Ancestry Public Trees versus Private - a new debate

[PhoebeW]

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).

I understood it to mean that we can see that there is a shared ancestor whether the match has a public or private tree, but we won't see the detail for the private tree unless we have been invited? Is it more limited than that?

Sorry - I wasn't aware of the issue with links.

 

[Bryman]

It contains all my direct ancestors that I am sure about (plus their spouses if they married more than once) but no siblings.

I am sorry if I am just being rather slow today but why are step-parents appropriate in a direct ancestors only tree? What additional benefit would they provide? Presumably, the parents of the step-parents are not included in the tree.

 

[Helen7]

I am sorry if I am just being rather slow today but why are step-parents appropriate in a direct ancestors only tree? What additional benefit would they provide? Presumably, the parents of the step-parents are not included in the tree.

Well, if it's a female ancestor it means both her married names are included so potentially linking to descendants of the other marriage - I have a few instances of this in my DNA cousins. Also if Ancestry look at spouses for shared ancestor hints, having the other marriages (for male or female ancestors) might help. No, I don't include parents of the step parents.

 

[peter]

On the contrary, I understood Bob was talking about tree copying

He was, but the reference to paying a subscription was clearly in relation to the owners of the trees that were being copied, not the people who were doing the copying.

 

[Bob Spiers]

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

Indeed I was as should have been obvious from the tone of the item quoted. Those that pay (subscribe) get the right to copy.

 

[peter]

why are step-parents appropriate in a direct ancestors only tree? What additional benefit would they provide?

Ancestry's name search (of DNA matches) appears to include all spouses of a direct ancestor, so including them will increase the chance of a genetic cousin who is descended from the other spouse finding you.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Great quote and very true.

Thanks, but didn't you just give me a disagree icon, or was that someone else. Sorry if wrong but my Tablet won't let me confirm who it was.. Will check when on my PC tomorrow.

 

[Bryman]

Ancestry's name search (of DNA matches) appears to include all spouses of a direct ancestor, so including them will increase the chance of a genetic cousin who is descended from the other spouse finding you.

Sorry but I didn't realise that I was having such a bad day trying to understand explanations. Isn't the common parent adequate to provide the match? If A marries B and then later C, offspring from either B or C will both have A as a direct ancestor.

 

[peter]

Indeed I was as should have been obvious from the tone of the item quoted. Those that pay (subscribe) get the right to copy.

They do, but that wasn't what you wrote. Maybe it was what you intended to write.

 

[peter]

Sorry but I didn't realise that I was having such a bad day trying to understand explanations. Isn't the common parent adequate to provide the match? If A marries B and then later C, offspring from either B or C will both have A as a direct ancestor.

That only works if the cousin has traced back that far - A, B & C could all be on the other side of a 'brick wall' from them.

 

[Bryman]

you don't need an Ancestry subscription to create or upload a tree.

Really? I am obviously completely out of touch with reality today. I thought that is how things worked and was assuming that I would need to subscribe personally (rather than via local library) before uploading a tree. Can you please take pity on me and explain further?

That only works if the cousin has traced back that far - A, B & C could all be on the other side of a 'brick wall' from them.

Aha, perhaps I am beginning to wake up. I am still thinking in terms of 'traditional' research. I had not considered that DNA might be making matches via several generations before the earliest documented ancestor. Thank you. Presumably that means that I should add multiple spouses to my recently created direct only tree.

 

[jorghes]

I'm coming late to this part of the conversation, but I will add some comments anyway:

- The smallest tree I was able to figure out the links for had about 3 people (or was it 2?) but I recognized the name it showed me (my great grand uncle) so I easily knew where that person fitted. That particular person has now added a larger number of people to their tree, so we get the "shared ancestor hint" shaky leaf now, as they have added up to my 2x great grandfather & grandmother, who are our shared ancestors. There are a whole bunch of matches where I have recognised a single name in the tree given (i.e. no shaky leaf hints) and recognise that name from my tree (sometimes its as simple as "I think I've found that name before") - but the couple of people I have contacted to say - "I think we're related through X" haven't responded.

- Someone commented that they had a shaky leaf hint in their DNA that was "wrong" - I'm not sure how that could happen... does that mean the other person has filled in the wrong information? I would have thought having a DNA link would suggest a relation, although I suppose it could be to the wrong person?
I've yet to find a shaky leaf hint that is "incorrect", although some of the details people have on their tree of different people could be incorrect I suppose. The most hints I have on a DNA result is 27/28 - those for my father and paternal grandmother (some overlap there!) - and just had a new DNA circle appear as well - which of course is based around shared ancestors as well as shared DNA.

