Ancestry Public Trees versus Private - a new debate

[peter]

Well, well finally committing to a Public Tree Peter - I am impressed even though only driven to it by the obvious advantage a Public Tree brings in DNA matching, and even, may I say, given the limitations you intend applying by restricting to Director Ancestors. All the same a small step for mankind... and in the right direction. Well done.

It's not exactly a sea-change - I have had a public tree at Family Tree DNA for some years, but it's only visible to my matches (ie my genetic cousins).

Unfortunately Ancestry don't offer the option of a tree which is visible only to DNA matches. So I have always been torn between the options of attaching a detailed private tree or a direct ancestors-only public tree.

There were two factors that led me to re-evaluate the trade-offs. One was the discovery that when Ancestry search the trees of DNA matches looking for surnames they don't look at every individual, only direct ancestors; in these circumstances there is no point attaching a full tree to my DNA results.

The other was a change that Ancestry made to their search results - they give less information than they used to when you find someone in a private tree, for example the name of their spouse is no longer shown (even if specified in the search), and the exact place of birth isn't given (even if specified in the search).

So, like John Maynard Keynes, I'm changing my mind because the facts have changed. If Ancestry change the way their searches work I will re-evaluate the situation again, and may well go back to where I started.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I really don't want to be part of the Ancestry drive for misinformation and wouldn't dream of making these trees public!

I would be careful in making that Statement PhoebeW, it could be misconstrued, and certainly you may be guilty of the very thing you blame on Ancestry. Ancestry is many things to many people but even its worst detractors (perhaps bar one other lady on this Forum) shy away from accusing them of disseminating 'misinformation'.

Ancestry is an immensely big world wide data-base platform provided for the use of public subscribers allowing them the means to store and manage their Family Trees and decide how they may be viewed by others. Ancestry's only 'drive' -apart from making money which they certainly do with great success - is to maintain the database and provide the necessary search algorithms and means for Tree owners to contact one another. Any misinformation therefore, by definition, comes from within the Trees themselves and even that is open to interpretation on the basis of one man's (or woman's) meat is another's poison. He or (as political correctness requires) She who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[peter]

PhoebeW is right in saying that Ancestry must take some responsibility for the spreading of misinformation. The excuse that they are just a platform doesn't hold water - there are platforms which are designed to encourage accuracy, such as eBay, Amazon, Wikipedia and (dare I say it) LostCousins. and there are others which do little to discourage misinformation (Facebook and Twitter have historically been amongst the worst offenders and even today I still see fake advertising on Facebook).

If I were running Ancestry there are lots of changes I would make to improve the accuracy of the user-provided data, and I suspect the end result would be a more profitable company as well as a better experience for users.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Perhaps the answer is that someone with a private tree is more likely to respond to another person with a private tree?

Yes, I believe that is most likely the reason why -even with my fairly infrequent need to make Private Tree contacts - I get a poor response, when a more or less identical themed message to a Public Tree owner, brings a higher success rate. (Here I clearly do not mean in numbers but percentages).

This just goes to show how different your approach is from mine and - I suspect - most other family historians. The first thing most LostCousins members want to know when they make a new match is whether the person they've found is a cousin or simply related by marriage.

Yes again, I agree it does make our approaches different, but want to make it clear I am just as interested as the next family historian in Cousin relationships - after all I joined Lost Cousins did I not - but it is NOT an initial driving force nor does it influence my reason for making contacts; it is by way of an added bonus should it occur.

I am just as content to find a 'related by marriage' connection, something you down play as second league on the LC site, as when you challenge when the ratio of 'Marriage' to 'Blood' threatens to creep up, or heaven forbid, overtake! This is one of the reasons why I temporarily called a halt to adding new Ancestors as certainly the majority now are relationships by marriage. As soon as |I add more it will not be long before Marriage outnumbers Blood. This of course threatens the LC "raison d'etre" to locate Lost Cousins, but in truth causes me little bother.

So, in a nutshell, this is how we differ, but ...Vive la difference!

 

[PhoebeW]

I would be careful in making that Statement PhoebeW, it could be misconstru ed, and certainly you may be guilty of the very thing you blame on Ancestry. Ancestry is many things to many people but even its worst detractors (perhaps bar one other lady on this Forum) shy away from accusing them of disseminating 'misinformation'..

