Public or Private Ancestry Trees

[peter]

there were many US public tree links listing Charlemagne with great pride

Let's do some sums..... 12 centuries equals about 35 generations - hey, let's all congratulate those American folks on the 0.000000002910383% of their DNA that they've inherited from Charlemagne!

But wait a minute - there are only 3.2 billion base pairs in the human genome. Multiply one by other and - oh dear - the chances are that there isn't a single base pair, let alone a gene, that they've inherited from Charlemagne.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Quite a bit has been written about the Ancestry ‘trawling’ within other Trees and how this leads to wrong and often silly information. I recently had experience of this and relate the story in the hope it is of interest.

I have and love having a Public Tree in Ancestry, and for many years have had two-way communications with others. I recently had dealings with two ladies I shall call C and H.

Apparently we each shared a common root, my Great x 3 Grandparents. From there we separate with the two ladies supposedly sharing the same branch line. Both were aware that my Gt x 2 line emanates from a daughter Harriet, whilst theirs stems from a brother Daniel.

C was the first to communicate a connection via Daniel and onward through daughter Emily. She said I was welcome to pick up on Daniel and was about to add Harriet to her Tree. I remember pencilling in Emily but queried some date discrepancies. Overall there was something not quite right and I thought C’s reasoning to be woolly. However I left things there as I was pre-occupied with other research.

Time passed and then early in the week I received a message from H. She noted I had Emily in my Tree and thought I would like to know she married a James S and there were two children. We swapped emails and H gave good ‘chapter and verse’ which to my (hopefully) practised eye seemed to gel, so I pencilled in James S and made a note to augment with research of my own.

In the next instant C sent a message via Ancestry telling me Emily did NOT marry James S (although it was telling she did not have his name) as Emily’s father Daniel was against the marriage as (the unknown) was much older. She said Emily ended up, years later, marrying a doctor at the Asylum where she had been a nurse and there were NO children. As the communications overlapped I told C this conflicted with other information and would get back to her. I copied the gist of the note (without a name) to H who immediately responded telling me that information could only have come from C. She went on to explain that she not only knew of C but had been at odds to explain they had different ‘Emily’s’!

It would take far too long to take you through the different scenarios which I took time out to research. H followed up by telling me she had discovered in the family James & Emily’s Marriage Certificate (which she is to acquire and send on) and that (QED) the witnesses were known family. In the end each asked me to pronounce on who was right and who was wrong. Something I did not seek, and did not particularly want to do. However it did not take me long to realise that C was, I am afraid to say, an Ancestry Trawler and by so being without proper research, had taken a wrong turn.

I am pretty sure there was an Emily (same or similar surname) but some years older (and in an adjacent county) – with a father named Daniel – and who may well have been the one against a marriage if that information was correct. It was clear C had some background information as did H although in much more depth which connected with her grandfather and father. I agreed there was only one explanation: they had different Emily’s.

Sadly I had to convey to C that in all likelihood (OK -quite certainly) and contrary to what was originally thought, we were not related. I explained why I thought this and even hinted at how she likely took a wrong turn and promised to send on my findings. If I am right then C has some corrective work to undertake in her Tree which is no small task, but hopefully she will then be able to latch on to her right ancestors.

H has now passed on information from her Dad telling that he recalls his own father speaking about Daniel’s sister Harriet (and subsequent family). So confirmation we are indeed cousins perhaps twice or 3 times removed. Exactly how many I will calculate in due time.

What the story relays is that people go astray because they take the easy option. They have information up to Grandparent level, and perhaps back a generation, so the mistakes they make really begins when they just accept connections in an attempt to link back. It is easy to do and I have done it myself in the past. Time and experience counts for everything and so I am quite at ease challenging and being challenged in Ancestry or even acting as referee on occasion.

 

[Liberty]

For some reason this remind me of my very woolly, uneducated thinking as a small child - Jesus' father was Joseph, Joseph's father was Jacob, Jacob's father was Isaac, etc.
I managed to dispose with about 95% of the Bible just like thait!

 

[Bob Spiers]

OK it had to happen; now it is my turn to be accused of having mis-information in a branch of my Public Ancestry Tree. This time I will need to provide a little chapter and verse or it will make no sense.

I have a William Henry Westbury (1806) first born son of Gt x 3 Grandparents Daniel Westbury (1786) & Susannah Jee who married in 1805. William Henry married Amelia Forrester (born 1807) in 1828 and I have an IGI reference to support this and birth of a son Joseph in 1838. The IGI also shows William Henry died in 1846 (aged 39).

