Ancestry Public Trees versus Private - a new debate

[Bob Spiers]

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).

Yes Phil, as Peter asks, I too would like to know the answer as to whether if now starting out would you still go to all the trouble of creating umpteen spreadsheets, armed with the knowledge most half decent FT programs can achieve the same thing, with half the fuss .

I have something in my own work experience that fits what you have done when I set out to write a spreadsheet to aid our Estimating office who were using pen, paper and calculators to cost things out. It took absolute ages to work out how to go about it. It had to be user friendly, whilst preventing others tampering or overwriting formula cells.

Whilst in the very last throws of trying to overcome a complicated series of formula related problems, what should appear in a Trade Magazine but an advert by a Commercial organisation offering a costing program to achieve the same ends. We called in a Rep, had a trial demonstration which satisfied so we went ahead and bought the software. It did the trick and my spreadsheet never saw light of day. (All say Ahhhh!)

 

[emjay]

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

I've had connection to a 4 person DNA "Tree" which was sufficient for me to identify/confirm the owner as a second cousin once removed. Unfortunately no response as yet to my messages, grrr....

 

[palfamily]

I've had connection to a 4 person DNA "Tree" which was sufficient for me to identify

I have found that if People have their 4 grandparents in their tree and they were all born in England or Wales if you can then trace them to the 1911 census or 1939 register it is not difficult to start constructing your own tree for them. Of course this is subject to the usual brick walls and people called Smith or Jones etc. I have tried this with varying amount of success.

 

[PhilGee]

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

A bit of a ramble, but:-
I started with a copy of FTM 3, which was either "Broderbund" or "Banner Blue" software - on three 3.5in floppy discs. Five years or so later, I moved from MS Windows (98SE I think) to Linux as my primary system and didn't find the version of Gramps to my liking, so I looked at the GEDCOM version of my, then small, FTM tree and read about the structure, tried creating a few "trees" with a text editor and concluded that a text file of data could be easily manipulated by a program to create a valid GEDCOM. Fortunately, I realised I would need sorted data to do things efficiently and I understood spreadsheets (effectively a "flat" database) better than databases.

Each entry in my spreadsheets has a "family number" and/or "individual number", which provide links between sheets, and many sheets record the name "at that time" (eg name as shown on baptism or census images or, as for my daughter-in-law, the [incorrect] spelling her father gave at birth registration!). These generally appear as a comment on the appropriate GEDCOM "fact". For example, I have someone who appears as "Kate Elizabeth" on the tree and most records, but the baptism has "Kate Greenaway" (baptised with her sister - there is no image and her maternal aunt was Greenaway at that time, though her parents names are correct) and the BMD index is "Elizabeth Alice Maud Mary" - I have a DNA match with a descendant of hers and we have shared matches in her father's family, where my direct ancestors are.

My "working" background was "software support", covering a wide range of programming languages, so opted for a "compiled" BASIC for the speed of a compiled language and the easy amendments of BASIC; the spreadsheet program also uses a variant for creating macros to automate the saving of sorted text files.

I also have a set of programs to process FMP and Ancestry web pages to extract census and 1939 register data/household occupants to create update pages for the spreadsheets which also rename (and move) image files for my indexing system, create text files for updating "lostcousins" data (in progress!) and recreate transcriptions to a standard format for printing (which overcomes the changes that keep being made to the "look and feel"). I believe it is much easier to update trees with new findings as, for example, 6 lines of basic census data can be used to generate entries for the relevant people, together with source information (repositories etc) and merged into the trees; though it is in "standard" format and not Ancestry specific.

Yes, I would do the same thing again, but probably slightly differently if I knew what I now know, as it has gone through a number of changes and could be better organised - especially to cover "my tree" as well as "my wife's tree" which are currently interlinked.

Yes Phil, as Peter asks, I too would like to know the answer as to whether if now starting out would you still go to all the trouble of creating umpteen spreadsheets, armed with the knowledge most half decent FT programs can achieve the same thing, with half the fuss.

Ahhhh!

I think I've covered most of it above - and to get my "common look and feel", despite the efforts of FMP etc to prevent it; so I consider it worthwhile I, perhaps, should add that I still use FTM 2017 (for updating Ancestry) as well as FH6 (because I prefer the diagrams attaching children to a "union" not one of the parents) and, of course, FTA by using a "Windows 10 virtual machine" within Linux.

