* Private Trees

The place to post news about genealogy products and services that might be of interest to other Family Historian users.
Post Reply
avatar
mimis world
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 03 Jul 2020 20:45
Family Historian: V6

Private Trees

Post by mimis world »

I understand having your living members set to private in your trees - what I don't understand is people setting their whole tree to "private" but taking information from other people's trees and not willing to share. To me, genealogy is one big family and we should treat it as such and share. I have been doing this for a very long time and have always shared.
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Private Trees

Post by tatewise »

Welcome to the FHUG.

If a person's whole tree is 'private' you cannot see any of it, so how do you know they are taking information from other people's trees?

There are many good reasons why a whole tree would be 'private'.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
gwilym'smum
Superstar
Posts: 302
Joined: 01 Feb 2016 16:28
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Private Trees

Post by gwilym'smum »

Hi
Some people have private trees because they are experimenting with "quick and dirty trees" to find where ancestors fit into different families (often to do with DNA matches). These trees are not necessarily accurate and so they do not want other people to see them. There are 2 ways of making trees private, private but searchable and totally private. As far as I understand, if the tree is private you cannot use the information.
Some people make them private, because, if living people only are private by the very nature of our hobby it is often quite easy to bring a tree forward to living people. I have been able to do this with several of my cousin's matches even though living people were not shown. Also some people may not want indiscretions of ancestors broadcast on the internet which does happen when information is lifted from other people's trees.
Using the information in other people's trees is very dangerous as many trees contain errors. The copying of trees perpetuates these errors. I would only look at other trees, in desperation, as a hint then go away and do my own research. If you find an error not everyone takes kindly to being told they have an error.
Sorry to go on as I totally agree that our hobby is a better when we cooperate as shown by all the posts on this forum. I would though rather cooperate in person rather than just looking at written information.
Researching Mayer, Parr/Parr, Simcock, Beech and all related families
User avatar
LornaCraig
Megastar
Posts: 3190
Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
Family Historian: V7
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Private Trees

Post by LornaCraig »

Using the information in other people's trees is very dangerous as many trees contain errors. The copying of trees perpetuates these errors.
The worst case I have found of this (so far) is an obvious error which has been copied into well over 350 trees on Ancestry alone. This demonstrates that the people who did the copying are not really interested in getting at the truth or understanding the reality of their ancestors' lives. They didn't look at what they were copying. The worst trees are those with numerous sources where all the sources are other Ancestry trees.
I would only look at other trees, in desperation, as a hint then go away and do my own research.
Same here! Sometimes you can find a useful hint, but ALWAYS check the facts.
Lorna
User avatar
GeneSniper
Superstar
Posts: 381
Joined: 06 Dec 2016 20:40
Family Historian: V7
Location: East Kilbride, Lanarkshire, UK

Re: Private Trees

Post by GeneSniper »

LornaCraig wrote: 04 Jul 2020 10:35
Using the information in other people's trees is very dangerous as many trees contain errors. The copying of trees perpetuates these errors.
The worst case I have found of this (so far) is an obvious error which has been copied into well over 350 trees on Ancestry alone. This demonstrates that the people who did the copying are not really interested in getting at the truth or understanding the reality of their ancestors' lives. They didn't look at what they were copying. The worst trees are those with numerous sources where all the sources are other Ancestry trees.
When I first started doing my tree I found my mum, Gran and Grandpa in a tree in America on Ancestry with their proper birth dates etc, attached to someone's tree as relatives of theirs with different children and great grandparents. Not impossible but highly improbable with the names and middle names being quite uncommon and then them all having the same dates of birth and marriage. I contacted the person to let them know and the told me they had just lifted it from another tree on Ancestry. The person contacted me later to tell me that after my email they had started again and over half of their tree was wrong and their family had never been in the UK. That was when I started to become very wary of what I found on Ancestry, it's great to get the odd hint but check, check and check again.
William

* Illegitimi non carborundum *
User avatar
Mark1834
Megastar
Posts: 2458
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:33
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire, UK

Re: Private Trees

Post by Mark1834 »

Fully agree with these comments. My Ancestry tree is public, as I want people to see the details and contact me if they are interested. However, it is "bare bones" only (BMD etc and census only, no sources or media), and stops two generations back from the present time as I mark everybody more recent than that as "private" in FH and don't even upload to Ancestry. Other trees can be useful hints if you are stuck, but my experience is that a very large percentage are clearly either plain wrong or woefully incomplete.
Mark Draper
avatar
Gowermick
Megastar
Posts: 1702
Joined: 13 Oct 2015 07:22
Family Historian: V7
Location: Swansea

Re: Private Trees

Post by Gowermick »

I do understand why people have private trees on-line, but for them, nothing is hidden and they can still get hints like every other tree owner.

