I was about to give your post a 'Like' icon, but thought it deserved more of a 'BRAVO' as it comes close to expressing my own viewpoint. Nice one Pauline and I even got your name right (an old story).

 

[Bob Spiers]

. There are always hidden reasons why things are done a particular way and we need to discover those before blaming others for their actions, or lack of.

Quite a profound comment Bryman with hidden depth. Well said,

 

[peter]

A fair appraisal Peter except I received no such advice about using my own name AT THE TIME I JOINED (2006 I believe). The only advice you gave then was not to use my own photo, which advice I took and switched to the one I have used ever since. I recall much later reading generic advice for newcomers to create a 'User Name' and if I recall correctly you made an allusive reference to one person -which had to be me - continuing to display his own name. I chose to stay as I was, likely paying lip service to my mother's advice to 'tell the truth and shame the devil' It is true I prefer to use my own name wherever possible although sometime I create a user name from my surname and initials. I do have a stock selection of non specific user names which I keep in reserve for times when I believe anonymity to be essential.

Bob, you joined the forum when it opened in March 2013. The advice on the registration page read as it does today:

"The name you choose will be shown alongside your messages - once set, this cannot be changed. You are advised NOT to use your full name or a name you already use at other sites as this could be a security risk (since messages are indexed by Google), but it may help to include your first name, eg TomR, JulieK, James6"

 

[Bob Spiers]

Bob, you joined the forum when it opened in March 2013. The advice on the registration page read as it does today:

"The name you choose will be shown alongside your messages - once set, this cannot be changed. You are advised NOT to use your full name or a name you already use at other sites as this could be a security risk (since messages are indexed by Google), but it may help to include your first name, eg TomR, JulieK, James6"

Yes, mea culpa of course you were referring to the Forum but my comment still stands about ONLY being advised to change my photo. As for the reading the registration page, sorry I have no memory of that at all. Reading instructions - like user manuals and flat pack instructions - is not my strong point. I know that is the bane of your life, but it is what it is.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I find the hints rather humorous. They like to tell me about a census listing that I knew about 10 years ago or think my great grandfather who never left Liverpool might still be alive in USA 10 years after his death.

Looking back I came across your post about your Grandfather being in the USA. It immediately reminded me that once -and only once (after receiving numerous similar Hints assigning ancestors to far off place , particularly the USA which were nonsensical) - one such hint - (relating to a female ancestor in the early 20th Century being resident in the USA) turned out to be factual. But not before it was nearly kicked into touch as 'barmy'' because all her siblings (a fair few) were resident in the UK.

However before so doing as I knew another researcher (a cousin of sorts, I forget which) had much better information on that side of the family so I made contact. To my extreme surprise I was told her Aunt had indeed 'upsticked' after some disagreement or other with the family and emigrated to the USA. She married out there are had a quite extensive family. This just goes to show that occasionally, perhaps very occasionally, some of the more fanciful hints may just be worth pursuing.

 

[Bryman]

The word hints is a clue. They are not facts they are hints to possible facts.

I agree in spirit but please excuse my being a pedant. All hints from Ancestry, FMP or wherever, are all facts but only potentially relevant to that particular tree. It is up to the appropriate researcher to determine if the fact fits. Many don't.

This just goes to show that occasionally, perhaps very occasionally, some of the more fanciful hints may just be worth pursuing.

I also had a somewhat similar experience which I nearly didn't follow up. There appeared to be a record of someone with the same name as my aunt, passing from Canada to USA towards the end of WWII. I 'knew' that my aunt was working as a cypher clerk at the Foreign Office in London during the war so nearly dismissed it as a coincidence. However, I passed the information on to my cousin, who lived near her mother, and we were both shocked to learn that the record in Ancestry was for my aunt's trip to attend a secret conference in California. This all happened before my aunt was married and my cousin was born and I don't think that anyone had been told about that until my discovery. Apparently, the trip came as a very welcome break from the difficulties surrounding life in London at that time. Without the prompt, my cousin may never have found out about that aspect of her mother's life.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Without the prompt, my cousin may never have found out about that aspect of her mother's life.

Yes another example showing we just do not know what is around the corner when researching.

The extensive search algorithms used by Ancestry/FMP & others are far removed in complexity (and therefore accuracy) from those used by 'Google'. At best they relate to a surname (with a few 'soundexes' thrown in), combined with first names (ditto). If luck is on your side other people (like Parents/Spouse/Siblings) and even 'Keywords' may help the result as will Location...hopefully the same county and country. But the final arbiter is often the date range -taken into consideration with names and places. Only then can you determine if the result is real or fanciful.

I suppose, being fair, Ancestry et al get it right often enough for their Hints NOT to be dismissed out of hand. And when they get it 'really right' then -to coin an old phrase - you are in Clover! If not move on to the next Hint.

