Ancestry Public Trees versus Private - a new debate

[PhoebeW]

- 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.

In all my examples the shared ancestor hint relates to identical names in both trees that are quite clearly not the same person because dates and locations differ. The names involved are Ann Davies; John Davies and John Jones so it looks like a problem of common names. As the algorithm is also using the names of children, that will make errors more likely for areas where there is a small pool of forenames as well as family names.

It may be a result of having a direct ancestors only tree. A full tree might generate fewer errors. But it won't really be an issue for most people.

 

[Helen7]

It may be a result of having a direct ancestors only tree. A full tree might generate fewer errors.

That's an interesting point. I have recently changed from a full private tree (when the wrong hint was generated) to a direct ancestors only public tree, but by including all the spouses I hope to avoid too many mismatches. Time will tell.

 

[Bob Spiers]

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?

As that was the point Peter made -thinking I had assumed differently (but hadn't)- I can confirm that you can upload a Tree (as far as Ancestry is concerned the more the merrier as it builds their database) without a subscription. BUT, and a big BUT, you WILL need a subscription to play any part in communicating with others and of course to achieve unfettered access to other Trees or achieve full (or indeed any) revelations from Searches (assuming not done via a local library connection). Its been many years since I first uploaded my Tree to Ancestry so cannot be sure whether there is a provisional 'test-the-waters' period (i.e a trial) but probably not. In short you need to subscribe to take advantage of what Ancestry has to offer and certainly to allow even the smallest DNA matching activity.

Others may dot the i's and cross the t's better but hopefully that is the bare bones of the matter.

 

[peter]

Can you please take pity on me and explain further?

Just log-in to your Ancestry account, click Trees and choose Create & Manage Trees from the drop-down menu.

 

[Bob Spiers]

It may be a result of having a direct ancestors only tree. A full tree might generate fewer errors.

That's an interesting point. I have recently changed from a full private tree (when the wrong hint was generated) to a direct ancestors only public tree, but by including all the spouses I hope to avoid too many mismatches. Time will tell.

Yes I agree, most interesting. I also think including spouses should help, it all depends on what the algorithm makes of things...as you say time will tell.

 

[Bob Spiers]

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):

I have thanked you with an icon via my Tablet, but now on my PC feel the need to say a special thank you for providing nice clear steps on how to achieve a filter of my choice. I intend to create a direct ancestor Public Tree (with spouses) and upload it to Ancestry just to see what it looks like. I am not sure whether I will take things further and change my DNA link from my full Public Tree to the filtered one, I will see how I feel at the time. I just wanted to know how it was done, and now I do.

 

[Helen7]

BUT, you WILL need a subscription to play any part in communicating with others and of course to achieve unfettered access to other Trees or achieve full (or indeed any) revelations from Searches (assuming not done via a local library connection). In short you need to subscribe to take advantage of what Ancestry has to offer and certainly to allow even the smallest DNA matching activity.

This isn't quite true when it comes to your DNA matches. As a non-subscribing member, you do still get shown your DNA match list. You can't view any public trees but you can contact the person through the Ancestry messaging service and if they give you access to their tree (public or private) you can then view it. I know this because I spent a 9-month period recently without an Ancestry subscription as my husband had a half price sub on the back of his DNA test (so I could log in as him for searches, and as I do all the research for us both, there didn't seem any point in us both paying!). Surprisingly, about two weeks before my husband's subscription expired (in August this year), I got a half price offer from Ancestry myself, which I happily took up so am now back as a subscriber.

 

[peter]

All I can say to that is it WAS what I wrote

To be fair it's not what you wrote personally, but the quote you included from another site:

"... 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"

Surely "if they want to fill their trees with nonsense it's up to them" is referring to the people whose trees are being copied, otherwise it's hard to understand why the author would have written it that way. So the word "They" in the next sentence must refer to "them".

This might seem a small point but in our research we're continually having to interpret the wording in historical documents in order to understand what the author intended to say. If we can't agree on what someone meant in the 21st century, what hope do we have with the archaic language of the 17th century?

 

[Bryman]

Just log-in to your Ancestry account, click Trees and choose Create & Manage Trees from the drop-down menu.

Thank you, I now see where my problem lies. Tree upload is not available from the Library Edition of Ancestry. I saw the difference when I checked with a private tree that I have guest access to. Sorry for any confusion raised from my unfamiliarity of Ancestry. Normally, I much prefer FMP for searches and didn't appreciate the overall limitations of the Library Edition.

 

[PhilGee]

Surprisingly, about two weeks before my husband's subscription expired (in August this year), I got a half price offer from Ancestry myself, which I happily took up so am now back as a subscriber.

About 3 years ago, I didn't auto-renew my subscription to Ancestry (indicating I would probably return later) and received an "offer" fairly soon after. Since then I have repeated this and have received a half-price offer in less than a month - which I accept

Phil

 

[Helen7]

"... 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"
Surely "if they want to fill their trees with nonsense it's up to them" is referring to the people whose trees are being copied, otherwise it's hard to understand why the author would have written it that way.

I read the 'they' as referring to 'other users' i.e. the tree copiers, but I guess it may be open to interpretation. One of the ambiguities of English.

