Ancestry Tree

[Pauline]

I would probably agree that it is not the hints themselves which are the problem (though some of the ones I've received are plain daft), but the ease in which they can be added to a tree.

Although laziness may often be a problem, I think sometimes it may also be inexperience, or just a lack of knowledge about the geographical area concerned - for example, distances within the UK are on a very different scale from some other parts of the world.

But it's the hijacking of large chunks of my ancestry that concerns me most about hints.

 

[jorghes]

Although laziness may often be a problem, I think sometimes it may also be inexperience, or just a lack of knowledge about the geographical area concerned - for example, distances within the UK are on a very different scale from some other parts of the world.

But it's the hijacking of large chunks of my ancestry that concerns me most about hints.

Distance is a very interesting conundrum once you get outside the UK... especially when you're talking Australia, the United States or Canada, all of which are enormous, but then if you don't know much how big they are, and the unlikelihood of someone having children born in both Melbourne and Perth (we're talking 3-4 hours apart by plane) or more complicated - children in both Melbourne and Mildura (Mildura, while in the same state as Melbourne, is 6 hours drive north-west) is going to be missed. And to be honest, I don't know the distances in the UK, nor do I always know which counties are next to each other! (I'm getting better at the ones in which my ancestors lived).

I suppose it comes down to a choice - I keep my public tree as accurate as I can make it, and hope that people notice the accuracy and at least attempt to amend their own trees so they're correct (that and my public tree has helped cousins find me). But then my ancestors are incorrect in so many trees across Ancestry (this being the ancestors who emigrated in 1839 to South Australia, and yet people have them having children in Sussex - they lived in Hampshire before they emigrated - in the 1840s and 1850s, at the same time they were having children in Australia.) I once wrote a message to someone pointing that out... which was ignored. I then simply gave up. If someone is silly enough to think it is possible to have children at the same time in both Australia and the UK, then their inaccuracies are in the end, their own fault.

While I'd love to help people correct their trees, I'm a bit of a philosophic shrug type person, I'll help them if they want... otherwise, there's not really anything I can do. (probably something to do with the fact that I teach teenagers for a living).

If it's going to be an ongoing irritant for you, then you're probably best leaving your tree private. If you can ignore it and want to help those honestly looking for information, go public. Either way you and your tree are within a message of someone who really wants that information.

 

[peter]

The important thing to remember is that if you have a private tree your cousins can still find you, providing it is searchable. This also applies to DNA cousins.

 

[Pauline]

The important thing to remember is that if you have a private tree your cousins can still find you, providing it is searchable. This also applies to DNA cousins.

My tree is searchable but, as far as I can see, it is only by searching on specific surnames that my DNA cousins get to know if I have those surnames in my tree or not.

I am also slightly bemused that one of my shared ancestor hints doesn't give me any hint at all, as the other person's tree is private. As she is a distant cousin, it could take quite a few searches to identify which ancestor(s) are in both our trees.

 

[jorghes]

I am also slightly bemused that one of my shared ancestor hints doesn't give me any hint at all, as the other person's tree is private. As she is a distant cousin, it could take quite a few searches to identify which ancestor(s) are in both our trees.

Yeah, I've had that happen to me before - I messaged the person to find out who the shared hint was with - since my tree was public, presumably she could see who the link was. I don't know if either party can see who the hint is if both trees are private.


Just a point: Ancestry can miss people with their shared ancestor hint, especially if their trees are incomplete - I have a link with a half second cousin who only has 25 people in his tree. I know he's a cousin, because he's got one of my second great uncles in his tree, but because he hasn't filled it out any further, Ancestry hasn't cottoned on yet.

Ancestry can also miss the obvious if there is a decided difference in spelling.

 

[Pauline]

I don't know if either party can see who the hint is if both trees are private.

Oddly, with one of my husband's shared ancestor hints, the other person apparently could see the shared ancestor even though his tree is private.

With my shared link, the other person's tree seems to be searchable, and by searching on a number of possibilities, I think I have narrowed it down to one of a few possibilities in Wiltshire, but we will need to be in touch to get any further. Fortunately, she does seem to be someone who logs in regularly.

Ancestry can also miss the obvious if there is a decided difference in spelling.

Yes, with another of my shared ancestors hints, which for some unknown reason has now disappeared altogether, we were showing a link with one of our shared 4 x great grandparents but not with her husband, despite both being descended from both. I came to the conclusion that this was probably because she'd added an assumed date of birth for him, whereas I haven't, not having found any evidence as to when he might have been born.

 

[Bob Spiers]

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.

Couldn't agree more with all you say Jorghes. I always check out Hints and have no problem discarding those that are or no relevance. Now and again one strikes gold, and silver more frequently. At the other end of the scale it can cause me to grimace or even chuckle. I too have discovered cousins from my Ancestry Searches, and a good handful of other Researchers whose Trees align with my own and we help each other. Ancestry is as good as you make it and people should not be put off by the occasional 'crazies' ...they exist everywhere.

 

[Pauline]

I have yet to strike gold with a hint (though I live in hope), but I did have a sort of silver - a marriage I had found before and saved in My Shoebox for later attention, but then forgot about.

 

[Bob Spiers]

The important thing to remember is that if you have a private tree your cousins can still find you, providing it is searchable. This also applies to DNA cousins.

Against this can I just quote the note found at the foot of an Ancestry DNA email, advising me of a NEW potential 4th cousin contact.

"There's a small chance Ancestry members shown here may have changed their tree or set it to Private after we've sent this email. If that happens, we unfortunately won't be able to share their information with you."