 

[Tim]

My tree is Private but searchable and I have a Public one for DNA. I agree with Peter that it would be good to have a DNA tree that was only viewable if there was a shared ancestor.

You all seem to blame Ancestry for wildly inaccurate hints. This data is just harvested from all the family trees they have in their possesion, so we should blame the members more than Ancestry. There are certain people who are blindly happy to add facts and sources to their tree because it exists in someone elses. If there's no source then don't add the fact. But they do, and they perpetuate the errors. This morning, looking at the family tree hints, there were 16. 12 of them had the wrong death date and wrong spouse, and all the wrong children. Only 4 correct, but it makes me wonder what the next person researching will choose?

Maybe we should have a discussion on how Ancestry can show people that they have wrong data in their tree?

 

[PhilGee]

You all seem to blame Ancestry for wildly inaccurate hints. This data is just harvested from all the family trees they have in their possesion, so we should blame the members more than Ancestry. There are certain people who are blindly happy to add facts and sources to their tree because it exists in someone elses......
Maybe we should have a discussion on how Ancestry can show people that they have wrong data in their tree?

That is just a subset of hints and, yes, errors are the result of carelessness by the "tree builder" (I cannot bring myself to use "researcher"). However, the reason many of the trees are inaccurate is that the hints Ancestry give wrt records are often wildly wrong - hints for a baptism in Lancashire implying that my recorded baptism in Wiltshire is incorrect, for example.

For one Wiltshire person in my tree, Ancestry suggested three events over a few weeks starting with a birth in the Derbyshire area, a baptism shortly after in East Anglia followed by an event in Wiltshire - none were correct. For anyone not familiar with the country that may not seem "unusual".

Admittedly, I do not help Ancestry as I do not always use their "database" place names, but giving hints for a town in USA because I add "UK" at the end of a place name is definitely odd!

I shall refrain from comment on the final sentence!

Phil

 

[Bob Spiers]

You all seem to blame Ancestry for wildly inaccurate hints. This data is just harvested from all the family trees they have in their possesion

Yes Tim, that observation is right on the ball. I would however question whether it can be said that Ancestry's data base contains errors per se. After all everything they have has to relate to someone somewhere, but as Eric Morecombe said to Andre Previn in the famous Morecombe & Wise piano playing sketch about the sequence of notes played being - "not necessarily in the right order." So they are errors of misplacement.

That is why I also agree with your statement:

If there's no source then don't add the fact

- providing of course the sources fits your facts.

Peter often refers to 'Fake News' and that is indeed what we are getting via Ancestry Hints. I can relate to almost everything posted by others about getting information that just does not and cannot apply to your ancestor - give or take the odd time when it just might...perhaps!

It means we have to be on our toes and separate the Good from the Bad, which is something we all have to do all of the time.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Admittedly, I do not help Ancestry as I do not always use their "database" place names, but giving hints for a town in USA because I add "UK" at the end of a place name is definitely odd!

God heavens Phil, you are surely asking for trouble, no wonder the poor algorithm picking up the 'U' offered USA as one of its choices. It reminds when we had a dog how it would pick up the 'W' in the word "Walkies" before we ever finished the word, so we could not between us (my wife and I) even ask whose turn it was for the 'W'.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I agree with Peter that it would be good to have a DNA tree that was only viewable if there was a shared ancestor.

You don't ask for much in life do you Tim... 'only viewable with a shared ancestor' So, no (jigsaw) edge pieces or look-a-like shapes for you, you want the real thing, that just slots into place; not unlike the poker player seeking a royal flush. Life just 'ain't' like that I'm afraid, and sometimes the thrill of the chase gives more satisfaction. Still one can dream of course.

 

[Tim]

Admittedly, I do not help Ancestry as I do not always use their "database" place names, but giving hints for a town in USA because I add "UK" at the end of a place name is definitely odd!

Phil, the UK is not a country it's a sovereign state, it would be better and more accurate to use England, Scotland etc..

Also, the point I was trying to make is that Ancestry matches a person in your tree to the same name, date, parents etc in someone else's tree and then offers you suggestions as hints for facts that they have that you don't. Only today it offered me a hint of a marriage but the marriage was before the lady was born! But while I was there, I looked at the public trees, and yes 1 "researcher" had somehow attached her parents marriage to her. But these are only hints.....

Bob, Ancestry's database is a collection of records, and assuming they can load these records and index them correctly then it has to be near 100% accurate. Where things have gone wrong is when they use their algorithms to look for matches with other peopls trees. The wildly inaccurate hints are harvested from tress and not their database. It would be nice if they could add some simple logic, in my example not to show me a hint collected from someone else for a marriage before she was born. It also shows you how many people don't use their own software or FTA to look for these very simple errors.

You don't ask for much in life do you Tim... 'only viewable with a shared ancestor' So, no (jigsaw) edge pieces or look-a-like shapes for you, you want the real thing, that just slots into place; not unlike the poker player seeking a royal flush. Life just 'ain't' like that I'm afraid, and sometimes the thrill of the chase gives more satisfaction. Still one can dream of course.