Another Ancestry Researcher claims the information is all wrong, despite the IGI reference. He claims to have knowledge that William (no middle name admitted) was born 1796 and he married an Amelia Orbell (also born 1807). They had 4 children including Joseph c1839. His William died in 1846 also.

I challenged that for a start the other William could not be the son of Daniel & Susannah by birth year alone as they married 1805 and indeed Daniel would only have been 10. I was told to leave Daniel & Susanna out of the equation but just to consider that the information I provided for William and a spouse named Forrester was just plain wrong, his spouse was Amelia Orbell and he had family information to back this up.

He also quoted an 1841 & 1851 Census and I admit the earlier one with William shown with a birth year of 1801 (age rounded down to 40) had been ignored by me because of the age discrepancy;(mine was born 1806). It did indeed have an Orbell connection (Ann Orbell no relationship given). I could not counter with an 1841 Census of my own and for 1851 had latched on to the same Census where Amelia was shown as a Widow. This did not bode well for my argument as there was a Sarah Orbell also recorded on the page.

I conceded that Amelia must certainly have an Orbell connection, but not necessarily that the IGI record showing a William Henry Westbury with a spouse Amelia Forrester was incorrect. There has to be an explanation for the Forrester name (other than an outright mistranslation of a record) and a way to explain the two surnames.

I underlined the point I had set out to record a spouse for William Henry born 1806 and did not regard once born 1796 (or even 1801) as being pertinent to my Tree. I conceded my choice of the 1851 Census showing Amelia might be wrong, or perhaps not? I would examine further. Strangely I could find neither Amelia by maiden name within IGI, just as Forrester as the spouse of William Henry and the mother of Joseph.

I have made it clear that if there is mis-information it is one honestly made. William Henry is a 2nd great grand uncle and the brother of my Great x 2 Grandfather and so not an Ahnentafel connection. I could if I chose just record his birth and not pursue a spouse and children. However having attempted to do just that and been challenged I owe it to myself to explore further.

Watch this space.

 

[Liberty]

Bob, where was this happening? Could any of the births and marriages be on FreeReg? The coverage is not the same, and where a record appears on both sites, the transcription sometimes varies.

 

[Tim]

Bob, I have instances in this same period, where the husband married twice, and both times the wife's first name was Martha.
A lot of people haven't picked up on this fact and still show all the children from one wife.

Could a second marriage with the same first name explain your situation?

 

[Liberty]

Bob, I have instances in this same period, where the husband married twice, and both times the wife's first name was Martha.
A lot of people haven't picked up on this fact and still show all the children from one wife.

Could a second marriage with the same first name explain your situation?

Or maybe one Amelia, who was was a widow? If your records show William married an Amelia Forrester and/but there is an Orbell connection, could she have been a Mrs Forrester, nee Orbell?

 

[Tim]

A very good point.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Bob, where was this happening? Could any of the births and marriages be on FreeReg?

Bob, I have instances in this same period, where the husband married twice, and both times the wife's first name was Martha......Could a second marriage with the same first name explain your situation?

I have explored the second marriage, but not the Free Reg which I would have looked at had I not just had the answer to a maiden's prayer (although I am no maiden believe me). It came in the form of an answer to an email I sent to a lady in Canada, a long time fellow researcher of the Westburys (her husbands line) who put the whole thing in perspective.

Apparently there are TWO Amelia's: Forrester & Orbell and there ARE two William Westburys' born 10 years apart and the later one had a middle name of Henry. She confirms William Henry (1806) -the son of my ancestor Daniel - did indeed marry a Amelia Forrester in 1828. They had children but she only knows of Joseph 1838 (as the IGI record)

Now her Westbury line connects with the other William born 1796 about whom she knows much more. He married Amelia Orbell on Christmas Day 1825. Their children were William 1832 and John 1835 (who died 8 months old), followed by Joseph 1839 & Amelia 1841. Although both Williams' connect back in time, she tells they would not consider themselves more closely related that sharing the same surname, and even there the father of the earlier William was shown as Wedgbury in Parish Records: but that's another story!

So the similarity between the two William's marrying two Amelia's , both with one identically named son (Joseph) born less than a year apart caused my confusion. The problem was compounded by the fact there is Census evidence a plenty for the 'Orbell' connection and none (so far) for the 'Forrester' one.

Still I have my answer and will now make contact with my erstwhile 'disgusted of Ancestry' researcher and provide him with the chapter and verse kindly passed on to me. I have made the necessary adjustments in Ancestry and my other databases and copious notes as an aide memoire. It just goes to show you can't have enough friends; genealogically speaking or otherwise. It is also a good leveller showing anyone can take a wrong turn.

Thanks anyway.

