Ancestry Tree

[Bob Spiers]

Hmm, not to me I'm afraid. That's where I was looking before

Sorry Pauline, I thought you were asking how to edit relationships and so pointed out how where it could be found. If what it offers still falls short of requirement then I'm afraid I will have to pass.

 

[jorghes]

Hmm, not to me I'm afraid. That's where I was looking before, but I can't see anything about choosing a preferred spouse. The options seem to be to add a parent, a spouse or child, or to select from the Spouse dropdown.

Am I missing something?

No, as I just went and looked for it - there used to be (highlight on used to be) a grey button in the Edit Relationships section (basically attached to the spouse) which had "set as preferred" as a choice between spouses (when there were two). But I just went into one of my ancestors I knew had more than one spouse, and the choice has gone. A shame if Ancestry has updated it by stealth as it were.

Perhaps it only appears now when you add the spouse to the list.

At the moment Ancestry will automatically order the spouses by marriage date I believe (if you can give a marriage date, of course!)

 

[Pauline]

As I go further back in time entering ancestors in my Ancestry tree, I am wondering how others deal with variant spellings of surnames.

For simplicity, I've always tended to use one particular spelling of a surname, then add in variant spellings as a note. However, I see that Ancestry notes seem only to be visible to the tree owner and to those invited to view the tree as an editor (and I am not envisaging doing that).

So is it best to add variant spellings as a comment? And will these be visible to anyone I invite to view my tree?

 

[Tim]

I just add the variant name in the surname field, i.e Davies Davis

Ancestry happily searches for both names.

 

[Bob Spiers]

As I go further back in time entering ancestors in my Ancestry tree, I am wondering how others deal with variant spellings of surnames.

Yes I think everyone goes through the variant name dilemma. My Westbury & Wedgbury is a good example, where Wedgbury just seemed to morph into and out of Westbury causing some siblings to record with different surnames. As my line went forward as Westbury and unchanged, I decided from that point onwards I would show them as Westbury. In my Tribal Pages there are copious notes for all variations so I have no worries the family have access and can read the notes.

In Ancestry I record the name that I think best serves but where I think it could confuse I might show e.g. Wedgbury/Westbury -or vice versa. This will always show when others view. I had always believed Comments could be seen by all and I have had others pickup on them and not just Guests; but you may be referring to different notes? When adding custom facts, notes added to these - to the best of my knowledge - can also be seen by all. Hope some of that helps.

 

[Pauline]

I just add the variant name in the surname field, i.e Davies Davis

Ancestry happily searches for both names.

Will it also do so if I were to put Davies / Davies?

 

[Pauline]

In Ancestry I record the name that I think best serves but where I think it could confuse I might show e.g. Wedgbury/Westbury -or vice versa. This will always show when others view. I had always believed Comments could be seen by all and I have had others pickup on them and not just Guests; but you may be referring to different notes? When adding custom facts, notes added to these - to the best of my knowledge - can also be seen by all.

I've added notes to individual events and assume these will be visible to all, and occasionally have added a name variant as a note to an event, if it occurs exceptionally with that event.

However, some names seem to invite multiple variations in spelling, with seemingly every event and every child event picking a different one, and then an overall note on the individual to summarise potential variants seems more appropriate. But I would want such a note to be visible to guests as well as me.

 

[Susan]

I use Comments. These are visible to guests, I just checked. And I put "See Comments" in the event box so a guest will know to look there - and me as well as I sometimes forget I've put something in Comments.

 

[Tim]

Will it also do so if I were to put Davies / Davies?

Not sure why you'd want to put Davies/Davies, or did you mean adding the slash? The slash is fine.

Also, if I don't have a maiden name for a wife yet, I enter the married name in Brackets e.g. (Davies). This serves as an aide-mémoire to me show that I have not yet found the maiden name, they can be sorted on when using FTAnalyzer or Excel, and Ancestry ignores them during it's searches.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Also, if I don't have a maiden name for a wife yet, I enter the married name in Brackets e.g. (Davies).

Way back in time when new to recording information in a Tree -Ancestry or otherwise - I followed what seemed to be commonplace to record an unknown element as - well just that - 'Unknown'. I am too far down the road to change now but sometimes I wished I had followed another route. If I do not have a first name I also use Unknown as in Unknown Smith. The problem with so many Unknowns is they are not always distinguishable from a drop down list, so I find a birth year is essential (even if estimated).

For instance if adding someone to a tree (perhaps as a spouse) and they already exist you choose the 'Select someone in your Tree' route which then requires you to name the individual and select the one you want from a drop down list. But you may have (say) half a dozen Mary Unknowns but perhaps only one Mary Unknown 1882, fingers crossed!

My use of brackets is confined to identifying a name (usually a first name) that differs perhaps from their registered birth name. So, for instance, Hannah (Ann) Smith indicates she was known to the family (and likely in Censuses) as plain Ann Smith.

Not sure why you'd want to put Davies/Davies

That was going to be my question too, but I'm sure Pauline will explain her reasons .

 

[Pauline]

Not sure why you'd want to put Davies/Davies, or did you mean adding the slash? The slash is fine.

Oops, my auto-correct managed to slip that one past me! Yes, it was the addition of the slash I was wondering about.

If you have a name with numerous variants, do you still use the surname box to show them?

 

[Pauline]

I sometimes forget I've put something in Comments.

Is it my imagination, or was there a time when comments used to show permanently on a person's profile page? I've sometimes added comments to public trees, and thought I could remember seeing them there without having to select comments. Or maybe it was more obvious that there were comments?

