Ancestry Public Trees versus Private - a new debate

[peter]

I have found some 8th cousins via traditional methods but DNA should provide hints for many more.

If you look at the table in the Masterclass you'll see that you have in the region of 5 million 8th cousins. but also that less less than 1% will share sufficient DNA with you for them to be revealed by a DNA test. So the chances of proving a link as a result of you and a specific cousin taking an autosomal DNA test is small.

It's also worth bearing in mind that when you go back that far there is a possibility that you are related through more than one line.

In particular, I have conversed with someone with the same surname about our joint researches back to English village inhabitants located only a few miles apart before the year 1600 but have failed to find any common ancestor. Appropriate records are either no longer available or very well hidden in places unknown to us. Is this a case where a Y-DNA test would be appropriate for us both to take?

Y-DNA is the best way of confirming whether two male cousins have the same ancestor in their direct male line, and even if you turn out to be unrelated there's a chance that you'll get a useful match with someone else. Only a slight chance, but it's better than nothing.

But bear in mind that there are 18 genetic steps between 8th cousins, so the chance of a non-paternal event is fairly high (as in the case of Richard III). So the fact that your Y-DNA doesn't match - should this be the result - can be interpreted in a number of ways.

 

[palfamily]

Have you actually contacted any of those 4th cousins without trees?

Thanks for your comment. I tried your suggestion and got a reply from someone who was doing research.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Although somewhat a by-product in this particular debate, the subject of photos uploaded to Ancestry -and the use others make of them - has cropped up more than once. It reminded me why I elected to show photos for some of my prime ancestors (parents, grand parents etc) in the first place, as -for many years - my Trees were photo-less.

I can't remember the exact year - but circa 8-10 years ago - I latched on to an Ancestry offer for their 'My Canvas' 'Family Tree Posters' (they also do Photo Books, & Calendars) They were available in many sizes at varying costs of course, but overall I thought all reasonably priced. From the examples shown it was obvious that for best effect a small photo insert brought the poster alive alongside the ancestor's name and basic BMD data. I opted for Poster size and, as an after thought (one of my better ones), I decided they would make great 'C' presents for both my sisters; particularly as they could be customised with each as the root person. So first I set about creating my own.

Ancestry allows up to 9 generations in various formats -I chose the traditional 'Ahnentafel' one - but 9 generations was farcical at the time (and now for that matter). So in the end settled for 5 - although photos beyond Grandparents were hit and miss. I noticed that where a column has no photos they extend data to take up the same space. See thumb nail inset taken from their FTP page and note the last column.


I ordered and received 3 copies, two as sister'root' versions. They came in cardboard cylinders and looked extremely attractive. I had my own framed and mailed copies to my sisters, who in turn had their own framed. My own is still displayed in the Hall, looks good and gets a lot of attention from visitors.

Footnote & Caveat: As with everything there was a learning curve. Two of my photos (a paternal grandmother & maternal grandfather) were full length studio portraits that looked fine on their Ancestry page. In the final Poster version were devoid of heads; much to the chagrin of my sisters and leaving me wondering why 'My Canvas' didn't crop them to show their faces. Also where a generational column only has partial photos, My Canvas substitutes a 'thumb nail' 'Certificate' (whatever is available on their page). Apparently to make the column look proportional but (with hindsight) it would have been better to omit all photos for that column. So anyone thinking of order a Chart or Poster please bear this in mind. But other than that the overall effect is well done and looks professional. I will likely replace my own but next time ensure only head shot photos are provided, or none at all.

That is really the only reason I chose to display certain photos in Ancestry where they remain to this day. There are a few others; one back to a Gx3 Grandfather, and one or two provided by family of their immediate ancestors in soldiers wearing WW1 uniforms . The remainder - several hundred in fact - are all stored in my Tribal Pages which is only made available to family with a passcode.

 

[palfamily]

I’ve just been invited onto someone’s private tree as a guest and I can see why some people want to keep them private. This is a real labour of love with 12000 people, 7000 photos, 300 stories etc. Not something you would want all and sundry taking things from. What I can’t see is why people like this don’t have a stripped down ancestral tree for DNA use.