Not at all. I think Ancestry's systems are encouraging inaccuracies in its users' trees. Ancestry has many strengths and I have subscribed for many years. I also recommend it to others (with some qualifications). But they have put systems in place that harvest entries from members' trees without checking and that offer them up to other members to accept at the click of a button. They know that this functionality is spreading errors and inaccuracies across users' trees and they continue to develop more of the same. I think they have a responsibility to ensure that their own systems are not encouraging inaccuracies.

 

[peter]

Perhaps the answer is that someone with a private tree is more likely to respond to another person with a private tree?

Yes, I believe that is most likely the reason why -even with my fairly infrequent need to make Private Tree contacts - I get a poor response, when a more or less identical themed message to a Public Tree owner, brings a higher success rate.

If you're right about that then aren't we better off keeping our trees private?

 

[peter]

The DNA cousin with a private tree who I messaged for the first time this morning replied this afternoon - can't really complain about that!

EDIT: and again this evening

 

[palfamily]

I would find it annoying if I did a surname search on my DNA matches and came up with a list of 50 matches all from Private Trees. Surely the Ancestry system only works if the vast majority of trees are public.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Hi palfamily, You are worried about Private Trees on Ancestry re DNA matches yet you don't mention those with no tree at all which most of us find more frustrating. At least with a Private Tree you know the match has done some research. You can only hope someone with no tree has a tree elsewhere. However I think in most cases they haven't done any family history research and have merely taken a DNA test for ethnicity reasons (which Ancestry promotes over finding new relatives or family tree information). Ancestry recently sent me a survey and I castigated them for placing too much emphasis on ethnicity rather than family history. I suspect they do this because it is easy money for them and the DNA purchasers don't have to anything apart from spit in a tube!

 

[palfamily]

Yes FamilyHistoryGal I do find the number of people with no trees very frustrating. I’m surprised by the number there actually are. I have around 200 4th cousin matches and just over 25% have no trees, also several have a tree with only 2 or 3 people. I put it down to unwanted birthday presents or people finding fh research more difficult than they thought. I shall be interested to see what happens after Xmas.

 

[peter]

I would find it annoying if I did a surname search on my DNA matches and came up with a list of 50 matches all from Private Trees. Surely the Ancestry system only works if the vast majority of trees are public.

At Genes Reunited all of the trees are private, and that site was the market leader in the UK and some other countries for quite a long time. Nobody ever said to me that it would be better if the trees were public, and the reason it lost its position was nothing to do with trees - it was partly because the owners were focusing on Friends Reunited, the parent site, and partly because other sites had more records and better record search capabilities.

There's surely nothing wrong with corresponding with a cousin in order to figure out how the two of you are related?

I have around 200 4th cousin matches and just over 25% have no trees

You've probably got over 20,000 matches in all - you can afford for there to be some who don't have trees, and some who have minimal trees. They aren't going to be the ones that turn up in searches.

 

[palfamily]

You've probably got over 20,000 matches in all

Is there a quick way to jump to the last page of a search list? I can only seem to do it one page at a time.

 

[peter]

Is there a quick way to jump to the last page of a search list? I can only seem to do it one page at a time.

Type in the number of the page you want to go to.

 

[jorghes]

I love a good circular argument! I was writing my initial post in a word document to make sure I said what I wanted to say and didn't waffle, but alas school duties (my full time job!) has got in the way (it's the end of the year... so marking, marking and more marking... except when you're getting the 12s to do revision.)

So I will attempt a precis of what I was originally going to say.

I use both Private and Public trees, although my biggest tree (and I would hope I'm not just a name collector) is my Public one. I like to think that people can do what I did, and learn to sort the information that Ancestry provides in order to become a better researcher. I admit to have learnt that way - often pruning my tree to remove erroneous information - for example an incorrect marriage when I ordered the death entries for a couple of ancestors that revealed the married names of two of their daughters. I also recently pruned 50 odd people off my tree after an inquiry as to whether I was related to a particular set of people... the information wasn't credible enough, so I deleted everyone and pruned it back to what it was, and then replied to the person to state I wasn't sure. I am fully aware that just because the chance is there someone people will ignore it, after all I teach teenagers.

Often I find that some Ancestry trees can help to add siblings/children to a tree, but I prefer any additions to be matched to records and often they are. If they're too unbelievable - had a child born in South America in the middle of siblings born in Amsterdam, I simply remove them as incorrect.