Phil

 

[Bob Spiers]

Well Phil, all I can say to that is "we did ask" and boy "you did reply" and the unbelievable thing is I more or less understood what you had to say; and that doesn't always happen. So well done and I doubt anyone will ask again. By the way thanks for the Ahhhh!

 

[Bob Spiers]

Just to return to the theme of the debate, for a moment, I always enjoy reading what I consider to be 'pearls of wisdom' and here is one discovered on a FH website, written a while ago on the subject of Tree copying:

"... if people just copy and paste, then its their own fault if they are adding rubbish to their Trees. After all, tree-holders on Ancestry are not contracted to provide free information to other users, so if they want to fill their trees with nonsense it's up to them. They are after all, paying for the privilege"

I cannot but agree with the sentiments.

 

[PhoebeW]

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!)

The 'shared ancestor hints' work for any linked trees whether they are public or private. Here: https://support.ancestry.co.uk/s/article/DNA-Shared-Hints I think it is a marketing thing to convert testers into subscribers.

Four of my fifteen hints are wrong. But it is intriguing that some other shared ancestor hints are correct even when the underlying trees don't have the correct names. It happens in one of the emigrant branches where there is a longstanding error in Ancestry trees and in some of the older LDS databases. The error has been corrected in many places but not everywhere. But the descendants of my 4G grandparents are showing as shared ancestor hints whether they have the right couple or the wrong one. The difference is in the wife's surname and in the dates.

 

[peter]

if they want to fill their trees with nonsense it's up to them. They are after all, paying for the privilege

Actually they're not - you don't need an Ancestry subscription to create or upload a tree.

 

[peter]

The 'shared ancestor hints' work for any linked trees whether they are public or private. Here: https://support.ancestry.co.uk/s/article/DNA-Shared-Hints I think it is a marketing thing to convert testers into subscribers.

The Ancestry article doesn't confirm that it works for all private trees - it merely says that it works whether your own tree is public or private. My tree is private and I've received a few shared ancestor hints, but I think I would have remembered if one had been with another private tree.

PS Please EVERYONE don't post links like that, do it as I do in the newsletter (at the forum you would use the chainlink symbol).

 

[Helen7]

The 'shared ancestor hints' work for any linked trees whether they are public or private. Here: https://support.ancestry.co.uk/s/article/DNA-Shared-Hints I think it is a marketing thing to convert testers into subscribers.

Thanks for passing on this link. However, what it says there is rather misleading, in two respects:

Firstly, in looking through my list of 11 'shared matches', 6 of them have private trees and I can only see the match in the 3 cases where the tree owner has given me access to their tree. In the other 3 it just says 'The connected family tree is private. The family tree connected to the DNA test for xxx is private. You can contact the manager for this DNA test result (xxx) and request that you be given access to this family tree'. I have been in contact with 2 of these, exchanged information and established our connection without the need to share Ancestry trees (though now they will be able to see my new 'director ancestor' public tree).

It is also interesting that Ancestry say they compare 'names, birthdays, locations, parents, spouses, and children. If everything lines up, a hint is created'. In the case I mentioned, none of these matched, only the name! However, I agree that most of my hints are correct - 4 out of the 5 with public trees, and all 5 where I have been in touch with the private tree owners.

 

[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

Helen, as a relatively new user with FTM -and more out of curiosity than anything else -can you explain how one goes about creating a 'direct ancestors' filter using FTM. I have my (full) Public Tree synced to FTM and have no problems with that and it is of course online; not offline as your own. Probably a silly question but would I have to go offline to apply a filter?

Would the procedure be to import a separate Gedcom (from Ancestry) into FTM, give it a new name to reflect its direct ancestor filter and then apply the filter to the imported Gedcom? If so I would like to know how to go about it from this point, or from any other point if I deduce incorrectly. Many thanks Bob

 

[Helen7]

In my last post, of course I meant 'shared ancestor hints' not 'shared matches' - I realise that is an entirely different thing! (and 'direct ancestor' not director ancestor' too!)

 

[PhilGee]

PS Please EVERYONE don't post links like that, do it as I do in the newsletter (at the forum you would use the chainlink symbol).

I did as you describe (use the chainlink), but did not get what you want. A quick test shows you must type the "visible" text first then select the text, click the chainlink and add the URL. Unfortunately, a different site has two "boxes" when you select the link symbol, one for the display text and one for the URL, and I expect that and just "mutter" when there is one box. Having said that, I should now remember to do things the right way, especially as that's how I do bold text etc.

