Ancestry Public Trees versus Private - a new debate

[Bryman]

I think probably the easiest thing that could be done would be to add in some kind of "consistency checker" like the one they have running when you add people and it flags if the birth date you're adding is too early or too late, or before/after a parent's birth or death date.

It would be nice if that checker was extended to adding in census information and perhaps checked places - i.e. flagging a possible inconsistency for person X when you have a movement fact already for them for 1840 and you're trying to add a census from 1871. Or perhaps even simplier, that you have a death for 1840 for person X and you're attempting to add a record from 1851.

Doesn't this still leave a problem with which is right - the new data or the existing recorded information?

 

[jorghes]

Doesn't this still leave a problem with which is right - the new data or the existing recorded information?

You're always going to have that problem, but at this point, you can add records that could be 100 years before they were born or after they died, so isn't any check a good one? Perhaps you did get the death date wrong and maybe the flag will then convince you to consider what you're adding more carefully.

I had the death date for my 2x great grandmother wrong for a long time. I'd added the most appropriate looking record, and only discovered it was incorrect when the 1939 register opened, and I was looking at records for her children, one of whom lived next door to her. That prompted me to have a conversation with one of my mother's cousins, who was able to tell me that she had met her and had visited her house where she and her oldest daughter had run a grocery shop out of their front room.
I have since found the correct death register and purchased it to confirm that she had in fact died in 1950 (I had previously thought she had died before 1939.)

There is already a work around Ancestry's only consistency checker depending on how you add a child to a family. Add in any way other than clicking to add a relation to the parent in question and the consistency check won't be triggered, thus you can easily add children born before the mother reached 13 or after the parent has been dead for 10 years.

Regardless, I'm not sure any changes to the way the system works will change people adding spurious information. But perhaps a "you might need to check this information" before it allows you to add the information should be there.

 

[palfamily]

I'm not advocating anything - we haven't started the discussion yet.

I imagine that you will be in the best position to get Ancestry to change and also that you have an idea of what is achievable. To start the discussion would it be an idea if you laid out your thoughts and we could discuss things around that?

 

[Bob Spiers]

Isn't the next step to unlink the tree in your wife's account?

More something to consider when her current subscription is close to expiry, which is mid next year. I realise (reading Helen's response) renewing the subscription was not the only option open to me, but it was nevertheless the one taken, and works well. So I think it best if I leave things as they are for now.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Anyone who's not convinced please sit on the sidelines for now - you'll have an opportunity to comment on our proposals in due course.

Couldn't find a picture of someone sitting on the sidelines, so this one of 'sitting on the back seat' will have to do for now.

 

[peter]

More something to consider when her current subscription is close to expiry, which is mid next year. I realise (reading Helen's response) renewing the subscription was not the only option open to me, but it was nevertheless the one taken, and works well. So I think it best if I leave things as they are for now.

It would be helpful if you could check it out now so that others who might find themselves in the same position know that there's a solution.

 

[Bryman]

You're always going to have that problem, but at this point, you can add records that could be 100 years before they were born or after they died, so isn't any check a good one? Perhaps you did get the death date wrong and maybe the flag will then convince you to consider what you're adding more carefully.

A consistency checker is very useful, either from Ancestry or FTA, because simple spelling or date mistakes are all too easy for any of us to make. However, I do not think that those errors really make a big difference as far as deciding on whether to make a tree public or private.

In my experience, the contentious records are those where there are two (or more) similar individuals and different researchers choose differently. For instance, I have tried to help my brother-in-law and fallen foul of that situation. Two unrelated individuals with the same names and YoB, one living on the Essex bank of the Thames and the other across the water on the Kent bank. It was very difficult to decide which one married later in London without further information and adherents for one option were not easily convinced that the alternative was correct.

I don't think that there is a solution to stop incorrect data being copied, even if all parties are trying to do the right thing and not just sticking to their guns.

 

[Helen7]

I don't think that there is a solution to stop incorrect data being copied, even if all parties are trying to do the right thing and not just sticking to their guns.

But it is more likely to be copied if the tree is public, so surely it is relevant to the public v private debate?

