Ethnicity estimates

[Pauline]

I'd say it's because you have it as unsearchable

Yes, I would agree with that. It seemed clear that something wasn’t right and I hadn’t thought about the unsearchable option.

We all have to make our own decisions about how private we want our trees to be (there’s no right or wrong) but our decision does need to be balanced with how much we want to get out of our DNA results.

 

[peter]

I would like to know how private my tree remains if I make it private but searchable

Surely when you've searched Ancestry trees in the past you've come across entries from trees with are private but searchable? The best way to discover what people can figure out about your tree is to see what you can figure out other people's private trees.

Without a searchable tree attached to your results you won't benefit from any of the wonderful things that Ancestry can do - you lose 90% of the functionality.

This is what I advise in the Masterclass:

"The tree I’ve attached to my own DNA results includes only my direct ancestors – this allows me to make it public without any risk of infringing the privacy of my extended family, but at the same time it provides my genetic cousins (ie my DNA matches) with all the information they need."

Making it public won't help you directly, but it will help your cousins to understand how they connect to you, so will prevent them pestering you for access to your main tree (so helping you indirectly). The chances of anyone stealing your public tree will be extremely low because (a) it's so small that they won't be interested, and (b) because it is so small they're highly unlikely to come across it in the first place unless they're a cousin of yours and/or a DNA match.

You don't have to make it public, but you must make it searchable. And don't include anyone who isn't a direct ancestor as that will make life more difficult for your cousins.

The second decision is whether you make your full tree private but searchable. This would be the equivalent of a tree at Genes Reunited which you haven't shared with anyone - so very safe. I would only advise having a non-searchable private tree if (a) it is experimental, (b) is is out of date and superseded by another tree, or (c) some of the connections are extremely sensitive and cannot be deduced from a public source (eg recent illegitimacy or extra-marital liaisons). In such cases create another tree which excludes the sensitive parts.

Although you can only attach one tree to your DNA results there is no real limit to how many other trees you can have.

 

[Pauline]

"The tree I’ve attached to my own DNA results includes only my direct ancestors – this allows me to make it public without any risk of infringing the privacy of my extended family, but at the same time it provides my genetic cousins (ie my DNA matches) with all the information they need."

That’s how I have the tree linked to my results (ancestors only and public), and it includes only the basic information Ancestry needs to make connections. It also includes other spouses of my ancestors who are not themselves ancestors.

 

[Pauline]

I had my fingers burned once by sharing it with a ****** who downloaded the whole tree and made it public ... and got plaudits for "her" research

You’re not alone in that, and it’s understandable that you now feel “once bitten, twice shy”. (But see also what’s been said above about this.)

Speaking personally, it doesn’t bother me if people help themselves to my research. To me the best bit of being a genealogist is the thrill of the chase, and making connections, and so to me it seems that people who build their trees simply by copying other trees are missing out on all the fun.

That said, I have on a few occasions found my work being attributed to someone who had simply copied it, and I do get a bit hot under the collar about that. Twice in the fairly distant past I wrote to website owners asking them to attribute the information correctly - one happily obliged, the other got shirty and eventually removed the information altogether. These days copying trees has become so much the norm, people rarely bother to attribute their information beyond ‘Ancestry trees’ or whatever.

 

[Bryman]

I suggest that you un-select the "Unviewed" filter and then you may find that you do have some Common Ancestors.

I have over a hundred Common Ancestors indentified by Ancestry with the single filter but none when Unviewed is also selected because I have already looked at them.

 

[peter]

I suggest that you un-select the "Unviewed" filter and then you may find that you do have some Common Ancestors.

That could have been the problem (which is why I requested the screenshot), but if you read what Jorghes wrote (and Pauline and I agreed with) you'll see that it is rather more fundamental than that.

 

[canadianbeth]

Your screenshot shows you clicking on unviewed and common ancestors. Try clicking unviewed and just the common ancestors. When I do that I have a long list 0f names, some of which I just noticed In the past week, so have been busy checking them.

 

[peter]

Your screenshot shows you clicking on unviewed and common ancestors. Try clicking unviewed and just the common ancestors. When I do that I have a long list 0f names, some of which I just noticed In the past week, so have been busy checking them.

As mentioned above, it's more fundamental than that - see the post from Jorghes and the following messages. In short, it's because The Rhymer's tree is private and unsearchable so she won't have any Common Ancestors matches, unviewed or otherwise.