 

[peter]

I’ve just been invited onto someone’s private tree as a guest and I can see why some people want to keep them private. This is a real labour of love with 12000 people, 7000 photos, 300 stories etc. Not something you would want all and sundry taking things from. What I can’t see is why people like this don’t have a stripped down ancestral tree for DNA use.

It's not easy to think through the pros and cons of public and private trees, and DNA adds an extra layer of complexity.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I’ve just been invited onto someone’s private tree as a guest and I can see why some people want to keep them private. This is a real labour of love with 12000 people, 7000 photos, 300 stories etc. Not something you would want all and sundry taking things from. What I can’t see is why people like this don’t have a stripped down ancestral tree for DNA use.

I am staggered...do you mean an Ancestry Private Tree? If so where are earth do they house 300 stories, never mind 12000 people and 7000 photos? I thought my Tribal Pages (TP) (also private but as a web page rather than hosted by Ancestry) only a little short of 8000 people, likewise just shy of 1000 photos and (although I have not counted them for ages) getting on for 200 stories was impressive, but clearly junior league compared to the one you mention.

But whereas TP is set up for the purpose of housing an unlimited number of people, with photos and stories (with the right subscription) I have absolutely no idea how one would go about including all that in an Ancestry Tree. Even most 'My Heritage' Trees - not shy in claiming high numbers in every regard - fall short of in this respect. However if it is indeed an Ancestry Private Tree, no wonder the owner keeps it private.

I understand you asking why they don't have a stripped down (Public I assume) Tree for DNA purposes.

 

[palfamily]

Yes, Bob an Ancestry tree.

 

[Pauline]

One of my DNA “shared ancestor hint” matches has a private tree which apparently has 17,308 people in it, though I can’t see how many photos etc it contains. Unfortunately, I haven’t had any response to my attempts to contact this match.

With the tree being private, I was surprised that the email Ancestry sent to tell me of this new hint, gave the name of our shared ancestor.

This person does have a public tree as well but it contains just two people, so not the most helpful of trees!

 

[Bob Spiers]

This person does have a public tree as well but it contains just two people, so not the most helpful of trees!

And I thought my record for finding a minimalist tree - 4 in total - was remarkable..not counting of course the 'No Tree' brigade.

 

[Bob Spiers]

The mention of minimalist DNA Public trees sets me wondering who the handful (being over generous) of ancestors are included. Do they for example just opt for the patronymic route? With two or 4 names they would need to at least commence at Great x 2/3 grandparent levels, and even then a bit like fishing for Marlin with a rod and line? (and please do not post to say that can be done it is merely a metaphor)

Perhaps someone will explain how they would go about creating a Public DNA Tree to only include those of direct line. What relationships -paternal/maternal - would they include, at what levels (great x X?) and how many names to be effective.

Not that I will be doing it you understand as my Trees are Public anyway, but I keep reading about it being a route to take for those who keep their Trees Private, so wonder what ancestors they would consider including in the public arena.

 

[peter]

The mention of minimalist DNA Public trees sets me wondering who the handful (being over generous) of ancestors are included

I imagine the users with very small trees have included everyone they know about - people who haven't done any research into their family tree often know very little. But sometimes people I contact know of someone else in their family who has done more research - though not necessarily on the part of the tree that is of interest.

 

[PhilGee]

Perhaps someone will explain how they would go about creating a Public DNA Tree to only include those of direct line. What relationships -paternal/maternal - would they include, at what levels (great x X?) and how many names to be effective.

Tut, tut Bob - you know I love to bamboozle!!

Or, to make it simple: my main database is not a FT program but a series of spreadsheets, the "main" one containing basic data (BMD, baptism, burial and appropriate probate/certificate extracts). I then have a small program which can process the data and create a GEDCOM. Changing the control data allows me to select what is included, eg only direct ancestors, direct ancestors and siblings, members of a specific direct ancestor family (by family name*), everyone ..... as well as he type of data, eg census, 1939 register, occupations ....

For DNA purposes, I am currently using all known "Direct Ancestors + siblings" and waiting for the change from "full tree" to get through the various processes to see if it affects the DNA hints (which disappear for a while when you change the linked tree). Both are "bare trees" using data from my "main" spreadsheet only.

