Ancestry Profiles & Trees

[Pauline]

On several occasions in recent weeks and months, I've noticed that the Family Trees of some Ancestry users are not listed on their Ancestry Profile page. This seems not to be related to how many trees they have, or whether their trees are public or private or some of each.

Quite often, when corresponding with other researchers, people will pass on their Ancestry username so I can check out their Ancestry tree. I have no trouble finding their profile page, but then sometimes find there is no mention of any trees there.

While I usually manage to find the right tree eventually by searching for people I know to be in it, it isn't that easy as only tree names show up in the results, not usernames. It's not too bad to pick out the right tree if there are only a few relevant trees but sometimes there are hundreds!

Then having found the right tree, unless I'm missing something, it seems there is no way within Ancestry to bookmark a tree so I can come back for a second look later. I can bookmark the page in my browser, but it would be simpler to be able to save a tree into something like my Shoebox (as with records). Generally this isn't about wanting a permanent record of the tree, just being able to find it again easily if I have to break off before I've finished looking.

 

[Helen7]

I've noticed that the Family Trees of some Ancestry users are not listed on their Ancestry Profile page. This seems not to be related to how many trees they have, or whether their trees are public or private or some of each.

Whether a person's trees are listed on their profile page depends on how they have their settings. You have the option of showing a list of all your trees (public and private searchable) on your Profile page to 'Everyone' or 'Only You'. This is on the Settings page accessed from your Profile page, under Family History. Mine says:

Family Trees
Your public and private searchable trees are displayed on your public profile. For full access to your private searchable trees, other Ancestry members must get your permission.

This is with the option set to 'Everyone'. When I change this to 'Just You', the message changes to:

Family Trees
Your public and private searchable trees are not displayed on your public profile. However, others can still see public trees and find limited information from private searchable trees elsewhere on Ancestry.

So, as you've observed, whether someone's trees are listed on their Profile page has nothing to do with how many trees they have or whether they are public or private, just whether they have allowed others to view the list.

I agree it is annoying when you have spent some time finding a tree but then lose it again unless you remember to bookmark it in your browser. I wish people would set their profiles so others can see their trees listed in their profile. Especially if the trees are public, there seems no point in 'hiding' them from the profile page.

 

[Pauline]

I wish people would set their profiles so others can see their trees listed in their profile. Especially if the trees are public, there seems no point in 'hiding' them from the profile page.

Thanks, Helen.

Did this setting change recently? I wasn't aware of it before today, and have checked and amended my profile several times in the past. I also noticed on one profile page which was showing no trees, that the person referred to their trees in the information they'd added about themselves. So it seems likely that not actually showing their trees was unintentional - and possibly they were unaware that they weren't.

 

[Helen7]

Did this setting change recently?

I don’t know how long the setting has been there, but I think it may be quite recent. Like you, I noticed that some profiles had trees listed and others didn’t, which made me think it was a setting, but it was seeing your initial post in this thread which prompted me to check.

As you say, it’s likely that many people will be unaware their trees are not visible on their profile page.

 

[peter]

Especially if the trees are public, there seems no point in 'hiding' them from the profile page.

I agree - annoys me too.

 

[At home in NZ]

While I usually manage to find the right tree eventually by searching for people I know to be in it, it isn't that easy as only tree names show up in the results, not usernames

This isn't strictly true, I have developed a means of finding out which other trees might contain 'my person'.
From the profile of that person select Search, then at the left of the list of the results select Public or Private Trees.
The results will show the name of the person being researched along with the user name. Obviously if the tree is public you can go in and look but if it is Private you select the user name and make Contact.
Unfortunately Bookmarking is the only way to find a tree again. I use Bookmarks Folders and have one for Ancestry trees I am interested in, I name the Bookmark appropriately.

I agree it is annoying when you have spent some time finding a tree but then lose it again unless you remember to bookmark it in your browser. I wish people would set their profiles so others can see their trees listed in their profile. Especially if the trees are public, there seems no point in 'hiding' them from the profile page.

Do people actually know how to set their profiles or even know if it is possible?
I know of somebody with trees in Ancestry who is not particularly tech savvy, they have a Profile that only has a username in it. I suspect like a lot of other users they set up a username and go straight into creating a tree without even looking at what they can do with their profile.

If we asked Ancestry for a change to this, so that completion of profile is mandatory we would probably wait until hell freezes over to get any action.

 

[Helen7]

This isn't strictly true, I have developed a means of finding out which other trees might contain 'my person'.
From the profile of that person select Search, then at the left of the list of the results select Public or Private Trees.

A quicker way to find public trees containing your relative is to use the 'Member Connect' feature, which gives the tree name and user name. But there can be many hits and it doesn't give a direct way of locating a tree from the user name.

 

[At home in NZ]

use the 'Member Connect' feature

Well that works really well, not!
I remember using the feature many years ago and giving up on it, I've just found out why.
I chose a person who I know is in other trees and clicked on the Member Connect in the Tools, the result is a list of trees for a totally different person, followed by a list of trees for the right person.
Using the method I described in thread #6 I can see all the Private and all the Public trees that include my person.