 

[Liberty]

Or.
I have had a couple of occasions where I have started to think, 'This is so weird - 2 men with an unsual surname marrying 2 women with an unusual Christian name. Can it be true?'
Then it turns out they are all cousins. In this case, maybe the 2 Williams are sons of brothers, and the girls are both named after their shared grandmother. Or maybe this only holds in the more closely-knit/interbred communities.

 

[Liberty]

I've checked and it WAS Macbeth that I'm supposedly descended from after all. Such disappointment.

I have recently made contact with a 5th cousin, and in swopping info around I shared with her this supposed descent of mine from Macbeth (not her line). She checked her records and came back to say that she is supposedly descended from the Duncan who was killed by Macbeth. I think this is pretty funny.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

At this time of year I expect someone to pop up claiming descent from one of the witches.

 

[cfbandit]

It passes to the person you nominate in your will (or perhaps on your My Details page at LostCousins).
I don't know what, if anything, the webinar recommends, but creating an Ancestry public tree isn't the solution.

Agreed. Even if I made my tree public, if people wanted to know more about who was in that file, they would have no one to contact.

My cousins and I have a pact that upon death, each one of us will pass the collective tree of the family around to upload under each account and retire the old tree. At a certain point I suspect none of the original researchers will be around to be on the collective tree, but new family will be, and so the work will continue, since right now there are researchers in every decade from their 20s to their 90s in my family.

It passes to the person you nominate in your will (or perhaps on your My Details page at LostCousins).
There's also the question of what happens to original documents and heirlooms - certificates, photos, scrapbooks, family bibles, correspondence, medals, and the rest. Surely they have to be passed on to someone who will care for it (and about it)?

I can't tell enough people - whenever I volunteer at the library - I tell them DON'T WAIT. Talk to libraries about donations, talk to family. Make sure that a clear plan has been spelled out as for what to do with it or it will get binned.

I had a friend who passed away unexpectedly at age 38 with a $50,000 yarn stash. Her husband put it up for sale at an estate sale for $1 a ball because he had no idea of what that yarn was worth. Luckily most of us who found the estate ponied up some extra money to get him what it was truly worth ($20+ per ball).

 

[cfbandit]

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.

I say there are really five types of Ancestry.com tree users:

Ancestry Public Tree - Don't Care - these folks will not return a kindly message, say their work is "done" and that corrections are your problem. These are the rudest people out there and usually send lots of nasty messages about your tree not being "open" and that you should willingly donate whatever you have spend thousands of dollars on. Date last worked on their tree is usually years ago. Tend to have the most mistakes because their sources are "Ancestry Tree" "One World Tree" "Millennium Project" and "Family Data File on Ancestry".

Ancestry Public Tree - Don't Know - they have no idea that their family tree maker uploaded a tree there and have no idea how the system works. They may be interested in fixing problems or adding more data but are in genuine need of education before they can do anything. Often easy to spot by the date they last worked on their tree - its often abandoned from years ago.

Ancestry Public Tree - Public Folk - these folks are interested in public contact and want to help others with their research. They return messages or emails and want to talk about things and make ongoing changes to their tree.

Ancestry Private Tree/still listed in search - these folks are interested in public contact but want to chat with people before allowing access to their information. Count me in this group - I have met way more researchers in this mode than I ever have in public mode and the more researchers I meet, the more that I see do a ton of work and want some element of control over the information that goes out with their name on it.

Ancestry Private Tree/not listed in search - these folks are interested in confidential research for whatever reason. Often they are heir hunters or professional genealogists working on something for a client. They never return messages or other contact about the person.

There have always been name collectors and folks interested in the "Bible-type genealogies" (i.e. "Bob begat Simon who begat John with bare minimum names and sometimes dates) and folks who genuinely don't give a hoot about the veracity of their research. Unfortunately, I think Ancestry's "magic leaf" commercials and the US version of WDYTYA have only led to the idea that faster than you can say "Abracadabra", your genealogy is available online and complete and so it takes a lot more work for people to understand that there's a lot of work, money, and talking to people involved in this hobby to really get somewhere on your tree (I won't say "finished" because no one is ever finished, really).

 

[emjay]

Hi, cfbandit

Just one point, the date last on tree, is not always correct I find.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I say there are really five types of Ancestry.com tree users:

Ancestry Public Tree - Don't Care

Ancestry Public Tree - Don't Know -

Ancestry Public Tree - Public Folk - these folks are interested in public contact and want to help others with their research. They return messages or emails and want to talk about things and make ongoing changes to their tree.