I am still ploughing through my original DNA 'potential' matches and to date only one produced the message that the Tree was Private and I would have to make contact with the owner for access. I'm sure when I have exhausted viewing the majority Public-to-Public Trees I will get around to the Private ones, even if only out of curiosity. The only other group that prevent comparisons are the ones marked 'No Trees', of which I have found four so far. For me having, and being able to view other Public Trees is what makes the whole DNA thing so useful, even though some inevitably at first glance show no obvious 'match' potential.

It is not unlike viewing 'Hints' in fact and causes the same reactions when one judges whether they are gold, silver, bronze or 'I haven't a clue'

 

[jorghes]

I have yet to strike gold with a hint (though I live in hope), but I did have a sort of silver - a marriage I had found before and saved in My Shoebox for later attention, but then forgot about.

Ancestry's usefulness can also be tempered by which counties they have access to.

 

[peter]

My tree is searchable but, as far as I can see, it is only by searching on specific surnames that my DNA cousins get to know if I have those surnames in my tree or not.

I am also slightly bemused that one of my shared ancestor hints doesn't give me any hint at all, as the other person's tree is private. As she is a distant cousin, it could take quite a few searches to identify which ancestor(s) are in both our trees.

I haven't come across that situation - but tree matches with DNA cousins are rare.

 

[Pauline]

I haven't come across that situation - but tree matches with DNA cousins are rare.

I had 7 originally, but now only 5, which I assume is down to changes in the other person's tree, and this will hopefully soon go down to 4.

The shared ancestor link via the private tree, now that I've been invited to view that tree, I can see is unfortunately spurious. That is, Ancestry have correctly identified apparent common ancestors, who are my ancestors, but whose presence in the other tree is via someone who died aged only 2 and married almost 40 years before they were born.

 

[jorghes]

Well there you go. I have 7, and my father and two brothers have 12, 9 and 10 respectively. My mother's test currently has 2 tree matches.
(It actually comes up as 11, 15, 13, 14 and 5 - but those results include my immediate family - it's nice to know that I am related to my entire family and that my parents aren't sharing any DNA with each other!!)

The DNA tree results include a good portion of my father's Jewish links, but an equal number of people from the US, New Zealand, the UK, Canada and Australia.

So far, all the links that I have checked (and I'm fairly sure I've checked them all, since they often are doubles) they're all legit and actual cousins, although I can't say I have contacted them all. Some other cousins I've been in contact with via Ancestry are not DNA matches (and luckily, all from my mother's line!)

That is not to say that their trees are models of correctness - one I checked was an absolute mess, and said that our mutual ancestor had about 25 children across two continents, some of them repeats.

 

[PhilGee]

....

The only other group that prevent comparisons are the ones marked 'No Trees', of which I have found four so far.

There is a sub-group of these: the "no linked tree" sub-group. I have found a number of "no tree" matches who have trees listed in their profile. It seems strange (to me) that they have not linked to that tree, as it is public. However, my public linked tree is a "special" and contains only direct ancestors and their siblings (on the basis that if I can find them, so can others ); my main trees (separated into "named" families) are private searchable and are made available to interested parties through "guest" access. Whilst that is an attempt to prevent random propagation/grafting in unrelated families (intentional or inadvertent), the "guests" often have public trees so ....

Phil

 

[Pauline]

There is a sub-group of these: the "no linked tree" sub-group. I have found a number of "no tree" matches who have trees listed in their profile. It seems strange (to me) that they have not linked to that tree, as it is public.

Yes, I discovered that. Sometimes there are several trees listed which leaves you guessing which one is relevant. I think maybe some people create a tree for each parent or each grandparent, so they themselves are not there to link to.

You do need to check the gender of the tree home person (if living) is the same as that of the DNA match. For example, if the match's test is being hosted by someone else, then the listed tree will likely be the host's tree, and the DNA match may be a spouse or other relative.

 

[Pauline]

Having just been looking at an Ancestry tree that has had me tearing my hair out, I am wondering if there is any way, when managing the tree online only, to run a reasonableness check.

I entered all the information into my tree manually, and if accidentally entered something unreasonable (say a marriage before a birth) then I got a warning of this and was able to change what I'd entered before saving.

But presumably that doesn't happen if you add people and events in other than manually?

 

[jorghes]

Having just been looking at an Ancestry tree that has had me tearing my hair out, I am wondering if there is any way, when managing the tree online only, to run a reasonableness check.

I entered all the information into my tree manually, and if accidentally entered something unreasonable (say a marriage before a birth) then I got a warning of this and was able to change what I'd entered before saving.

But presumably that doesn't happen if you add people and events in other than manually?

Ancestry should throw up a red marker when entering births if it is before the parents child bearing age. It doesn't necessarily throw up any flags when entering deaths, census records or items like that, I have found numerous errors in mine where deaths were before a census return for example.

I use FTM and the Analyser to check for those sort of errors in my tree.

 

[Pauline]

I'm guessing though that you won't get any red marker or other warning if the information is being entered by accepting an Ancestry hint?

 

[jorghes]

I'm guessing though that you won't get any red marker or other warning if the information is being entered by accepting an Ancestry hint?

I don't think so - I've definitely never noticed it when using the hints. It only really occurs when you manually enter a person in using the "add... spouse/child/son/daughter/brother" etc tool.

 

[Tim]

I'm guessing though that you won't get any red marker or other warning if the information is being entered by accepting an Ancestry hint?

That's probably true, but like Jorghes, I used FTA to ensure data accuracy.