Ancestry Public Trees versus Private -an invited Referendum

[PhilGee]

... To me it seems more probable that they have saved the tree with a new name in their PC software and then uploaded it.

The ones I recall seem to include a date in the title, hence my snapshot theory - though I acknowledge they could be using a FT program as well.

.... You should only ever have one Master file that you continually update, having backups or even creating an off cut that contains a particular branch is fine. But you shouldn't publish them on line. How would you remember to update them all when you find new facts? Or which ones you've corrected? It's a nightmare scenario and it's happening right now.

Agreed, though you should not update backup files. Setting them to private/unsearchable may remove most of the problems they cause.

Yes, I have this son in my tree, but his father is unknown but present and linked to the mother.

As any sensible person would.

 

[peter]

Of course (c) is a distinct possibility also but if it was me I would respond anyway and await being told they cannot reply without a subscription.

If everyone was like you, Bob, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

 

[Bob Spiers]

If everyone was like you, Bob, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

Apart from reminding I started it anyway, I agree with the sentiment as I have always considered Public Trees to be a no brainer and why I was attracted to Ancestry in the first place. That said, I am unsure why the comment was related to my reply to Peter's item (c):

if it was me I would respond anyway and await being told they cannot reply without a subscription

I was merely emphasising that were I (emphasis I) unsure whether I had a current Ancestry subscription, the moment I received the email telling me I had a message I would (if I could) reply to the sender anyway; even if later told by Ancestry I no longer had the reply option because my subscription had lapsed. So a sort of disembodied comment, but as a statement in the round, perhaps understandable.

The discussion has been informative and entertaining and I hope it will continue to attract comments from others. Being a true democrat, it matters not whether for or against the motion, just as long as friendly and truly meant.

 

[Bob Spiers]

(1) It seems to me that those of us who prefer private trees are no less willing with our cousins than those who prefer public trees.

I've read your comment a few times now and admit I do not understand what you mean by 'no less willing'. Can I ask you to expand or explain just what you mean please?

 

[peter]

I've read your comment a few times now and admit I do not understand what you mean by 'no less willing'. Can I ask you to expand or explain just what you mean please?

No less willing to share information is what I should have said. What I type is often only a precis of what is going through my mind, particularly when it's a complex topic with many angles to consider.

I was merely emphasising that were I (emphasis I) unsure whether I had a current Ancestry subscription, the moment I received the email telling me I had a message I would (if I could) reply to the sender anyway; even if later told by Ancestry I no longer had the reply option because my subscription had lapsed.

I'm not sure if you are assuming a lack of knowledge by the recipient of the email, but to clarify the situation for anyone reading this discussion..... any Ancestry member can REPLY to another member, whether they have a current subscription or not. Furthermore any Ancestry member can contact their DNA matches whether or not they have a subscription.

In summary, you need a subscription to INITIATE contact with an Ancestry member, UNLESS that person is a DNA match. In all other circumstances no subscription is required (on either side).

 

[Bob Spiers]

No less willing to share information is what I should have said. What I type is often only a precis of what is going through my mind, particularly when it's a complex topic with many angles to consider.

Finally singing from the same hymn sheet, and often my problem. All too often I am crystal clear what needs to be said, but what gets typed is often missing a vital words or words in the middle. I now understand the point you were making.

...to clarify the situation for anyone reading this discussion..... any Ancestry member can REPLY to another member, whether they have a current subscription or not.

Although I sort of knew that from way back, having had an active subscription for many years, it had slipped my mind. That clarification is helpful because I have initiated many a contact, not all responded and now I know they could have done so (subscription or not) had they half a mind to do so. Assuming of course they received the necessary prompt from Ancestry.

 

[Norman]

... I have initiated many a contact, not all responded and now I know they could have done so (subscription or not) had they half a mind to do so. Assuming of course they received the necessary prompt from Ancestry.

I have used Ancestry's messaging service quite a lot but do wonder whether there is, sometimes, a problem with it. I own several domain names and, consequently, have several email addresses. As an experiment I tried registering with a different address and and then inviting myself to view my tree. The email from Ancestry never arrived. There are one or two other people who have asked for access who have never visited too.

 

[Pauline]

I have used Ancestry's messaging service quite a lot but do wonder whether there is, sometimes, a problem with it.