 

[Helen7]

Well that works really well, not!
I remember using the feature many years ago and giving up on it, I've just found out why.
I chose a person who I know is in other trees and clicked on the Member Connect in the Tools, the result is a list of trees for a totally different person, followed by a list of trees for the right person.
Using the method I described in thread #6 I can see all the Private and all the Public trees that include my person.

Well, yes I agree you can get false hits (though most of those I've seen have been OK), but no more so that using the Search method in my experience. The main disadvantage, as you say, is you only see the public trees, so to see the private trees you have to do a search. So I agree, Member Connect is very limited, but may be a quick way to find a public tree if you know it's there.

 

[Bob Spiers]

From the profile of that person select Search, then at the left of the list of the results select Public or Private Trees.
The results will show the name of the person being researched along with the user name. Obviously if the tree is public you can go in and look but if it is Private you select the user name and make Contact.

Yes that is the method I have used for quite some time to trace other researchers. I would just qualify that the sequence from the profile of the person is - Search -(list on the left) Family Trees -(Filter by) -Public Member Trees (or Private). I seldom bother with Private Trees unless information is scant in the Public area. I find no need to Bookmark as I can locate them again quite easily using the same methodology.

 

[Pauline]

I have developed a means of finding out which other trees might contain 'my person'.
From the profile of that person select Search, then at the left of the list of the results select Public or Private Trees.

I hadn't tried this method before, because it only works if you happen to have the person of interest in your tree, which generally isn't the case when I'm looking at other Ancestry trees. But unless I've misunderstood the method, you still end up with a list of trees that you have to check one by one until you find the one you were looking for. I wonder if this method works better if you are looking for any trees containing a particular relative rather than searching for one particular tree from a known user (who isn't showing their trees on their profile page).

I find no need to Bookmark as I can locate them again quite easily using the same methodology.

Whenever I do tree searches the results seem to come up in a completely random order. So if I'm looking for a specific tree among numerous results, then one time it may show up on page 1 and the next time on page 6.

 

[Pauline]

I've just had another go at searching for trees from the profile of someone in my tree, and there seem to be a few flaws. Firstly, it automatically does a very broad search, so even narrowing the search down to just public trees gave me over 3 million results - and usually one result is for a batch of similar trees, rather than just one tree. Only the first of those results (a batch of 26 trees) was of any relevance, although I admit I didn't look at all 3 million!

Secondly, the results are showing 20 to a page, despite the drop-down being set to show 50. And thirdly, each batch of trees in the results includes private as well as public trees, although the number showing for how many trees in each batch has only counted the public ones.

If you've previously messaged someone, then links to their trees will show up in the RH pane on the Messaging page, even if they are not showing on their profile page. But that won't help if you haven't messaged them!

 

[At home in NZ]

I've just had another go at searching for trees from the profile of someone in my tree, and there seem to be a few flaws. Firstly, it automatically does a very broad search, so even narrowing the search down to just public trees gave me over 3 million results

That sounds rather odd, unless there really are 3 million people with exactly the same name.
I've just used my 'brick wall' second great grandfather William Henry Maynard to see if I get something different from you.
I used Search which gave me a possible tree at the top of the page which I have looked at many times before and is one of those trees that is not correct.
I noticed for the first time that there is 'see more like this' beside the tree so I clicked on that and received a page that I get when I use the method I first described, it has 20 results but only the first line has William's name and it has 'Found in 36 trees' and 'View all'. Click on 'View all' and you can see the list of trees that contain William.

If you've previously messaged someone, then links to their trees will show up in the RH pane on the Messaging page, even if they are not showing on their profile page. But that won't help if you haven't messaged them!

Kudos to Ancestry (for a change) for thinking of this.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I've just had another go at searching for trees from the profile of someone in my tree, and there seem to be a few flaws. Firstly, it automatically does a very broad search, so even narrowing the search down to just public trees gave me over 3 million results - and usually one result is for a batch of similar trees, rather than just one tree...

That sounds rather odd, unless there really are 3 million people with exactly the same name.

I have to agree with AhinNZ . If the directions are followed to find a Tree bearing someone with the same name -and leaving side the John/Mary Smiths of this world - then Ancestry will prioritise with SURNAME, FIRST NAME before going on to find every soundalike and variation on a theme. To take note of a grand total by mathematical assessment of numbers per page and pages remaining, is pure hyperbole. If the first page does not produce results worthy of examination (showing the same parents and/or spouse) then time to move on.

It is probably easier to give an example and as I happen to be forming a new Tree for a cousin whose DNA results I will soon be managing, I offer Mary Cammerer, whose surname is a little out of the ordinary and I am aware of her parents and spouse.