 

[peter]

This isn't quite true when it comes to your DNA matches. As a non-subscribing member, you do still get shown your DNA match list. You can't view any public trees but you can contact the person through the Ancestry messaging service and if they give you access to their tree (public or private) you can then view it. I know this because I spent a 9-month period recently without an Ancestry subscription as my husband had a half price sub on the back of his DNA test (so I could log in as him for searches, and as I do all the research for us both, there didn't seem any point in us both paying!). Surprisingly, about two weeks before my husband's subscription expired (in August this year), I got a half price offer from Ancestry myself, which I happily took up so am now back as a subscriber.

Absolutely right. In effect if you're not an Ancestry subscriber then all trees are private trees as far as you're concerned.

What Helen doesn't explicitly mention is that she could have made her husband a Manager of her DNA results, and done everything through his account. Similarly, now that she is the subscriber, her husband can make her a Manager of his results (assuming he has also tested).

Much the same applies to family trees - you can allow somebody access as a Guest, a Contributor, or an Editor. If only one person in an extended family is doing the research then only one person needs to be a subscriber.

 

[Helen7]

What Helen doesn't explicitly mention is that she could have made her husband a Manager of her DNA results, and done everything through his account. Similarly, now that she is the subscriber, her husband can make her a Manager of his results (assuming he has also tested).

I didn't mention it, but yes I did make my husband a Manager of my DNA results, and have now switched back to myself as a Manager of his results. This works fine, the only slight inconvenience being that you have to log in as the tree owner to give anyone else access to a tree.

 

[peter]

BUT, and a big BUT, you WILL need a subscription to play any part in communicating with others

No, you definitely don't need a subscription to communicate with your DNA matches, or to respond to a message from another member (whether they are a DNA match or not).

Nor, do you need a subscription to contact someone you have communicated with previously - provided that you go to the previous message trail, rather than clicking on the other person's profile.

 

[peter]

the only slight inconvenience being that you have to log in as the tree owner to give anyone else access to a tree

If you have a second browser you can stay logged-in to both accounts - this might be a little more convenient for anyone thinking of following Helen's example (it's what I do). It's also a good way of verifying what you can and can't do with a subscription (see previous post).

 

[Helen7]

About 3 years ago, I didn't auto-renew my subscription to Ancestry (indicating I would probably return later) and received an "offer" fairly soon after. Since then I have repeated this and have received a half-price offer in less than a month - which I accept

An excellent suggestion, and one I will definitely bear in mind at renewal time next year. I have received a number of Ancestry offers over the years, related to FTM purchases and DNA. It would be better if Ancestry rewarded loyalty as FMP do, but it seems they reward disloyalty (reminds me of insurance companies, where you don't get a decent deal until you threaten to leave them)!

 

[Bryman]

In effect if you're not an Ancestry subscriber then all trees are private trees as far as you're concerned.

Sort of. When accessing Ancestry via the Library Edition I do have access to view public trees. As a guest to a private tree, at the same time via a separate browser tab, I can view the private tree but not the referenced documents, presumably because I am not logged in as a subscriber. In order to check those documents, I have to note the index and return to the LE tab. Inconvenient, but not something that I do very frequently.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Surely "if they want to fill their trees with nonsense it's up to them" is referring to the people whose trees are being copied, otherwise it's hard to understand why the author would have written it that way. So the word "They" in the next sentence must refer to "them".

I know Helen picks up on this...

I read the 'they' as referring to 'other users' i.e. the tree copiers

the same way I did with 'they' following 'other users' ...to provide free information to other users, so if they (the other users) ... surely cannot be interpreted any other way!

Mind you to be fair - that word keeps cropping up - I know my interpretation was correct because I had the advantage of taking in follow on responses, where the author continued to make the point that by subscribing other users had the right to copy from Trees having paid for the privilege. He who pays the Piper comes to mind. I think that about exhausts the subject.

 

[Bob Spiers]

No, you definitely don't need a subscription to communicate with your DNA matches, or to respond to a message from another member (whether they are a DNA match or not).

Out of respect I do not so much challenge what you say, but would query this time whether I am reading you correctly. I raised a Public Tree to support my wife's results (totally separate from her full Tree within my own subscription and not associated in any way with my subscription as a Manager; so in effect she was the Tree owner). There was no subscription and as I recall her ethnicity results could be viewed and (if memory serves) a general view of matches was allowed, but beyond that every interrogation was met with words (to the effect) 'you need a subscription to continue'. After a while a discounted subscription (6 months I believe) was offered and taken up and at this point I became her Tree Manager. Then, and only then, could I continue to research her results in the same way as I did with my own.

That experience seems to contradict what you say about not needing a subscription as clearly if I could not examine her matches, I could not communicate with Tree owners had I so wished. So what was different about my approach to the one you relate?

Nor, do you need a subscription to contact someone you have communicated with previously - provided that you go to the previous message trail, rather than clicking on the other person's profile.

I can understand that IF one has messaged someone before in a normal Tree communication relationship, and if someone contacts direct as that will start a message trail. But not a lot of use in my wife's DNA Tree as she had yet to receive a communication and certainly could not originate one before taking out a subscription. Unless of course you can enlighten as to how this could be achieved, given the circumstances.

 

[palfamily]

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.

Sorry Bob. I did by mistake. I hit the cross instead of the tick. It then gave me the chance to undo what I had mistakenly done. I did this but thought it was easier to put down what I thought in writing. I very rarely disagree with what you say.