On-line trees, looked at carefully can be very useful source of information.

Only the other day, I found one of my ancestors Kate, who married James Smith (yeah, try tracing him back :D ), only to find a tree showing she was married to a James Ayton Symington instead, a famous artist and book illustrator, as I found out via google.

On deeper examination I came to the reasonable conclusion that James Smith and James Ayton Symington were one and the same person. From the early censuses, James Smith progressed from a Copper Engraver to Book Illustrator employing a man. Next census he has disappeared but then James Ayton miraculously appears from nowhere as a book Illustrator, with wife Kate, and a child!
His son was shown by GRO to have a mother whose surname was same as my Kate.

I’m sure that without that tree, I’d never have found the name change.

NB Those that knew of James Ayton Symington and his work, didn’t know where he came from either, so everyone’s a winner.
Mike Loney

Website http://www.loney.tribalpages.com
http://www.mickloney.tribalpages.com
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Private Trees

Post by AdrianBruce »

Excellent Mike... For every hundred idiotic hints, there is one of gold dust.

(PS Statistics not guaranteed!)
Adrian
User avatar
gwilym'smum
Superstar
Posts: 302
Joined: 01 Feb 2016 16:28
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Private Trees

Post by gwilym'smum »

Of course everybody's experience is different and you can find some interesting facts as I discovered from an Ancestry tree that I have 2 children. Our son will be very keen to know he has a sibling! :o
Stay safe everyone
Ann
Researching Mayer, Parr/Parr, Simcock, Beech and all related families
avatar
AnneEast
Superstar
Posts: 306
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 23:39
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cumbria

Re: Private Trees

Post by AnneEast »

Today, having collected a big Data set of PRs about one name (Rusby) I started working them up into mini trees to see how they fit together. Having reached a conclusion about a group of them in the early 1700s, with PR and grave inscription evidence I thought I'd see what conclusion others had come to. Even though I know there's a lot of rubbish out there I was quite surprised to see 223 other trees had a different marriage and only 1 had reached the same conclusion as me. Needless to say none of the 223 were backed up with any evidence at all :lol:
Anne
avatar
wigansaint
Diamond
Posts: 58
Joined: 24 Nov 2013 19:48
Family Historian: V7
Location: Appley Bridge,Wigan

Re: Private Trees

Post by wigansaint »

gwilym'smum wrote: 04 Jul 2020 07:50 Hi
Some people have private trees because they are experimenting with "quick and dirty trees" to find where ancestors fit into different families (often to do with DNA matches). These trees are not necessarily accurate and so they do not want other people to see them.
If thats the case why post them in the first place?
User avatar
trevorrix
Famous
Posts: 242
Joined: 17 Nov 2002 20:27
Family Historian: V7
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: Private Trees

Post by trevorrix »

Here are the reasons why to create quick and dirty private trees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmOZXCxsqNU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP8rUlZbmeA
Trevor Rix
User avatar
goodwin2
Famous
Posts: 199
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 21:06
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Private Trees

Post by goodwin2 »

I've been researching my Sherwood line for about 20 years now with some 67,000 in the database at this time. My understanding as I started doing this research was that you did not publish information about living people. As yet I have not published my research on Ancestry which is one of the main resources I use. I do fairly frequently look at the trees on Ancestry relating to my line - there are several thousand of them. When I do find info on people that I am interested in, I may use that information but I first look for data that would verify that the information is accurate. With all that I put in the tree, I include ALL the sources I have used, including those other trees. When I find errors I put in a note with the sources that will indicate why the info is in error. Most folks are happy that I have done so. I have also answered many questions that came to me through message boards and am more than happy to do so.

I agree that many of the trees on Ancestry do contain errors and many have as sources, "family tree on ancestry". I just don't bother with them. Either those folks don't know how to do "real" research or they are just plain lazy.

I have shared my full database with several living relatives who also have indicated that they would not share info on living people and that is basically my criteria. As we all probably know, there is a LOT of info out there publically on living people - including in Ancestry, but I add those living to complete the lines as much as is currently available which can at some point - MANY years from now - be shared.



Just one of those who got bit by the bug years ago.
GSB
User avatar
gwilym'smum
Superstar
Posts: 302
Joined: 01 Feb 2016 16:28
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Private Trees

Post by gwilym'smum »

Thank you Trevor for those videos they explain it far better than I can! :)
Ann
Researching Mayer, Parr/Parr, Simcock, Beech and all related families
Post Reply