No Replies from Ancestry Contacts

[Bob Spiers]

Presumably members of this forum are Premier League?

Of course it goes without saying and I very nearly used 'Premier' instead of first league, but as I do not have a clue about football, least of all about leagues, I used terms I understood like first, second and third.

 

[Bob Spiers]

and I have NEVER, I repeat NEVER downloaded anything from anyone else's tree. For a start I don't know how!!

You say that as though it is a badge of honour... NOT to have downloaded something from another's Ancestry Tree. It is no such thing, and about on a par with the Ostrich thinking he cannot be seen by burying its head. When the occasion warrants Ancestry's +Save to Tree facility is a great boon.

Only very recently I had contact from a second cousin who alighted on my Tree and as well as telling me my Mother had been her Godmother (which I did not know) she admitted to her Tree being very short on facts when it came to my 'side' of the family. She asked if I minded her copying across the detail she missed. I did not mind in the least and checked she knew the 'Save to Tree' short cut (which she did). I then said as I had not yet fully researched her branch beyond her parents and siblings, would she mind if I took advantage of doing the same in reverse, and of course she did not. The task was accomplished in very short time and as a result both of us achieved our desired result.

The only down side for me is that Tribal Pages TP does not allow me to copy across in the same fashion (whilst FTM does by syncing) So as I need to update TP with information added in Ancestry, this has to be done manually.

Of course Ancestry's 'Save to Tree' facility is open for abuse, and indeed the principle tool used by name collectors and their ilk, but the facility should not just be dismissed out of hand. Indeed my whole raison d'etre in subscribing to Ancestry and having a Public Tree (my preference) is to permit research and be able to assess other Trees. Of course as a dedicated researcher I need to ensure information viewed is 'pukka', but once over that hurdle I have no qualms at copying across information. Nor, of course, allowing others to do likewise. If they are just name gathering I'm afraid it is something I just have to accept.

 

[peter]

Bob, as chrissy1 isn't the only person who has never downloaded something from an Ancestry tree could you please explain in a little more detail how it works?

 

[canadianbeth]

Only very recently I had contact from a second cousin who alighted on my Tree a

Back in March, I received a message from someone asking how I had a picture of her nanny in my tree. Once I had established just who her nanny was, I was able to tell her she was my second cousin once removed and that our connection was my 2x great-grandfather on my mother's side. This person was able to fill in some of her family's information that I did not have, as she is not a DNA match, not having taken the test.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Bob, as chrissy1 isn't the only person who has never downloaded something from an Ancestry tree could you please explain in a little more detail how it works?

From the page of the ancestor in your own Tree*, click on Hints and the first option is likely to be Ancestry Member Trees and it will say how many there are to view. Click on 'Review' and check on each. Your own page will show on the right for comparisons to be made. There is often one - perhaps two - that stand head and shoulders above the others. Each will show the Tree name and the 'name (or nickname) of the Owner. Click on the Tree name and view the page of the shared ancestor.

How you judge the veracity of the content is up to you, but instinct (and experience) will play a part but you may need to check outside of Ancestry with FMP, Free BMD, Family Search etc before accepting that the information contained in the other Tree is bona fide.

Once satisfied with the other Tree you need to have it open on its 'shared' ancestor page. Then click on 'Tools' (shown alongside 'Search' top right) and select +Save to Tree from the list of options. It will open displaying your Tree name where it is to be copied - (if you have more than one you need to select the one that applies, using the down arrow). It will ask you to type the name of the shared ancestor (making sure you type it as it shown in your Tree). Ancestry will locate the ancestor and display dates. Once sure you have the right ancestor proceed and save to your Tree. It will take 10-20 seconds for Ancestry to complete the task, then you will find yourself back in your own Tree and able to view its new content. You should check thoroughly to ensure there are no name duplications which, although rare, can happen.

*The advice shown relates to having a Public Tree and sharing with another Public Tree. I believe it will work if your Tree is Private and you wish to share with a Public Tree, but doubt it will apply if both Trees are Private.

 

[Helen7]

although I may join again if I get a good price, as others have mentioned.

My subscription ran out yesterday and I re-joined today at half price (£59.99 for a year, UK Premium). The link was on the DNA dashboard page.

Interestingly, from the Home page, I was not offered a one-year subscription, only 6 months at £69.99!

 

[Bob Spiers]

I received a message from someone asking how I had a picture of her nanny in my tree.

Very similar to something that happened to me way back (and posted upon previously in the Forum) where someone messaged me to say she had come across her Great Grandmother Kate in my Tree and asked what relationship was Kate to me? As 'Kate' was my maternal Grandmother this led on to locating not one but two two first cousins, once removed, and learning what had happened to their respective mothers (both first cousins) after being separated as babies upon losing their mother. A long but very happy story circulated around the family and all because of being asked a question.