And as for large public trees - my Public tree - the growing organic thing that it is currently has over 13,000 people in it, although I prune it regularly and tend to only add when I find corresponding documentation - I tend however to ignore photos/stories of some of these branches, because they are only branches after all, and the file is already enormous and taking up plenty of space on my laptop.
- I have to admit, I am loving the documents from the Netherlands - on their birth/death and marriage records (for the most part) they will show the full name of the father, and full maiden name of the mother (occasionally you will get the father's name duplicated) as well as the full name of the child, which makes it very easily to attach the correct records to the correct family, especially when there's a lot of intermarriage.

 

[canadianbeth]

In my list of shared matches, the first one listed (after my niece, who has no tree) has only 25 names, none of which I recognize, however one of his shared matches is my niece. Confidence is extremely high and shared DNA is 198 cMs across 9 segments. I looked at his tree and a couple of his ancestors fit for possibly being my paternal grandfather - dates and places. Of course, there is probably no way to be absolutely sure. I am pretty sure though that the name my grandmother told her children is not correct because there are no matches with that name. And she had already prevaricated about a few other facts.

A question though - beside this person's name - and others - there is a star but also a circle and trash can. I understand the circle and trash can but for what is the circle?

 

[jorghes]

A question though - beside this person's name - and others - there is a star but also a circle and trash can. I understand the circle and trash can but for what is the circle?

The circle is the "new" marker - it's blue when the match first appears on your list until you "view this match", the first time.

Perhaps that person's links may help you break that wall?

 

[canadianbeth]

Thank you. But for what reason would I use the trash can? A match that is really not one?

 

[Bob Spiers]

Great quote and very true.

Yes I was right - see above - you did indeed activate a 'Disagree' icon first and now you say it is a 'Great quote and very true! (That's having your cake and eat it)

I don't have any problems about people disagreeing, but if the first X was a mistake and should have been a (green) tick to signify you Agree, I would appreciate you asking a Moderator to remove the X as clearly I cannot do that. Or are there two of you in which case please reveal yourselves so I know which one is on my side. Quite amusing really and certainly a first for me.

 

[Bob Spiers]

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

Thanks for that Helen and as you will see, I did respond and agree that was indeed what the quote and my post was all about.

 

[Bob Spiers]

They do, but that wasn't what you wrote. Maybe it was what you intended to write.

All I can say to that is it WAS what I wrote and what Helen thought I wrote, so lets just say you misinterpreted things. As you often say Peter 'easily done' but I am sure -pedantry aside - you knew full well the point being made was that only those who subscribe (to Ancestry) are able to copy from other Trees. No more no less.

 

[Helen7]

Someone commented that they had a shaky leaf hint in their DNA that was "wrong" - I'm not sure how that could happen... does that mean the other person has filled in the wrong information? I would have thought having a DNA link would suggest a relation, although I suppose it could be to the wrong person?

I posted that I had a 'wrong' shared ancestor (shaky leaf) hint, but it does not imply a mistake in either tree, just that the 'common ancestor' identified by Ancestry was in fact two different people in the two trees, with just a name in common. Obviously, as the tree owner is on my DNA match list, I assume there should be a match somewhere but as it is a weak match (only 7.2 cM) it would be more distant and I can't yet see it. We do have another surname in common, from roughly the right area, so I will probably message them to ask about that.

 

[jorghes]

Thank you. But for what reason would I use the trash can? A match that is really not one?

Presumably for one of the matches who are those who are just spurious I suppose - there would have to be some in the list, though I would presume they wouldn't be within the first couple of pages, but rather at the end for those who are considered "Moderate" chance of a match, the lowest I've found on my paternal grandmother's list (when I finally found the final page, no. 1262) who shares only 6 centimorgans over 1 DNA segment.

I posted that I had a 'wrong' shared ancestor (shaky leaf) hint, but it does not imply a mistake in either tree, just that the 'common ancestor' identified by Ancestry was in fact two different people in the two trees, with just a name in common. Obviously, as the tree owner is on my DNA match list, I assume there should be a match somewhere but as it is a weak match (only 7.2 cM) it would be more distant and I can't yet see it. We do have another surname in common, from roughly the right area, so I will probably message them to ask about that.

Ah, I see what you mean. Fair enough I suppose. I haven't found one of those yet, but then I suppose there's always a chance. Most of mine just have the details of the ancestor incorrect (sometimes incredibly wildly!).