Currently there seems to be a problem with sending out invitations to view a private tree. I keep trying to invite someone by username (I don't have their email address) and every time I click to send, I get the message that I have invited 0 people, and the person isn't appearing in my list of invitees.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have used Ancestry's messaging service quite a lot but do wonder whether there is, sometimes, a problem with ..

Currently there seems to be a problem with sending out invitations to view a private tree

This may well explain some of my own 'nil response' problems. Previously (a week or two back) I had messages going back and forth to more than one Ancestry (public tree) member, and received email notifications each time someone replied. Sometimes I pre-empted an email by spotting the number had increased against Messages (the envelope icon) and responded that way. But when not online to Ancestry an email alert did the same job, and showed the system was working.

But as I have already mentioned in these postings, very recently I have had nil responses when requesting permission to view a photo or a Tree from private tree members. Perhaps I do them an injustice to say they didn't respond. Perhaps there is a fault in its messaging system, or confined to inter-action with private tree members? I hope not the latter, although didn't Peter mention some changes affecting private Trees? Must look back to read what he said.

invite someone by username (I don't have their email address)

I take it you mean via the message system where one does invite by username, which Ancestry then forward on to their registered email address. If the contact requires additional 'to-and-from' messages, I include my email address in the message and have yet to have anyone refuse theirs in return. They then go into my 'Genealogical' contact list and often help with other FH queries.

 

[peter]

I received a message last week from an Ancestry member, but when I logged in at Ancestry there was no message there. There still wasn't last time I checked.

The email I received said it was message 0 of 0! Clearly something wrong somewhere.

 

[Pauline]

I take it you mean via the message system where one does invite by username

I went to Tree Settings, clicked the Sharing option and then clicked on Invite People. This usually works fine, and sends an email to the person in a standard format to which you can add a personalised message. They can then use the link in the email to accept the invitation and view the tree.

I had already sent a personalised message to the person using the Send Message option but haven't heard back yet so don't have their email address.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I went to Tree Settings, clicked the Sharing option and then clicked on Invite People

I haven't used this for a time but as I had already discussed sending an invite to someone as a Guest (they have their own small Tree on Ancestry), decided to do so to allow me to check it worked. I didn't have their username to hand so chose the email option - the person is a known to me anyway- and can report that went through and quite quickly as a matter of fact. Perhaps it is the username option that causes the problem although I cannot see why, other than an out of date email lodged with Ancestry?

 

[peter]

I haven't used this for a time but as I had already discussed sending an invite to someone as a Guest (they have their own small Tree on Ancestry), decided to do so to allow me to check it worked. I didn't have their username to hand so chose the email option - the person is a known to me anyway- and can report that went through and quite quickly as a matter of fact. Perhaps it is the username option that causes the problem although I cannot see why, other than an out of date email lodged with Ancestry?

Sometimes the system works, sometimes it doesn't. Unfortunately when it doesn't work we can't be sure why, but clearly the system is fragile (see my example above). But there is also the problem of some email providers such as Hotmail putting emails in a 'black hole' rather than delivering or rejecting them, and other email providers wrongly rejecting emails (eg a Spamhaus look-up which times out).

On occasion I've had a reply from an Ancestry member at the 3rd or 4th time of asking, typically stretching over a period of a year or more. But when this happens I'm generally so delighted to get a response that I don't quiz them about the mechanics.

 

[Bob Spiers]

On occasion I've had a reply from an Ancestry member at the 3rd or 4th time of asking, typically stretching over a period of a year or more. But when this happens I'm generally so delighted to get a response that I don't quiz them about the mechanics.

Brought a smile to my face recalling someone I messaged (via a DNA match as a matter of fact) September last, and twice more, and had heard nothing. Just before Christmas I received a reply from a lady telling me she had been on a World cruise, and was in fact due for further holiday excursions in Europe and would not be back until the New Year. She did however advise someone was now managing her Tree and passed on an email address saying she was sure the Manager (another lady) would be able to help. The reply from the 'Manager' advised she would 'look into things' but she had other Trees to manage and couldn't promise when. I have heard nothing since.

Its a funny world of that there is no doubt.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Had a good example of Ancestry hints emailed to me over the weekend which I think relate well in this posting.