 

[peter]

I don't think that there is a solution to stop incorrect data being copied, even if all parties are trying to do the right thing and not just sticking to their guns.

Can I suggest that we start by coming up with a list of things that we'd like to see improved, and defer judgement on the likelihood of this happening or being effective until later? Even if a suggestion seems impossible it might inspire a solution that is possible.

But it is more likely to be copied if the tree is public, so surely it is relevant to the public v private debate?

Please don't feel restricted by the public vs private heading - the discussion is now about improving how the tree system at Ancestry works, including how communications between members can be improved. The improvements suggested will, of course, vary depending whether the trees are public or private, but we should be seeking to improve things for everyone, whether their own tree is public, private, or something in between.

I'll collate the suggestions before the end of the week and add any of my own.

 

[Pauline]

Can I suggest that we start by coming up with a list of things that we'd like to see improved

I'd like it to be possible to have a public tree without its contents being offered up as hints. That is, if anyone wants to copy information from my tree, it has to be copied across manually rather than just with a simple mouse click.

I think this will lessen the chances of ancestors being misapplied to someone else's tree.

 

[Bob Spiers]

It would be helpful if you could check it out now so that others who might find themselves in the same position know that there's a solution.

Yes on my bucket list

 

[Helen7]

I'd like it to be possible to have a public tree without its contents being offered up as hints. That is, if anyone wants to copy information from my tree, it has to be copied across manually rather than just with a simple mouse click.

I agree that people shouldn't be given the option of just clicking to copy. I would never just copy information from anyone's public tree, but I quite like being offered them as hints, as it gives me the opportunity to view them and a) see if the person might be related to me, and b) get some tips on avenues to explore in the records. So personally I would favour still being able to see the hints to public trees but would like the the facility to 'save to your tree' to be removed for such hints.

 

[Bob Spiers]

It would be helpful if you could check it out now so that others who might find themselves in the same position know that there's a solution.

There are three ways of trying out Ancestry, the first two apply if you register for a trial period of 14 days. and third if you just take up a subscription without a trial. (Note monthly subscriptions are different - see end).

(a) You register for a 14 day free Trial (you will need to register your Debit/Credit cards) and be made aware of the subscription offer at the end of the Trial.
(b) You take advantage of the Trial and do not cancel within the Trial period so a subscription charge is billed the day after the Trial ends.
(c) You take up the offer of a subscription without a trial period and the billing period commences the day the subscription is taken out.

If you wish to cancel:
(a) You may cancel within the Trial period without charge.
(b) You do not cancel within the Trial period and are billed for the Subscription. You now have 30 days from the date the subscription commenced (not the trial) to cancel for a FULL REFUND paid back via your Debit/Credit card.
(c) You have 30 days to effect cancellation from subscription commencement for a FULL REFUND. (Note this applies to Gift subscriptions also).
If outside the cancellation period:
(b) & (c) If cancellation is not affected within 30 days then NO REFUND is due but "you will retain access to the relevant services for the remainder of your subscription period, after which your subscription will be cancelled"

Monthly subscriptions: These may be cancelled at any time prior to two business days before your renewal date, but NO REFUND is given. Any time remaining will allow access to services but if no cancellation is effected prior to two business days, you will be billed for another month and the same cancellation condition will apply.

In my own case (my wife's subscription renewal) is now in excess of 30 days so no refund will be given. I could cancel and continue using until subscription expiry or do so at a later date before expiry.

I hope the above will be of help. Ancestry's Renewal and Cancellation terms can be checked by searching for same at Ancestry.

