Is this the most useless Ancestry Hint of all time?

[At home in NZ]

One of my 7th great grandfathers was Gabriel Green born 1681, his father and his son were also Gabriel. They were all born in Suffolk, England.

I have a Hint for the 7th great grandfather:

Name Gabriel Samudio. In the Mexico, Select Baptisms, 1560-1950 collection.

My reaction is not printable.

 

[PhilGee]

I have had a number of hints of that quality - with the new look trees etc, the "pretty is paramount" with "change for the sake of change" push is obviously causing accuracy problems.

 

[peter]

But perhaps it's not Ancestry's fault? It's a dataset from FamilySearch and you may recall this post which pointed out that FamilySearch had relocated some of their Mexican baptisms to Durham.

 

[Bob Spiers]

When I came across the 'Ancestry' heading in New Posts I knew it would have to include posts from one or the other (At HomeNZ /Phil Gee) for sure, so not at all disappointed to find both of you. However, for the record I would like to add FMP to the list of Mickey Mouse' Hint providers. A week or so ago -and against my better judgement but persuaded with the 1921 Census looming -I decided to put my tree on FMP. Something I am beginning to regret and may well remove it because I have started to get their versions of Hints earning my remarks... "go tell that to the Marines".

As I use FMP a fair bit for Searches (and probably more than Ancestry) I find they latch on to my latest name searches under BMD headings then endeavour to matched them with persons in my Tree. I then receive an email which begins..."Intriguing new Hints await". I haven't received enough to say they are ALL Mickey Mouse but I have yet to find anything that remotely matches and one in particular was as nonsensical as the example posted by AtHinNZ,

I have also begun to realise they submit BMD hints which are correct but are NOT attached to my FMP Tree. This means the likelihood of having to duplicate actions already undertaken in Ancestry. It is bad enough that by choice I often have to manually add information into my Tribal Pages, I am not going to duplicate again in FMP.

So perhaps not a good idea to post a duplicate Tree in FMP and wonder how many others also have duplicate Trees and how they get on with same?

 

[peter]

So perhaps not a good idea to post a duplicate Tree in FMP and wonder how many others also have duplicate Trees and how they get on with same?

I have trees at both sites, but rarely look at hints at either site - I don't attach records to my trees, so even if the hints are correct they're usually about something I already know.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have trees at both sites, but rarely look at hints at either site - I don't attach records to my trees, so even if the hints are correct they're usually about something I already know.

I do not know how anyone can receive Hints and not check them out - even if for the sake of curiosity and, who knows - one day - receiving the 'hum-dinger' hint that blows your mind (OK probably on a par with a lottery win).

As for not attaching records to an Ancestry Tree I find that absolutely amazing especially from Mr Masterclass himself (and that is meant kindly, not with derision). Surely that is the name of the game and does it mean you do not attach Census Records, or BMD data? I find that hard to believe so perhaps I misunderstood the point you were making; I hope that is the case.

 

[peter]

I do not know how anyone can receive Hints and not check them out - even if for the sake of curiosity and, who knows - one day - receiving the 'hum-dinger' hint that blows your mind (OK probably on a par with a lottery win).

As for not attaching records to an Ancestry Tree I find that absolutely amazing especially from Mr Masterclass himself (and that is meant kindly, not with derision). Surely that is the name of the game and does it mean you do not attach Census Records, or BMD data? I find that hard to believe so perhaps I misunderstood the point you were making; I hope that is the case.

No, you understood me correctly - the only tree that matters in the one on my computer. My online trees are private, apart from the direct ancestors only tree attached to my DNA results, and it's much easier for me to upload a new GEDCOM than update multiple trees. Of course, if I used FTM I would do things differently.

 

[PhilGee]

.... My online trees are private, apart from the direct ancestors only tree attached to my DNA results,

I am slightly surprised about the DNA tree. I use FTM, so can update relatively easily and, like you, my online detailed trees are private (non-searchable). My DNA tree is a merger of less informative versions of the individual trees with only "essential" information (birth, baptism, marriage, death, burial and locations to village/parish level) with added Thrulines entries for matches to try and help with placing shared matches.

 

[peter]

I am slightly surprised about the DNA tree.

I can't see the point of adding extra relatives and extra information - Ancestry does a very good job of identifying Common Ancestors, so I don't think it would be a very good use of my time. My cousins can always contact me if they want to know more.

 

[Bob Spiers]

My online trees are private, apart from the direct ancestors only tree attached to my DNA results

my online detailed trees are private (non-searchable)

I know they say 'each to his own' but I find it hard to understand any logic with having private non searchable Trees; none whatsoever. My whole raison d'etre for having an Ancestry Tree is for it to be Public and of course searchable and to have similar access to other Public Trees. I do just about (on a good day with a favourable wind) accept reasons for having a 'searchable' Private Tree but for the most part even if I come across one and decide against my better judgement to make contact with the owner, can count on the fingers of one hand how many respond.

Why am I not surprised that those who favour the Private Tree make their DNA Trees Public -albeit in emasculated format - and it took a long time before you even came to that decision. To me it was obvious from the start as the only way to proceed with a Tree annexed to my DNA results.

 

[Mitch_in_Notts]

Bob Spiers - I have a private searchable tree with photos, documents etc attached and linked to 2 DNA tests. Currently 34 Ancestry users have access - all relatives.
I have the same downloaded GEDCOM as a public tree which I delete and replace a couple of times a years from my private tree. Anyone can access this but of course they don't have access to the privileged info that is on the private tree.

 

[peter]

Why am I not surprised that those who favour the Private Tree make their DNA Trees Public -albeit in emasculated format - and it took a long time before you even came to that decision. To me it was obvious from the start as the only way to proceed with a Tree annexed to my DNA results.