Hints are regularly emailed to me from Ancestry – and quite separate from those found on individual ancestor pages - and the latest batch contained two thumb nail images of two Victorian ladies, in fancy hats. I recognised their names – a mother and daughter – as part of a family uncovered for the family member previously mentioned in a post (connected via his mother’s adoption) and knew the photos would be of great interest to him. The younger was his Great Grand Aunt, the other his Great x 2 Grandmother.

I noted the images were newly posted by someone with a Public Tree and recognised his user name as someone I had communicated with before.
I restrict images in my Ancestry Tree (even bloodline which these certainly weren’t) - preferring to add them into my Tribal Pages (TP). I decided that was the best route for these photos, so they were added as jpegs to each of the lady’s pages.

I had recently granted the family member access to TP and emailed him to tell him to check them out. He was of course delighted and had family stories about the ladies which I duly added into TP. I then emailed the Ancestry poster to explain what I had done and regaled him with the stories to go with the photos. He responded saying he was pleased I had found them useful and passed on additional comments which I passed back to the family member. (The next step may obviously be to get them to communicate with each other via email).

So, satisfaction all round and shows Ancestry Hints are not all bothersome, nor necessarily the copying of images always unwelcome.

I am not at all sure whether private tree owners get emailed Hints (I assume they get them within the Tree itself) but if they do the Hints must surely relate to Public Trees or risk being an invasion of privacy? Perhaps someone will enlighten me?

 

[peter]

I am not at all sure whether private tree owners get emailed Hints (I assume they get them within the Tree itself) but if they do the Hints must surely relate to Public Trees or risk being an invasion of privacy? Perhaps someone will enlighten me?

Yes, hints are emailed if you want them. But here's an example of confusion in Ancestry's database (from the first hint I looked at) - the image is actually from the 1871 England & Wales census, but look at the heading:

 

[Bob Spiers]

Yes, hints are emailed if you want them. But here's an example of confusion in Ancestry's database (from the first hint I looked at) - the image is actually from the 1871 England & Wales census, but look at the heading:

View attachment 1276

Well perhaps the Suffolk, Wissett bit is right and I know 'Volkszählung' means 'Census'; but it appears Ancestry have their proverbial 'schlüpfers ' in a twist.

 

[Bob Spiers]

other email providers wrongly rejecting emails (eg a Spamhaus look-up which times out)

I believe the 'Spamhaus' time-out is often to blame for many email non-delivery/delay problems. I have problems, sometimes when using 'gmail' to send to certain BT email addresses (especially if containing attachments). I also know what you mean about Hotmail 'black holes' or 'blasted holdups' as I view them. So it is true problems we attribute to others (like Ancestry in this instance) may well be something to do with outside carrier problems.

 

[Tim]

I am not at all sure whether private tree owners get emailed Hints (I assume they get them within the Tree itself) but if they do the Hints must surely relate to Public Trees or risk being an invasion of privacy? Perhaps someone will enlighten me?

As Peter mentioned, yes you get email hints and little flashing leaves on your tree.

As Ancestry have mentioned, there is only one significant difference between Public and Private trees. Data in both trees are equally viewable.
The one real difference is that you can't view a private tree. You can see the people and their data and you know it comes from a private tree.

All a private tree does is to oblige people to make contact with you.

 

[Bob Spiers]

As Ancestry have mentioned, there is only one significant difference between Public and Private trees. Data in both trees are equally viewable.
The one real difference is that you can't view a private tree. You can see the people and their data and you know it comes from a private tree.

All a private tree does is to oblige people to make contact with you.

The operative words here for me are (a) "you can't view a private tree' combined with (b) "oblige people to make contact with you". (a) is on a par with redactions in the 1939 Register* and (b) an unwarranted (and often prolonged) diversion. I need to be able to make decisions on the spot or within the same research framework, then accept or move on. Not 'chew the fat' to decide whether it worth my while to message a private tree owner and wait -perhaps indefinitely - for permission to view even with the odd, perhaps slim chance, I may strike gold.

I HAVE taken the private route where alternatives were not available, but few were worthwhile, and many were frustrating. In all the time I have been researching I can truthfully say only once was the private route a success. (Even that was not on a par with finding two cousins -and whole new families - via the public route).

*I make the 1939 Register comparison because we all know how frustrating redactions can be. We may be pretty sure on the identity of the redacted person, but unless we are able to take action to get the identify revealed (you know how) we can only deduce. To an advocate of the public route I find private trees similarly frustrating.