There are a lot of credible public trees out there, and an equal amount of people who simply add whatever Ancestry offers. I disagree with those who think that Ancestry hints just offer dross - usually (depending of course on the amount of information added) the initial hints are usually correct, once past the initial set of hints, it gets more and more inaccurate, or duplicates information you already have from a different set of data.

I will concur with Bob about the messages, I think I receive more messages from people with public trees than I do from private - that's not to say that I don't receive messages from people with private trees - the first cousin I emailed through a DNA link had a private tree (and is also on LostCousins somewhere) and happily told me when and where we were related, but I don't have many conversations with that particular cousin - and there's no real sharing of resources (I am not complaining, simply stating fact), most definitely not the sorts that I have had with other members I have contacted.

At this point I have been gifted more contacts through Ancestry than LostCousins (although I'm sure that will change), and definitely more cousin links through Ancestry at this point in time, both with and without DNA. I admit to not always contacting people I have Ancestry links with, although sometimes I don't get an answer that contains enough information. But I am always happy to do what I can even for those who are not blood related - I have happily shared information with others who are both cousin and marriage links alike through what I have, although I don't think I necessarily have that much! I generally start my messages with a query about being a possible relative - stating where I think it is if I have an approximate idea myself, and I let it go from there - I have never asked for access to someone else's tree although I have been gifted access to a couple of other trees, one for the purpose of sharing research that I don't have, and the other to see if we can figure out where we are DNA related as currently there are no shared names or links.

As for DNA links - I agree, "no tree" is the most frustrating response, especially if they don't have any links with "shared matches" you can identify. I have access to DNA tests for both my parents and my paternal grandmother (as I have previously stated) and so there is an inordinate amount of matches to dig through - including some second cousin links.

I think I ended up waffling, but I responded!

 

[Bryman]

I am just as content to find a 'related by marriage' connection, something you down play as second league on the LC site, as when you challenge when the ratio of 'Marriage' to 'Blood' threatens to creep up, or heaven forbid, overtake! This is one of the reasons why I temporarily called a halt to adding new Ancestors as certainly the majority now are relationships by marriage.

I would not suggest that I am JUST as content to find a 'related by marriage' connection but being realistic, I believe that 'by marriage' connections are bound to be more numerous than blood relations unless specific steps are taken to avoid that happening. I am surprised that other members do not find themselves in that position. Initially, we research our direct ancestors and then follow Peter's advice to cast the net wider to include more distant relations. In doing so, the greater number of non-blood relatives will become apparent. Peter suggests that the bulk of those need not be recorded at LostCousins but I am loathe to ignore uncovered data that might be useful in making a connection. If such a match does not appear to be productive then the parties need not continue to converse.

I believe that most researchers need to be more realistic in their expectations from what may result from their involvement with LostCousins. Consider the similar situation where someone is given a free lottery ticket each week and only needs to supply a set of appropriate numbers and to submit the entry for evaluation, (sound familiar?). Would any such recipient consider terminating the arrangement simply because they have never won a major prize? Particularly if they have only ever won small prizes and now they have won yet another minor amount. We should all be thankful for any help that we can get. The main motivation behind LostCousins may be to find living cousins but sometimes contact with 'nearly cousins' can be more productive and (I believe) should not be ignored.

I have just asked Peter to send a reminder to a member to whom I sent a LC contact request about a month ago and have not received any reply. There were several matches identified from the 1881 census where my blood relative (2C2R) was married to the elder brother of the other member's GGF. I also found many further individuals from that extended family in the 1911 census but no matches resulted so presumably the other member does not have ready access to that census via a subscription. I am only related by marriage but I could potentially supply information from my tree to fill in gaps in the other member's tree, if only he/she would respond.

Bob, please do not stop adding new ancestor census references at LC for fear of making 'by marriage' relatives top heavy. I am sure that your extensive experience and tree content could be very useful to less experienced members, who may even be able to reciprocate.

 

[Bob Spiers]

If you're right about that then aren't we better off keeping our trees private?

Once again you reach a conclusion that, as far as I am concerned, does not lead to anyone being better of with Private Tree; if anything quite the opposite.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Bob, please do not stop adding new ancestor census references at LC for fear of making 'by marriage' relatives top heavy. I am sure that your extensive experience and tree content could be very useful to less experienced members, who may even be able to reciprocate.