 

[PhilGee]

Helen, as a relatively new user with FTM -and more out of curiosity than anything else -can you explain how one goes about creating a 'direct ancestors' filter using FTM.

Open your tree in FTM and go to the home person for your new tree, select file->export, select selected individuals, click the Ancestors "copy box" and Apply, change the output format if needed and adjust the ticks for what you want, then select OK and, as the saying goes ..........

Phil

 

[Helen7]

Helen, as a relatively new user with FTM -and more out of curiosity than anything else -can you explain how one goes about creating a 'direct ancestors' filter using FTM. I have my (full) Public Tree synced to FTM and have no problems with that and it is of course online; not offline as your own. Probably a silly question but would I have to go offline to apply a filter?
Would the procedure be to import a separate Gedcom (from Ancestry) into FTM, give it a new name to reflect its direct ancestor filter and then apply the filter to the imported Gedcom? If so I would like to know how to go about it from this point, or from any other point if I deduce incorrectly

Sorry, I should have explained better. My main (detailed) tree in FTM is synched to Ancestry as a private tree. To create a subset of this tree, I didn't import a GEDCOM from Ancestry, though I guess you could do it that way. In FTM, you can do the following (which are the steps I took):

1. Display the list of people in the full tree, select yourself, then click on the Filter... button at the bottom of the pane.
2. You get a pop-up where you can select 'Ancestors', then number of generations and whether to include spouses, then click OK and you will see a list of direct ancestors displayed.
3. You then click the 'Apply' button, and you will see a list of ancestors in the People-Tree pane. Click on Save... beneath this list and give the list a name.
4. You then go to the File menu and select 'Export...' and it gives you the option of exporting a saved list, so select the one you've just created.
5. When you click the Export button, it will create a file (you choose its name) on your computer in your FTM area with suffix ftmb.
6. You then 'Restore' this ftmb file (as if you are restoring a backup) by double clicking on it and it will place the tree in your FTM list. You can then upload it to Ancestry and synch it if you want.

Hope this is clear and may be useful to others, if anyone else uses FTM? Of course the filter doesn't need to just apply to direct ancestors, you could apply filters to focus on particular branches, have descendent lists etc.

 

[Helen7]

Actually they're not - you don't need an Ancestry subscription to create or upload a tree.

No, but you do need a subscription to view public trees, and therefore to copy sections from them.

 

[peter]

No, but you do need a subscription to view public trees, and therefore to copy sections from them.

Indeed you do, but that wasn't what Bob was talking about.

 

[palfamily]

"... if people just copy and paste, then its their own fault if they are adding rubbish to their Trees. After all, tree-holders on Ancestry are not contracted to provide free information to other users, so if they want to fill their trees with nonsense it's up to them. They are after all, paying for the privilege"

I cannot but agree with the sentiments.

Great quote and very true.

 

[Helen7]

Indeed you do, but that wasn't what Bob was talking about.

On the contrary, I understood Bob was talking about tree copying, making my post relevant. Perhaps Bob can clarify.

 

[PhoebeW]

Thanks for passing on this link. However, what it says there is rather misleading, in two respects:

Firstly, in looking through my list of 11 'shared matches', 6 of them have private trees and I can only see the match in the 3 cases where the tree owner has given me access to their tree. In the other 3 it just says 'The connected family tree is private. The family tree connected to the DNA test for xxx is private. You can contact the manager for this DNA test result (xxx) and request that you be given access to this family tree'. I have been in contact with 2 of these, exchanged information and established our connection without the need to share Ancestry trees (though now they will be able to see my new 'director ancestor' public tree).

It is also interesting that Ancestry say they compare 'names, birthdays, locations, parents, spouses, and children. If everything lines up, a hint is created'. In the case I mentioned, none of these matched, only the name! However, I agree that most of my hints are correct - 4 out of the 5 with public trees, and all 5 where I have been in touch with the private tree owners.

i) so in a private tree we can see that there is a shared ancestor, but we can't see who the shared ancestor(s) is/are.

ii) yes - just names and perhaps vague locations.

Oddly though, finding the shared ancestors based on corrected information (that should have failed the test?) has been useful and outweighs the shared ancestor hints that are wrong.