Public or Private Ancestry Trees

[Bob Spiers]

As a supporter of Public Ancestry Trees I find myself responding to the views expressed by Simon in his email to Peter and as published in the latest Newsletter, about changing to an Ancestry Private Tree. First let me say I do have empathy with his views on –as he puts it – “name collectors” and “lazy researchers”, but unlike him they do not diminish my support for the benefits gained over time in having a Public Tree - well 3 in fact.
I call the half hearted researchers (with apologies to Descartes) the “it exists therefore it is” set. I offset the experiences mentioned by Simon with those gained in being able to help others (which is what this Forum is all about) and being helped in return. I have made many new genealogical friends through Ancestry, and in my early days Genes.

Of course I too get a little up-tight when I come across misguided –not to say downright nonsensical – information in other Trees. Providing I can be certain my own information can be supported with fact, then I am not shy in making contact. I try NEVER to preach merely to highlight where I believe they may have taken a wrong turn, and give them the chance to ‘show otherwise’. Sometimes they come back with a counter argument -which can be quite exciting -and sometimes they ‘bite your head off’ (this has already been aired in the Forum). If this happens bite the bullet and move on - it’s their loss . (But caution may dictate you check your own facts once again).

So I cast my vote, in isolation or with others, in favour of Ancestry Public Trees. I accept however that as Peter -no lover of Ancestry Trees Public or otherwise- often advises, those troubled by the apparent inanity of ‘copy-cat’ researchers should make their Trees Private.
Finally whilst I am a staunch advocate of Lost Cousins I see this as a totally different vehicle and not really comparable with having or not having an Ancestry Tree.

 

[Tim]

My trees used to be public, but I changed them to private a couple of years back. A lot of effort went into producing them so I don't see the need to give that away to anyone that puts a name into the search box.

However, anyone who contacts me and we confirm we have a match, then I gladly open my tree up to them.
This works for me and I know who I have allowed access to. It seems the safest and easiest way to manage it for me.

 

[mummyj]

I too have changed my Ancestry trees to Private. It seems a little selfish and I am happy to share information with others but I'm a bit fed up with people mistaking their family connections to mine and consequently adding them to their tree. This is misleading to anyone else researching the same family line and perpetuates mistakes. I do point out, very nicely where they are going wrong if that doesn't sound too arrogant. I see a lot of lazy research and mindless additions which don't make sense. I think it depends on what sort of person you are and how fussy you are. I think I have to agree with Tim.

 

[AndyMick]

I'm not a fan of Ancestry or other sites which host online trees. Copying seems too easy for starters. I think Peter recently highlighted corruption issues too (as in data changing, not money changing hands ) The quality is often suspect, however, occasionally a real gem turns up. My personal preference is for trees on a web site in PDF form - sure, they can be copied, but someone is going to have to do some work to copy them. I'd rather someone have a correct version available than just the wrong ones.

 

[Freckneale]

I keep my main tree on Ancestry private, while my One-Name Study tree public. This seems to work well for me. I only include genealogical information on my public tree (no photos, stories, etc), so I could not care less if people copy my tree. I don't own the genealogical information on my tree any more than I own my great grandmother. If my great grandmother shows up incorrectly on a tree, I'll do all I can to get the tree owner to correct it, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

I have to say I get far more emails about my public tree compared to my private tree, and considering my private tree is 3 times larger this shows how public trees may be preferable in some respects.

I agree with Bob that Lost Cousins should not be treated as an alternative to online trees, but as a supplement. As good an idea as Lost Cousins is, it is restricted in that it is not possible to find cousins with links prior to the nineteenth century, since the first census was in 1841.

 

[Bob Spiers]

... This is misleading to anyone else researching the same family line and perpetuates mistakes....

That is a valid point, mistakes do perpetuate mistakes. When I spot an escalation likely caused by the domino effect of 'copying' another's mistake, I tend to add a comment on my own page drawing attention to the divergence of opinion. I like to say why I believe the alternative information is wrong in simple terms, or invite others to make contact for a fuller explanation. If nothing else at least the comment can act as an alert to future 'copyists'. I also contact Tree owners direct -including those duplicating the error - in the hope this will plug the dike.

I add but one caveat, be sure of your own facts. I once had a lady from Canada refute my own information and provide chapter and verse to support her own viewpoint. She was graceful enough to admit she understood the grounds for divergence of opinion and explain how they came about. She was unquestionably right and it was my turn to be graceful. I corrected my own information and acknowledged her help with a comment on my Ancestor's page.

 

[Cathy]

I've had far more success in finding distant cousins through a public tree on Ancestry than I have through Lost Cousins. But my public tree is just the basic dates with a note inviting people to contact me for sources and further information.