 

[peter]

To get the ball rolling here are a few thoughts of my own:

Communication problems:
Ancestry could indicate whether or not a message has been read
Remove anomaly where, when attempting to contact another member, message says subscription is required even when it isn't

Improving the usefulness of trees/matches:
Make it easier to identify unrecognised places and correct them
Use place of baptism where no place of birth is given

Encourage users to contact their cousins
Indicate when an individual is a direct ancestor of the home person, not only in tree but also in search results and hints
Provide visitors book for public trees

Extra tree category
Trees that are public for the owner's DNA matches, private for everyone else

Reduction of errors in public trees
Make comments more obvious, perhaps by using colour
Send automatic alert to tree owner when comment posted
Allow comments to be posted against sources, eg when incorrect record used

 

[VTinOZ]

I would like an option added in the Hints, Ancestry Member Trees, section to ignore a tree/s. Currently there is a box to tick to accept individual trees or a box to select all trees but no way to ignore a tree/s.
If I were able to ignore a tree, for whatever reason, the Ancestry Member Tree hint would only activate when a new (as in not seen by me before) tree was added or when trees were present that I had not ignored.

 

[jorghes]

To get the ball rolling here are a few thoughts of my own:

Reduction of errors in public trees
Make comments more obvious, perhaps by using colour
Send automatic alert to tree owner when comment posted
Allow comments to be posted against sources, eg when incorrect record used

I have received emails when someone has commented on something that is in my tree - i.e. a person or a photo or similar. Then if a person has a comment attached to them, it appears on their "page" - both next to the line describing the relationship (A little speech bubble with a blue number) and in the "tool bar" below it which has the "view tree; view notes; view comments; merge with duplicate; save to tree; print; member connect" as another blue number next to the "View Comments" choice.

As for images, it will appear in the "recent activity" part of the homepage, as does if people add "corrections" to sources that you have attached to your tree.

 

[peter]

I have received emails when someone has commented on something that is in my tree - i.e. a person or a photo or similar. Then if a person has a comment attached to them, it appears on their "page" - both next to the line describing the relationship (A little speech bubble with a blue number) and in the "tool bar" below it which has the "view tree; view notes; view comments; merge with duplicate; save to tree; print; member connect" as another blue number next to the "View Comments" choice.

As for images, it will appear in the "recent activity" part of the homepage, as does if people add "corrections" to sources that you have attached to your tree.

Thanks - not having a public tree I wouldn't have received any emails. Shows we're on the right track! Perhaps if you have an example you can post a graphic so we can all see what you see?

 

[jorghes]

Thanks - not having a public tree I wouldn't have received any emails. Shows we're on the right track! Perhaps if you have an example you can post a graphic so we can all see what you see?

I suppose really people can only make comments on public trees, due to the nature of private ones. The comment on this particular member of my family was to tell me where she was born - there's also a longer comment on her father, who is a little bit of a wall because I've never been able to find his death record.

The feed looks like this - I can't remember the last photo that had a comment on it, and I can't get the feed to show me anymore than what you can see here, but comments on photos also appear in there.

 

[Helen7]

Thanks jorghes for showing this.

Having recently uploaded a public tree to link to my DNA results, I await the first 'comment' on it, but I have put several comments on my and my husband's private trees as a note to myself and also to assist people whom I invite, and the feed looks the same as the above. In case you're wondering, these comments are usually reasons why I've chosen a particular baptism/family for a person where there were 2 candidates in a situation such as Bryman described perfectly in #247. I've also copied relevant comments over to my public tree for the same reason. If memory serves me correctly, I have only once put a comment on someone else's public tree (to mention that the person they had marrying in 1853 actually died aged 1 in 1835) but never received a response from them (nor did they change the entry on their tree). Now I usually contact the person directly if I see an error, rather than just posting a comment.

I'm sure you know this jorghes, but just for clarity it's worth pointing out that the list under 'Recent Member Connect Activity' doesn't refer to comments made on your trees, it just refers to corrections made on records attached to your trees, whether public or private. I just have one on my list (for 7 Oct, I assume they only go back about a month) where someone has made a correction to a transcription of a census attached to my husband's private tree.

 

[peter]

In case you're wondering, these comments are usually reasons why I've chosen a particular baptism/family for a person where there were 2 candidates in a situation such as Bryman described perfectly in #247.

What a great idea! I'm sure many of us have notes like this in our offline trees, but including them in my online trees isn't something I'd thought of doing.

There's just one problem that springs to mind - and I'm sure someone will have a solution - my online tree is periodically refreshed by uploading a GEDCOM that I've exported from my offline tree. Won't I have to redo the comments (and hints, for that matter)?