Phil

*Edit: For names like "Jones", the control uses "Jones", "Jones2" etc. (but the GEDCOM has the correct name).

 

[peter]

my main database is not a FT program but a series of spreadsheets

Out of interest, would you do the same if starting today, and if so why?

 

[Bryman]

Perhaps someone will explain how they would go about creating a Public DNA Tree to only include those of direct line. What relationships -paternal/maternal - would they include, at what levels (great x X?) and how many names to be effective.

Perhaps I am missing something due to my 'unusual' tree arrangement but I did not see the creation of a direct ancestor only tree as anything difficult or needing any particular consideration. I saw this as a way to get over the problem of me uploading hundreds of trees, if allowed.

My total knowledge of all my direct ancestors amounts to less than 200 individuals so I just used copy/paste to build a new tree from the relevant people in those separate trees. Each entry is identified by Ahnentafel Number and links to the equivalent source individual so that I can easily find associated family members, etc.

I would be very interested to know if such would likely be inadequate for finding DNA matches.

 

[Helen7]

Perhaps someone will explain how they would go about creating a Public DNA Tree to only include those of direct line. What relationships -paternal/maternal - would they include, at what levels (great x X?) and how many names to be effective.

After having a private tree at Ancestry for many years (and linked to my DNA since last year), following suggestions on this forum I have just taken the plunge and created a 'direct line only' tree to link to the DNA. I just created a 'direct ancestors' filter in my offline tree in FTM 2017, then uploaded the resulting tree as a public tree to Ancestry and changed my DNA linked tree from my private tree (1,647 people) to this public tree (251 people). It contains all my direct ancestors that I am sure about (plus their spouses if they married more than once) but no siblings. It also contains some photos of dead ancestors and source information. It will be interesting to see if I get more contacts from DNA matches as a result.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I just created a 'direct ancestors' filter in my offline tree in FTM 2017, then uploaded the resulting tree as a public tree to Ancestry and changed my DNA linked tree from my private tree (1,647 people) to this public tree (251 people).

Thanks Helen, now that makes a lot of sense and I can well understand how that might be quite effective.

 

[Helen7]

I imagine the users with very small trees have included everyone they know about - people who haven't done any research into their family tree often know very little. But sometimes people I contact know of someone else in their family who has done more research - though not necessarily on the part of the tree that is of interest.

Yes, I contacted a DNA match with a minimal on-line tree - just two people, so impossible to see how we were related - and she replied that her sister had done a lot of research, but it was all paper based and not on-line. She kindly sent me a scanned copy of the tree, which showed we are 3rd cousins (closer than the 4th cousins Ancestry predicted) and filled in gaps in my knowledge of her branch.

 

[Helen7]

And I thought my record for finding a minimalist tree - 4 in total - was remarkable..not counting of course the 'No Tree' brigade.

I have come across several in my DNA list with less than 4 people in their public trees. Often just the person and their parents, with one or both parents still alive so marked as private. I wonder why they bother posting a tree there at all with so little information.

 

[Helen7]

One of my DNA “shared ancestor hint” matches has a private tree which apparently has 17,308 people in it.
With the tree being private, I was surprised that the email Ancestry sent to tell me of this new hint, gave the name of our shared ancestor. This person does have a public tree as well but it contains just two people, so not the most helpful of trees!

Yes, I thought Ancestry only supplied 'shared ancestor hints' from public trees. I wonder if the fact that this person also has a public tree (however minimal) means that Ancestry feel it OK to share the relevant part of their private tree with you? Incidentally, the 'shared ancestor' hints can be misleading. I had one where the 'shared ancestor' has the same name but is a different person (wrong birth year, wrong place, wrong husband). Hopefully you will hear back from the person and are able to solve the mystery. As for the huge tree, there doesn't seem to be a size limit on Ancestry. One of my DNA matches has over 19,000, just on his mother's side (and I think I must be related to his father as none of the names mean anything to me!)

 

[PhoebeW]

Even these small trees can be useful though. I identified a fourth cousin match because he had included his grandfather in his 3 person tree. Grandfather Henry, sharing my common Welsh family name and born in one of the villages in my tree . My match is now placed in my detailed private tree and although he hasn't responded to messages, I can now allocate some of my mystery matches to the appropriate branch of the tree.