Thank you Bryman and of course I will be returning to add more Ancestors in due time. As you succinctly explain in the rest of your post this will make the Blood/Marriage relationship show unfavourably (to Peter at any rate). Most of my bloodline has been covered -a few stragglers to go perhaps - so inevitably this will bring Marriage relationships to the fore. I too believe they should be added regardless of the outcome.

 

[peter]

Once again you reach a conclusion that, as far as I am concerned, does not lead to anyone being better of with Private Tree; if anything quite the opposite.

You may not like the conclusion, but doesn't it the logical conclusion?

A lot of your evidence in this debate has been about how you much prefer dealing with people who have public trees - and I don't dispute that. I too find it easier working with public trees than private ones - who wouldn't - but they are the trees of other people who have chosen to make their information available to all. I don't need to have a public tree of my own (or any tree at all) in order to look at other peoples' public trees - all I need is an Ancestry subscription.

What I thought we were going to be debating is whether we are individually better off if our own Ancestry tree is public rather than private.

Personally I would be much happier to have a public tree at Ancestry, as I have for years at FTDNA, if Ancestry managed the environment differently - this could include logging who looks at each public tree, asking people to sign a visitors book, and (ideally) limiting access to genetic cousins of the tree owner (as FTDNA do). An under-appreciated fact is that whilst it was DNA that provided the initial clues, it was Ancestry public trees that actually led to the identification of the Golden State Killer, so it's important to be aware of how much information we are giving to the world at large when we post a public tree at Ancestry.

Of course, I've no problem with my DNA or my tree being used to catch a killer, but in a world dominated by scams it does concern me that some people will inevitably use online trees to construct webs of deceit so that they can defraud others. One of my friends lost hundreds of thousands of pounds from a house sale as a result of a scam, and whilst that particular case was in no way related to family trees, I don't think it's very long before fraudsters realise the potential they offer. For example, inheritance scams are very simplistic at the moment - but it would be very easy to make them much more convincing by taking facts from online trees.

 

[peter]

As you succinctly explain in the rest of your post this will make the Blood/Marriage relationship show unfavourably (to Peter at any rate). Most of my bloodline has been covered -a few stragglers to go perhaps - so inevitably this will bring Marriage relationships to the fore. I too believe they should be added regardless of the outcome.

LostCousins is primarily about finding people who share our ancestors - our 'lost cousins'. Even without entering people related to us only by marriage we'll still be matched with some members who aren't cousins - currently about half of all matches involve cousins, and half people related only by marriage.

But if 90% of matches were between relatives who aren't cousins (as in Bryman's case) it would discourage some members, and undermine the rationale of the site. I know this because I already get complaints from people whose matches are dominated by people who aren't cousins.

(Each LostCousins member with British ancestry is 6th cousin or closer to around 200 existing LostCousins members - that's a large enough number, I'd have thought?)

 

[Bob Spiers]

I think I ended up waffling, but I responded!

That was no 'waffle' jorghes, quite a refreshing post of clarity - and as someone who nudged me to make my case - the other was Family History Gal - I was eager to see what you had to say.

How refreshing to hear your biggest Tree is Public and you (and many others of course) are not "name collectors". I resent that accusation just as people who live in (so called) 'bad' districts resent being tarred with the same brush, because of the activities of a few. There are good and bad (and I dare say ugly) in all quarters and Ancestry is no different; it is just learning to sort out which is which that holds my interest. The more you do the better you get (no surprise there) and I concur that sometimes this means one has to retract or change information previously believed to be factual.

I like to think that people can do what I did, and learn to sort the information that Ancestry provides in order to become a better researcher.

If I was religious I would say AMEN to that.

I disagree with those who think that Ancestry hints just offer dross - usually (depending of course on the amount of information added) the initial hints are usually correct, once past the initial set of hints, it gets more and more inaccurate, or duplicates information you already have from a different set of data.

And that one gets two AMENS. I love checking on Ancestor page 'Hints' (and those emailed to me in quite some depth) and check on them all. Whilst you are right some hints duplicate information already given, others can be very rewarding and lead on to even better 'finds'. That is really where Ancestry scores hands down.

It is also true that I have discovered more cousins via Ancestry contacts (including those now found through DNA matching), than I have via LC. But as I said to Peter, finding cousins is not my prime motivation, but am pleased when it happens nevertheless

Good luck with your DNA research.