 

[Pauline]

click on Hints and the first option is likely to be Ancestry Member Trees

It may help to mention that you won't have any hints from Ancestry Member Trees unless you have this option turned on. I have turned it off for my tree as I got totally fed up with all the ludicrous hints I was getting - although most of the record hints I get tend to be pretty useless too.

 

[Bob Spiers]

It may help to mention that you won't have any hints from Ancestry Member Trees unless you have this option turned on. I have turned it off for my tree as I got totally fed up with all the ludicrous hints I was getting - although most of the record hints I get tend to be pretty useless too.

Yes I tend to forget that some things can be turned on or off as I seldom do this unless it happens to cause irritation and I happen to like Hints. But a valid point if wishing to easily locate other Trees in the way I describe.

 

[chrissy1]

People with very large public trees are unlikely to reply to any communications since they're usually name collectors, not family historians - I probably wouldn't have even looked at their tree, let alone sent them a message.

Now I have calmed down a little after reading Peter's advice on large trees, I see that it says PUBLIC trees - mine is private, so I guess in many peoples' eyes that makes it even worse! If a definition of 'large' is required, I would consider anything in excess of 15,000.

However, please don't dismiss large trees out of hand. Some at least ARE the result of a lot of genuine research, in which case you will probably find the owner only too willing to share their work and help bona fide cousins trace their ancestors using their wealth of experience. Also, genuine researchers usually have masses of information to back up their findings and can explain any family relationships they consider to be tenuous and offer any alternative theories.

My tree currently stands at 25,411, having recently expanded further as a result of 2 very productive conversations with DNA matches and a couple of weeks' worth of related research to confirm the connections.



In my opinion, DNA matches are definitely worthy of investigation and discussion can be mutually beneficial. I have confirmed a branch of my tree on which I have very few matches but some very common surnames and my 5th cousin has extended his tree back by several generations as a direct result of our exchanges of information, without which, neither of us could have progressed.

 

[chrissy1]

Then we come to Trees with MEGA numbers and whilst I do not personally regard anything untoward even if approaching 20,000 (although my own is nearer half that), I’m afraid those claiming 100,00 and above (and here I recall my MyHeritage days with many Tree owners claiming ancestry in excess of 150,000 and some topping out at 250,000). I am afraid I treat them all with a great degree of indifference.

I totally agree that any MEGA trees claiming to have in excess of 100,000 names are extremely unlikely to have been researched by the owner or bear any relation to reality and I too would tend to afford these no more than a cursory glance.

However, in defence of my 25,000 name tree, I have been avidly researching for over 30 years and made a massive attempt in recent years to extend the branches in order to follow up on DNA matches, in the hope of knocking down a couple of longstanding brick walls and proving a few tentative theories.

 

[peter]

Now I have calmed down a little after reading Peter's advice on large trees, I see that it says PUBLIC trees - mine is private, so I guess in many peoples' eyes that makes it even worse! If a definition of 'large' is required, I would consider anything in excess of 15,000.

I also said 'very large', not 'large', and it was in the context of trees being so large that the tree owner could not possible have researched them all - the example quoted was over 200,000 names.

 

[chrissy1]

Thank you for clarifying that, Peter- I would hate people to ignore my tree simply because it is large. On reading the comment initially, I assumed it applied to a tree like mine.................but have to agree with you regarding trees in excess of 100,000.

BTW, if anyone tries to contact Laurie Thompson, an avid Thompson/Hortop/Onalove/Hunter researcher for many decades, he sadly passed away recently. I have no idea what will happen to his tree on Ancestry, but I very much doubt it will be his family's priority at this point in time.

 

[peter]

I received a reply today from a genetic cousin I first wrote to on 15th October 2016.

She replied: "Sorry for all the missed messages I don’t log on very often and it’s hard to view the messages on my phone."

Patience clearly IS a virtue.

 

[jorghes]

I received a reply today from a genetic cousin I first wrote to on 15th October 2016.

She replied: "Sorry for all the missed messages I don’t log on very often and it’s hard to view the messages on my phone."

Patience clearly IS a virtue.

Hopefully they have some good information for you??

 

[peter]

No information, but she confirmed that she was the person I thought she was.

 

[jorghes]

No information, but she confirmed that she was the person I thought she was.

Sometimes that's almost as good.

 

[Pauline]

I received a reply today from a genetic cousin I first wrote to on 15th October 2016.

Must be something in the air! I had one overnight from a DNA cousin I contacted back in mid 2017. It came as a new message rather than a reply and I had to scroll back through several pages of messages to find what I had written.

 

[Susan48]

Not quite the same circumstances perhaps, but a week ago I was contacted out of the blue via Ancestry by a 2nd cousin I hadn't seen for over 60 years - since we were children. She's spent lockdown researching her family tree after going through a box of old family photos and documents, found my direct ancestors only tree on Ancestry, worked out who I was, and made contact. The emails have been flying back and forth and on Monday we're going to Skype.