When I find people linked erroneously in other trees, I check to see how many people are in the tree and whether I can see the link between my person of interest and the home person of the tree. If I can see a link I contact them. If it's a small tree, I contact them anyway.
I let the name gatherers get on with it. Who knows what their motivation is or what demons they are battling with in their lives which are eased by name gathering. I've had a range of reactions from people I've contacted from very grateful to silence to abuse but little of the latter.

Beginners have no idea that the shaking leaves are just possibles and are also learning how the trees work. It's not easy to work out how to delete someone or unlink someone. I think it's got easier but I know I'm pretty computer literate and searched for ages without finding out how to fix a mess when I tried out adding people to my tree from a census some years back. Beginners also don't realise that it's not all there online waiting for them as the Ancestry ads suggest it is. Many trees are the result of initial enthusiasm followed by abandonment.

If people with good research skills all kept their trees completely private then people starting out would only see the mess.

I hesitate before contacting someone with a private tree and usually try and make more than one connection with their tree first. In my experience they're no more likely to get back to you and don't necessarily have a better researched tree than the public ones.

 

[AndyMick]

I let the name gatherers get on with it. Who knows what their motivation is or what demons they are battling with in their lives which are eased by name gathering.

It's the hunter-gatherer instinct. Like train-spotting, or collecting spoons

 

[Bob Spiers]

I've had far more success in finding distant cousins through a public tree on Ancestry than I have through Lost Cousins........If people with good research skills all kept their trees completely private then people starting out would only see the mess.....I hesitate before contacting someone with a private tree and usually try and make more than one connection with their tree first. In my experience they're no more likely to get back to you and don't necessarily have a better researched tree than the public ones.

Not too surprisingly given my own enthusiasm for Ancestry Public Trees I find myself in complete agreement with Cathy. I made two of my cherished connections through having a Public Tree beginning with an Ancestry Message from a lady : "the lady you show as your Grandmother, was my great grandmother"; what a 'red letter' day that was, and the subject of a story I wrote in my Tribal Pages! And it got better because a little later that lady (by now an established first cousin once removed) was herself contacted by the same route by the son of her mother's long missing sister - her first cousin of course. She put him in touch with me and very soon we were all in email and phone contact; so 'Bobs your uncle' (or at least a first cousin once removed! (sorry about that)).

Such a contact could of course have occurred through Lost Cousins -and will in time I am sure produce many such contacts - but it was the universality of Ancestry Trees and the decision to 'go Public' that really caused it to happen at that time. It may have happened had the Trees been Private, but I am not so sure because my own experience mirrors Cathy's. In general terms I find them reluctant to respond, although if the contact has potential to be silver or gold, then that can break the ice.

But the point which Cathy makes " if people with good research skills kept their trees completely private" is one very dear to my heart because then all that would be left in the Public Arena would be -as she puts it "... the mess". The newbies and half hearted researchers (yes often they begin with enthusiasm and then abandon as Cathy also says) would reign supreme and there would be no mentors of substance left to help serious beginners avoid the pitfalls of 'all that glistens is not gold'.

 

[Tim]

Whether someone's tree is public or private does not alter the search results in anyway. Its the next steps that people take on discovering a name in a tree that I'm talking about.

In a public tree, they can take any/all your research, potentially misrepresenting it and not understanding anything about those people or the research that you took to get to those answers. Those people could be related to you, but you wouldn't know, they just came one night and plundered your research and disappeared, looking no doubt for the next person to further their tree.

In a private tree, you have to contact the owner before getting to view all these details. In my experience, when I've been contacted, we spend a few emails understanding and confirming the link. Then we open the trees up to each other.

People never contacted me when my tree was public, now though I get about 3 contacts a year.

 

[Cathy]

Only 3 a year?
It's much harder to determine whether a person is worth contacting when their tree is private.
Going to Ancestry to see how many contacts I've had this year (12 so far - not all proving to be relatives of mine but I've been able to connect a couple of cousins-in-law with their distant cousins) I noticed that someone had saved a census that I saved ages ago. Who knows whether they will be able to put me in touch with my "lost" US branch? They're certainly related to some of them. If they'd had a private tree, I wouldn't know that. Given it's a very common name, I wouldn't even know if they had the right census for their connection and may well have not bothered to message them.

 

[Tim]

Only 3 a year?

Lol. Quality is much better than quantity.

It's much harder to determine whether a person is worth contacting when their tree is private.

Don't understand. From the information shown you can see if it's a match or not. You can also test it further by searching for parents, spouses or siblings and seeing if they come up in the same tree.