I think you may have missed my point. On Ancestry they have a "Shared Ancestor Hints" and they use their shaking leaf to denote them. What I'm suggesting is that for these people who have a link to a common ancestor that they are able to see my Private tree without asking. I'm not suggesting changing any existing functionality but just enhancing it.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Phil, the UK is not a country it's a sovereign state, it would be better and more accurate to use England, Scotland etc..

Fully agree with that and as Phil already admits has contributed to his own problem as Ancestry never uses ' UK'. They always finish off a location with the country, England..etc.

It would be nice if they could add some simple logic, in my example not to show me a hint collected from someone else for a marriage before she was born.

That should of course have been picked up as an error by Ancestry on the Tree that originated the fact. So clearly error checking not high on Ancestry's list. As you say, other software can be used to check for errors, as can FTA of course.
(Which reminds haven't used that in a while must resurrect the latest version, and is Alexander still about? Used to be a regular poster in the early days of the Forum?)

What I'm suggesting is that for these people who have a link to a common ancestor that they are able to see my Private tree without asking. I'm not suggesting changing any existing functionality but just enhancing it.

That sounds like a work around that might afford an easy life for Private Tree owners, so couldn't possibly comment.

 

[PhilGee]

Phil, the UK is not a country it's a sovereign state, it would be better and more accurate to use England, Scotland etc..

My next update should ensure that ", UK" no longer appears - most have already been corrected. [rhetorical]However, for someone born in 1835 should I use Bettws, as shewn on the 1831 OS map, or Betws as shown on the latest OS map?[/rhetorical]

That's enough "off topic" from me - it's supposed to be private vs public trees!

Phil

 

[emjay]

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.

You have just reminded me that I too had that intention (directs only) but got carried away I'm afraid....I think a little editing is required!

 

[Bob Spiers]

As often happens with ‘for’ and ‘against debates, there comes a time when there is a lull when arguments tend to be repetitious. So here is my summation of the state of play.

The arguments supporting Public or Private Trees is NOT new. Not only aired previously in this Forum but ongoing for years in every nook and cranny where Family History holds sway.

I provided a link to Crista Cowan’s (Barefoot Genealogist) YouTube video of 2012 who, although undoubtedly supporting the Ancestry cause, makes reasonable arguments to support both types of Tree. If you prefer to read Blogs on the subject I suggest you try the one begun by Jannine Adams which you will find here: Ancestry Blog She began this in 2014 and it was still running through 2017 & beyond. It received numerous responses supporting both sides of the spectrum. And, if you have a spare hour or two, try Roots Chat and search for “Errors in Trees -letting off steam” which will certainly find favour with those for whom this subject raises hackles.

Despite all the ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments presented, I doubt few will change sides! However, it is just possible the arguments to have both Public & Private – for different reasons – could win support. We know Peter and one or two others have opted for a Public Tree for analysing DNA results (albeit tailored to show only direct ancestors) but it is a start.

It may also surprise some to know I can now see when it might be advantageous to make some Trees Private, although I have to say up front this does not apply to my main Trees. I have already mentioned making an experimental Tree Private/Unsearchable, but I have just changed another -started about a year ago for a new (by marriage) connection to a Bermudan family - which has some sensitive family information which I believe is best contained within a Private/Searchable Tree.

So, if I can be persuaded to adapt my previously immutable stance of advocating only Ancestry Public Trees – even though the ‘public’ principle is still very dear to my heart - then it is not beyond reason for others to reconsider where they stand on the matter, even if - like me - only to accept there may be a need to consider both types of Tree

 

[Helen7]

But you can't help feeling upset when you see totally incorrect or illogical info about CLOSE relatives on public trees.

I totally agree. I once found a public tree of a distant cousin (related to my mother) which had my father in completely the wrong family, but to be fair the tree owner corrected the mistake immediately after I contacted them and pointed out the error. I now try to keep an eye on where my close relatives appear in public trees. The main reason I keep my own tree private (but searchable) is to avoid any mistakes I make being perpetuated by others in public trees. Though I suppose if it was public, others might point out if I've got things wrong for their close relatives. Now I am torn...

 

[Helen7]

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.

This sounds like a good idea, but it would not help in some common situations. I have made contact with several DNA cousins - at the 3rd-4th cousin level - who would not have made the connection with such a tree, as they'd hit a brick wall before reaching our common ancestors. Typically their grandparent or great-grandparent had emigrated from England to the US or Australia, and I recognised the person from a branch of my tree, but they wouldn't appear in a 'direct ancestor only' tree (even the surname wouldn't match if the connection was on a female line). I guess a combination of approaches is always required.

 

[Helen7]

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.

Well said - I agree entirely. A quick look at the Ancestry 'hints' from public trees - many of which contradict each other - shows how much misinformation is out there.