Ancestry Private Tree/still listed in search -

Ancestry Private Tree/not listed in search -

I accept that is quite a good appraisal of Ancestry users, and the one I most recognise is your option 3 (which I have left intact in your quote). As many know, and often in quite isolation, I am a strong supporter of Public Trees. I try to maintain as accurate a Tree as I can (I administer three) and hopefully have helped many improve theirs over the years. That is those who want to be helped of course (as per options 1 & 2) and certainly have had much help myself from like minded Public Tree users. It goes without saying I answer each and every message, and have swapped emails with a good many people and made friends along the way.

I have had a fair dealing with Private Tree owners and don't mind in the least being interrogated as to my bona fide as I apply a similar regime when dealing with Genes and when others contact me. After all if there is no 'family' connection there is no point in taking it further. But I do like politeness in all dealings from contact and whether declining or accepting.

If others reap benefit from my Tree then that is no bad thing and they are welcome to the selected Photos and Comments/Stories posted. Of course I have found, and will continue to find, those who are 'play acting' and let them pass over my head. There are enough people who genuinely reap (& give) benefit to make it all worthwhile.

 

[Marguerite]

I have a public and a private tree on Ancestry. At one time both were public but a certain distant relative who was reluctant to inform me of her relationship to our family but kept prodding me for details made me change one to private. I must admit I "lured" her by telling her about my cousin's tree on Tribal Pages, where he had lots of photographs. She "bit" and said she would love photographs, so then I knew this wasn't going to be a 2-way project. I asked her to remove my mother but she didn't.

I must admit I have mostly contacted others and not vice versa but I have had some really interesting discourses in the process. I have found someone who shares two or three "in-laws" with me. It's so interesting, as my mother was born in Northwich, Cheshire and I find it interesting to learn about people who were around at the same time as my mother.

My mother's father was German, born of German immigrants who came from the Hohenlohe region in Baden-Württemberg. Through "Rootschat.com", I found an historian who linked up my great grandparents to the ancestors I had found on Family Search. Many came to England and some emigrated to the USA afterwards but, to my disappointment here, no one seems interested in h/her German background. I have contacted a few telling them that the house is still standing in Germany where my great grandmother and her siblings were born from 1842-1850.

Only one tree owner "adopted" my great grandfather's brother, ignored the fact that he had died in the German Hospital in London and transported him to the United States. I contacted him but he said was that it was all in the interests of research (whose?) and when I left a comment on his tree, as one can, claiming that his research was false, he became offensive. He had other trees but I resisted the temptation to follow suit.

I was lucky in that my great grandmother gave her birth place on the English census and her brother who had emigrated to Iowa was required to give his parent's name on the 1925 census - he had already given his exact date of birth - which conicided with our date of marriage - a few years out.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I have a Private Tree on Ancestry due to bad experiences in the past on Genes Reunited. However I did meet some good contacts on GR who I keep in touch with to this day - one a third cousin. We both bought certificates and shared them which halved the cost of research. Its OK when research/exchange of data is a two-way thing; but you do come across people who want to take and not give in return.
I think looking at someones tree is a rather boring way to exchange research. I prefer to open up a dialogue. It usually involves me gaining a lot of photographs and them gaining more information as I'm someone who really likes to flesh out my tree and not just have dates (though I do like to have all the boxes ticked too) I usually send them a report and add that if there is anything they don't understand or if they want further info, don't hesitate to contact me.

I must admit I am a fan of Ancestry's wobbling leaves. Because Ancestry has allowed so many corrections to be made, many of these wobbling leaves are correct (on my tree they are anyway). Only yesterday I got a wobbly leaf telling me that someone on my tree features on the WW2 Civilian Dead Register. This man was my father's brother-in-law (why don't you call him your uncle I hear you say) because he isn't! He was the brother of my father's first wife. I am the child of his second wife. However I was mightily intrigued with this Civlilian War Dead info and intend to follow it up. I would never have thought to search for this man on such a database so the shaky leaves did me a great favour.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

I'm someone who really likes to flesh out my tree and not just have dates (though I do like to have all the boxes ticked too)

If you are someone who enjoys ensuring that your tree is as complete as possible I suspect you'd love the colour reports in my FTAnalyzer program. It has a large number of features to assist users with finding out things about their tree. The colour census reports for instance makes it easy to see at a glance which census your people were alive on and whether or not you have found a census fact for them. It can also show you if you have entered them on Lost Cousins (but that requires a bit of effort on your part).

There are dozens of other features too all designed to let you analyse the data in your tree and find what is missing.

I'm on my iPad at present so it's not easy to post a link so I'll fix the link format tomorrow on my PC or Tim may beat me to it

You can download FTAnalyzer from here, it's entirely free.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I'll take a look over the bank holiday.