Trees on Ancestry - I'm not impressed!

[warncoort]

All this proves is that Ancestry has the most effective advertising allowing people without time or efficient research skills to build a tree.

[peter nicholl]

I think that's a tad harsh. A fairly wide search can get you into a particular Parish Register and then you can do a manual search page by page. How is that different from the old fashioned way, or a search on, say, SEAX? The tools are there, it's how they are used that counts. Ditto information on other people's trees.

[Lesley Robertson]

Ancestry is not an isolated problem. As I said earlier, quality control of published family trees has demonstrably been lacking since long before the web. It needs to be divided into at least 2 streams - records put on line by libraries, archives and companies, and user-submitted material. An image of the entry/ certificate or whatever is as good as holding the original in your hand. Where the second group is concerned, it is a sad fact that while there are many excellent researchers around (there’s quite a few whose findings I trust without checking), there are also many others who aren’t for all sorts of reasons.

That is why I keep saying, if you don’t know the researcher and their standards, keep their results in a separate file until you have checked them. It depends on what you want - if you want a tree that’s as accurate as possible (according to the paper trail, at least), then approach your research with the same level of care as you would anything else and don’t be impressed by someone just because they have lots more names in their tree than you do.

This is the voice of experience talking. Back in the mists of time, I ended up throwing away over a year’s research because I blindly believed someone who gave me a name involving several matching forenames and a birth date only a year or two out... Once stuff is online, it’s almost importable to remove it completely and I still get an enquirer or two a year about the “wrong man”...

[Sandyhall]

I had a DNA kit for Christmas and that led me to start a tree on their site. Their "hints" are useful, although, like shopping on-line, sometimes the "suggestion" makes you think "where did that come from?". If you just accept them all, the tree becomes a nonsense, however, the use of a bit of nous and they can be quite handy. As far as "rubbish trees" are concerned, do you tell the owner that they are wrong?
As an aside, if I do a general search for someone on my own tree, will my own tree show up?

Your tree only show up in Hints if you make it Public keep it Private and you are the only one to see it.
I do loads of trees all kept private especially when I help other people or do look
ups on here after awile you can delite the tree.
You can also give someone Permission to see your tree if you want to by conecting with them.

Stay away from any ones tree that has more sorces than records because that means they have taken hints from Ancestry Family Tree which is where most of the problems start.

[peter nicholl]

Thanks Sandy, ever helpful.
Peter

[stepives]

My tree is Private, but I still get 'hints'. Most are way out, but the odd one is useful.

[Sandyhall]

My tree is Private, but I still get 'hints'. Most are way out, but the odd one is useful.

Yes you do but only Public Trees. But other people don't get to see your tree if you make it private.

A Cousin in Australia no one knew about had a tree on Ancestry which connected her
to a cousin. Then she did her DNA. She had hits on this DNA to the same Tree my Cousin's daughter had on Ancestry that was not private but my tree is so she didn't conect with me, she found me only after contacting Megan who gave her my e-mail address.

[RoyW]

I do understand your point. However, when you find an error on another persons tree and it is of a relative you knew so your not guessing and you point the error out sending them details only to see weeks/months later they have not made a single amendment you do start to wonder. They did actually acknowledge my contact saying they were grateful and would make the changes made me think is/was it worth trying to engage with them.

[RoyW]

Just to add to my original reply to this thread, the tree which I referred to has now been added to and still includes the incorrect people with no connections. The tree has some 15,000+ people in it. Is that just people name collecting rather than genuine family research?

[Sandyhall]

Just to add to my original reply to this thread, the tree which I referred to has now been added to and still includes the incorrect people with no connections. The tree has some 15,000+ people in it. Is that just people name collecting rather than genuine family research?

Just to add more confusion to the dicussion I just had a look to see how many trees I have on Ancestry, would you belive 53 LOL each family menber dad, mum, grand mother, grand father etc, etc have their own tree LOL Think I might have to have a tree cull but it will have to wait till I've finished Trancribeing a News paper artical about a drowning in 1899 I need to find a magnifying glass