Bob, since you have been advocating that we all have public trees for as long as I can remember, it would have been surprising if you gave the decision any thought at all!

But for the rest of us the key decision was between attaching a detailed private tree to our DNA results, which is what I did originally, or a direct ancestors only public tree. It wasn't about privacy, it was about which would be most useful for DNA matches.

When it became apparent that Ancestry DNA searches only look at direct ancestors, the decision was easy to make.

 

[PhilGee]

I know they say 'each to his own' but I find it hard to understand any logic with having private non searchable Trees; none whatsoever.

Why am I not surprised that those who favour the Private Tree make their DNA Trees Public -albeit in emasculated format - and it took a long time before you even came to that decision. To me it was obvious from the start as the only way to proceed with a Tree annexed to my DNA results.

My private non-searchable trees are for my research, contain more detail and are less stable than the DNA tree, but are "shared" with others on that basis.

... But for the rest of us the key decision was between attaching a detailed private tree to our DNA results, which is what I did originally, or a direct ancestors only public tree. It wasn't about privacy, it was about which would be most useful for DNA matches.

When it became apparent that Ancestry DNA searches only look at direct ancestors, the decision was easy to make.

I originally had a direct ancestors only tree but identifying where matches fitted was too reliant on the inaccuracies in the direct ancestors Ancestry "stitched together".

One of the (major?) problems with the direct ancestors approach is that, for my tree, it stops when there are two people of the same name with a similar birth year who married second cousins (who are my blood relatives - as are their children!). They are, therefore, both in my DNA tree - but only one set of parents. - and as a result, it insists the two are the common ancestor

 

[At home in NZ]

Well, well, that generated a lot of discussion!

I seem to remember a time when Peter was advocating we all have public trees therefore I find the above rather hypocritical.

I have said similar to this before: my trees are private because I have lots of documents, records and photos that are not available in the public domain and I wish them to remain so.

My trees are not just a whole load of people in a tree format, Facts are accompanied by media to illustrate places, people and their accomplishments.

I use Ancestry for research and to sync with FTM, I then use FTM to create charts and descendant reports etc.

 

[Bryman]

One of the (major?) problems with the direct ancestors approach is that, for my tree, it stops when there are two people of the same name with a similar birth year who married second cousins (who are my blood relatives - as are their children!). They are, therefore, both in my DNA tree - but only one set of parents. - and as a result, it insists the two are the common ancestor

Apparently, I did not get adequately refreshed by last night's sleep. I do not understand the problem that you are trying to describe. Please can you give an illustration without divulging private information? I have only one tree at Ancestry and that is fully public containing just my direct ancestors for DNA matching. I believe that works well to indicate relationships to DNA cousins that have provided similar searchable information.

 

[peter]

I seem to remember a time when Peter was advocating we all have public trees therefore I find the above rather hypocritical.

Your memory is playing tricks - I've always warned against having public trees. See for example:

Peter's Tips August 2010
A cautionary tale October 2011
Errors in online trees: continued July 2013
More Ancestry tips January 2014
Public vs Private trees: the debate continues June 2016
Public family trees February 2019

I have said similar to this before: my trees are private because I have lots of documents, records and photos that are not available in the public domain and I wish them to remain so. My trees are not just a whole load of people in a tree format, Facts are accompanied by media to illustrate places, people and their accomplishments.

Surely FTM has the option to strip out all of that information?

 

[Tim]

FTAnalyzer will produce a Minimalist DNA Gedcom, that's what I use. It strips out everything but leaves BMD facts.
You can choose to include siblings of your direct ancestors or not, you can choose to include Descendants of siblings or not.

And FTAnalyzer is now available from the MicroSoft store.

 

[At home in NZ]

Your memory is playing tricks - I've always warned against having public trees. See for example:

Surely FTM has the option to strip out all of that information?

why would I want it to?
I want the media in FTM and it gets there from Ancestry when the sync is performed.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Your memory is playing tricks - I've always warned against having public trees. See for example:

Yes fairs fair, if I am an advocate of the unfettered Public Tree (as everyone knows, or knows now) then Peter has been against same for as long as I can remember.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I am minded to use two quotes..."destiny shapes our ends" and circumstances alter cases" and to follow what these mean to me, I shall explain why I take the stance I do when it comes to unfettered Public Trees linked to my DNA test.

Unlike it seems many others I do NOT have any siblings or cousins DNA tested (I manage one for an 'adopted cousin' but his Tree is quite separate from my own). I also have a DNA Tree which I manage for my wife (my second) and for my daughter whose mother was my first wife and I gifted the test to her to enable me to track her paternal line. I have two sisters (no brothers) and ONE paternal female first cousin. None have or wish to take a DNA test nor does that worry me in any regard. I have first cousins on my maternal side - 4 girls and 2 boys - but none have or wish to take a DNA test. All rely on me for Family History matters and I keep them well informed via my Tribal Pages, which of course is private which they access via an Access Code.

So unlike all the mumbo-jumbo comments under ANCESTRY DNA MATCHES -which are not only beyond my comprehension but also non applicable given I have no 'cousins' or siblings to match with - I have no desire or need to make comparisons with family 'others'. Of course none of this precludes the chance my DNA may well match with a distant removed cousin, I am only interested in this up to a 4th Cousin and set my filters to ensure this happens.

So those are the circumstances that shape my destiny and I can report finding many matches within the filter range, and even more outside of DNA via my Public Trees. In fact I have two on the go at this time, and one I now discover relates to my Irish connection which came about from a chance Message ..."I notice you have xxxxxx in your Tree can you say how you relate". Who needs DNA?