 

[Susan]

That was in the 'old' Ancestry person profiles, back in the days before they invented Lifestory. There used to be Stories as well, but they disappeared with the 'new' profile layout. A lot of people complained when they changed to the new layout, and not just because of the loss of Stories and moving of Comments.

 

[Tim]

Oops, my auto-correct managed to slip that one past me! Yes, it was the addition of the slash I was wondering about.

If you have a name with numerous variants, do you still use the surname box to show them?

Yes I do

 

[Tim]

I am too far down the road to change now but sometimes I wished I had followed another route.

It's never too late to change Bob. It wouldn't take long to change the Unknown's to a (surname) of the husband if it's known. Ancestry is not going to get many hits with a surname of unknown, but it will find records for the wife after the marriage.

 

[Bob Spiers]

It's never too late to change Bob. It wouldn't take long to change the Unknown's to a (surname) of the husband if it's known. Ancestry is not going to get many hits with a surname of unknown, but it will find records for the wife after the marriage.

Good point about Ancestry search and I suppose I have known that at heart for some while anyway. Still quite a daunting task and besides just because I use Unknown doesn't mean I intend them to stay that way, although a fair few, perhaps 100 or more , remain unfound. I will give it some thought anyway.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Does your Firefox incorporate a VPN? The Findmypast site might be using server location (if I use Opera's VPN Ancestry thinks I'm in the US).

No Peter, as far as I am aware Firefox does not incorporate a VPN and I do not have any installed VPN software.

The problem began when Mozilla recently updated my Firefox version and the normal FMP tab opened preset to a 'World' default. Although I could manually change this, I had to do it not only each time I opened FMP but each time I searched. Hence posting and changing to Chrome which gave no such problems.

This morning before responding I tried Firefox again (on the same computer) which opened to a Firefox start page and below -where frequently used web pages show - clicking on the FMP icon again defaulted to permit 'World' searches. I decided to delete this and instead searched for findmypast.co.uk. Up came two choices:

#1: http://search.findmypast.co.uk/search-world-records
#2: http://search.findmypast.co.uk/search-united-kingdom-records

So of course I opted for #2 and sure enough I was back to a UK (Britain) default. I tested it for a while and it remained as a Britain default.

Thinking back perhaps the simple explanation is I did a manual change to a 'World' search and closed the browser at this point. Then the Firefox update occurred and defaulted to World. That's one theory anyway. Either way I shall remain with Chrome for FMP.

However for those using other browsers and you get saddled with a 'World' search (assuming you do not want such), make sure your URL address bar shows as option #2.

 

[Pauline]

As far as I can tell from the help articles, if I make my Ancestry tree public, then my tree information wil be offered as hints to other tree owners.

I don't mind people seeing my information, and have had my tree freely available on my own genealogy website for many years. I regularly find my research in Ancestry trees (sometimes complete with former errors and typos!) and mostly I'm OK with that - except when I find large chunks of my ancestry attached to a tree where it clearly doesn't belong.

Having now created my own Ancestry tree, I can see how easy it is to add completely wrong information that has been offered as a hint. So I'm concerned that if I make my tree public, and my information is then offered up as hints to others, it will make it more susceptible to spurious attachments.

At the same time, I am aware that it is easier to investigate DNA links with people who have public trees.

However, as far as I can see, it's all or nothing, which makes me reluctant to make my tree public.

 

[Rhian]

It is this sort of action by ancestry and others that does the greatest disservice to genuine genealogists.

While most LC cousins members are experienced enough to use these hints as a basis for research and do not just add them to their tree without checking, many people are just willing to believe everything is true. For this reason I very rarely use any hints to research my family, the brick wall problems do tempt me to try hints but so far I only get unsourced possibilities or conflicting data, in the case of ancestry the decision not to use them is easy as their site does not work on any of my systems or browsers.

For DNA purposes I find it better to upload the DNA results and a gedcom to gedmatch, not only can you match with people who do not have ancestry accounts but there is a greater variety of of searches, you keep control of your data and you can point matches to your online tree.

 

[jorghes]

I don't think that "hints" themselves are the problem. The problem is laziness and accepting whatever you're given rather than actually considering it carefully - i.e. like the silliness of adding an English census return from 1871 to a person who emigrated in 1839. But that kind of attitude is encouraged by Ancestry as it sells it's ease of use and research as one of it's biggest draw cards.

But being a "young" researcher, who hasn't hasn't really been researching more than 5 years (and thus has never had to tramp down to the local parish registry office, which for me is on the other side of the world), the hints allow me to research quickly and easily and I wouldn't give them up. I can definitely give up looking at the hints from other people's trees, as they can be so inconsistent and inaccurate, but often I will look at those hints and in the end simply ignore them - usually after considering if they give me anything that might lead me to what I'm looking for. But then those are also the hints that you can simply switch off.

But I would not have been able to construct my tree, especially my maternal line, which is purely within the UK, without Ancestry (and to a certain extent, FindMyPast) and their hints. Especially since I work full time and most genealogical research places are only really available to me on my holidays. Hints make life easier and I have gotten better and better at assessing their accuracy as time goes on - and to be honest, Ancestry are pretty accurate when it comes to hints - usually you will get more accurate hints than inaccurate hints.

I have also been in contact with more cousins through Ancestry and AncestryDNA than I have through LostCousins. I have plenty of "contacts" through LostCousins, or exceedingly distant relatives who do not share any direct ancestors, but I have contacted 6-7 cousins through Ancestry and AncestryDNA - three to four of which I have been been exchanging information with and one whom I have now met. These cousins have gifted me with photos and information that I would never have had otherwise (for example, photos of the families of my great-great grandparents).

I do keep hoping that I will be able to get into contact with more cousins through LostCousins sometime soon!