On the OPENING page the first Tree is promising and shows the parents and spouse already known and is a Public Tree. (It tells me Mary can be found in 12 Trees). Again on the OPENING page the 2nd Tree offers an Elizabeth H Cammerer and the 3rd a Maria Cammerer and these I ignore for now, as I do other variations. So back to the first Tree I click on the 'View All' and up comes the 12 Trees.

On the SECOND page the first Tree (not surprisingly) was first from the previous page. It has the right supporting credentials and for now will be the main focus of further research. For the record 4 of the remainder are Public Trees and 7 are Private (yes despite filtering for Public Trees). 3 of the Public Trees also support other known details and may be worth exploring later. But now time to explore the first Tree which Ancestry quite correctly believes offers the best chance of being meaningful to my research; and full marks to them for that.

You actually summed up all this in your closing sentence Pauline and I quote: Only the first of those results (a batch of 26 trees) was of any relevance..." I totally agree so why worry about the remainder?

 

[Pauline]

That sounds rather odd, unless there really are 3 million people with exactly the same name.

I've just run the search again, as before and doing, I think, just what you describe, and to be precise I get 3,251,280 results. All the search fields were automatically set to broad except for the surname which was set to "Exact, sounds like and similar".

The person I was searching on is an Ann Perrott (though some people have her surname spelt Parrott) who married a Walter Silver in Kent. The first result is a batch of 26 trees all showing this couple in some shape or form. Looking at other results on page 1 (the first 20), I can't imagine why they many of them are there - how on earth does an Augusta Pratt who married Napoleon Bonaventure Lamoury in India relate to my search?!!! (That one was 7th in order of relevance.)

Actually, now I look more closely, the 4th and the 6th results are also relevant to my search. The 4th result is a batch of 127 trees showing Walter Silver with two of his wives merged into one, and the 6th is a single tree showing Walter Silver without any wives.

It seems that because the search is automatically set to broad, it is picking up everyone who was born in the same year or married in the same year etc. I would never usually do searches this broad although Ancestry, for some unknown reason, seems to think it's the best way to search, and routinely changes my search criteria if I don't keep a close eye.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I hadn't given thought to the pre-set search criteria and so my search was set to Broad by default. Even so the results were pretty good considering. As Mary Cammerer in the Tree used for the Search was shown as married (in Ancestry parlance as Cammerer Clarke), 'Exact' returned a NUL result. By removing her married name and leaving just Mary Cammerer and setting both to Exact, the result was quite brilliant. It returned 3 hits this time, with only one qualifying - yes the one shown first in my broad search, again with 12 other Trees. The other two hits could be ruled out because parents and spouse did not match.

Of course I fully realise that knowing parents and spouse was a help because otherwise I would have needed to examine further, but never beyond the first page, and rarely beyond the first half dozen. I also accept one has to keep an eye on how Ancestry have set the search criteria and edit even if the default will reset itself to Broad later.

 

[At home in NZ]

I've just run the search again, as before and doing, I think, just what you describe, and to be precise I get 3,251,280 results. All the search fields were automatically set to broad except for the surname which was set to "Exact, sounds like and similar".

I pay no attention to the search settings, they copy what is in the Profile.
I have a Benjamin Wicks in one of my trees, he was born in 1748 he married Kezia Winchester. Benjamin's father was James Wicks born 1705. Benjamin had a son Stephen born in 1781.
My results are, in this order:
Benjamin 249 trees
Stephen 131 trees
James 126 trees

Followed by various other listings for trees with people of similar name.

Pauline, have you tried using somebody who you know IS in several trees to see if you get a similar result?

 

[John Dancy]

Going back to the origin of this thread, as I think in some of the posts it might have diverged slightly, I had a query from another Ancestry member as to whether my wife's tree had a surname in it. Although she didn't, I searched her DNA surnames, found a match, and also the chain/connection between my wife, the DNA match, and the Ancestry member who had asked. I took a screen shot of the relevant part of the tree. In writing the e-mail back to the member I thought I would check it. Using the "Member search" I found my wife's DNA match, called up the profile, and low and behold, no trees ! I then switched the DNA comparison from my own to my wife's and the tree is shown.

It would seem that some trees only appear on the profile if you are on the member's DNA match list, but I have no idea why.

I was going to see if I could find the tree through the Family trees part of "Search" but there are 208 trees with the couple on already.

 

[At home in NZ]

unless I'm missing something, it seems there is no way within Ancestry to bookmark a tree so I can come back for a second look later

That is a quote from the original post.
Until today I myself had no other way of finding a tree unless I bookmarked it. The Discussion called Ancestry Homepage change warning includes reference to 'Quick Links to a whole series of trees I was interested in going back to'. When I saw that I thought to myself,' ah that's what I should do'.

some trees only appear on the profile

Trees appear on your profile if you set it up to show them. But, I don't know if the same applies to DNA trees.

 

[Helen7]

Trees appear on your profile if you set it up to show them. But, I don't know if the same applies to DNA trees.

It does. There's no distinction between DNA-linked trees and other trees in the profile settings.