 

[emjay]

I have a private tree .paf5* ,but also have always maintained a tree on 'genes'. The 'genes tree' has basic info on it, not too much detail, but I have found it useful to
follow up possible matches. My approach is usually along the lines of : "My James was married to Elizabeth Smith(say) and they lived......could we have a match?"
I do not give access to my tree, but wait for their response, and take it from there....occasionally, mutually beneficial information otherwise a polite reply that we are
not connected.

* Only just found out that Family Search/LDS will no longer support this tree software. Any recommendations out there as to which replacement to go with ?
Ancestral Quest ,Legacy, or Roots Magic.

 

[Tim]

* Only just found out that Family Search/LDS will no longer support this tree software. Any recommendations out there as to which replacement to go with ?
Ancestral Quest ,Legacy, or Roots Magic.

Hi Emjay,

If you follow this link, you will find a discussion already started about the merits of various software that people use.
Peter also points out that by buying FTM 2012 from places such as Amazon, you can get 6 months free subscription to Ancestry.

 

[emjay]

Thanks Tim, I did not want to mention that I also use FTM 2012 having followed Peter's tip. But I mostly use it for several trees, researching for friends and I have a go at those trembling leafs for myself .

 

[peter]

my support for the benefits gained over time in having a Public Tree

Having a private tree doesn't prevent your relatives connecting with you, and at that stage you can give them access to your tree if you want to (or send them a Gedcom of the relevant part of the tree).

What it does do is prevent name collectors and mistaken beginners from taking your information and misusing it. You control who has access to your research, and which parts of it you give them.

A private tree gives you the best of both worlds (assuming you trust Ancestry).

 

[peter]

Only 3 a year?
It's much harder to determine whether a person is worth contacting when their tree is private.

It's slightly harder, but no harder than it is at Genes Reunited.

Going to Ancestry to see how many contacts I've had this year (12 so far - not all proving to be relatives of mine but I've been able to connect a couple of cousins-in-law with their distant cousins) I noticed that someone had saved a census that I saved ages ago. Who knows whether they will be able to put me in touch with my "lost" US branch? They're certainly related to some of them. If they'd had a private tree, I wouldn't know that. Given it's a very common name, I wouldn't even know if they had the right census for their connection and may well have not bothered to message them.

I don't have a tree on Ancestry at all, but I still get told when somebody accesses a record that I've looked at.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Here’s my analogous take on Ancestry Public Trees versus Private.

Imagine a street of Antique/Bric-a-Brac shops. It’s lovely to be able to window shop but the real pleasure comes from investigating the interiors. It may take some time to find something of interest and discover its value but meanwhile it’s fun to browse.

Unfortunately some of the shops are closed and display “When closed apply at” signs. Of course you can still see the items in the window but you cannot browse the stock. You will have to call back or make contact at another time. Meanwhile why not explore the shops that are open. You discover they have everything from ‘tat’ to the genuine article so whether you purchase or not depends on knowledge and experience and, of course, the price you wish to pay.


An Ancestry Public Tree is the open shop and the Private Tree is the closed shop. The Open shops have a far greater stock and there is no limit as to who can browse. The Private Tree may indeed offer similar providing you can find the proprietor and he wants to open his shop.

Not a perfect analogy by any means but for me it wraps up the difference between those who display their wares and invite custom and those who are really only after select clientele. And the most obvious point I wish to make is I too have a shop in the same street and it is always open.

 

[Tim]

Hi Bob,

An interesting analogy, and as you say, not very accurate. Its not really like window shopping is it? You've put in a some search terms in the answer is its in these 2 shops. That's quite specific.

So you enter the 1st shop, have a look around and see lots of things that are relevant to you. But the shopkeepers not there. So what what does Joe Average Public do? They help themselves and walk out the door. There is an honesty box but sadly, it appears to be empty.

You try the 2nd shop. But the door is locked. But there are some contact details, suggesting if you want to come and browse, please get in contact so we can unlock the door for you.

Now, when you look at these 2 shops, you can't tell whether what they're offering is accurate, you also can't tell if either owner is still actively supporting these shops. Not sure why you suggest that

The Open shops have a far greater stock

Unless you enter both shops, you surely wouldn't know this?

My experience of having a public tree is this: people who are not related to you are quite happy to come in and copy large chunks of tree because that person looks like the husband of their aunts's daughter's husband's mother's sister's husband.

Now my tree is private, I get genuine approaches from people who think they might be connected.

BTW, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to change, I'm just replying to your post and giving the reasons why I changed from public to private.

 

[AnneC]

I too have a private ancestry tree, but not for any of the reasons already given. The older members of my family (oldest is 92 this year) are uncomfortable with me putting anything at all on the internet, even though I have assured them that living persons details are hidden. A few have made the point that "mother's maiden name" is often a bank security question and they are worried that it may be possible to find this out through family history sites. They are all happier that I have a private tree, and therefore know who can look at it.