RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: Heb66 on Friday 21 March 25 11:26 GMT (UK)
-
Hi lovely rootschatters,
Yesterday I logged into my Ancestry account as I do daily to check my new DNA matches and do a little family history research on my family tree which I have built up with my own verified research over the last 25 years.
I noticed a lady who I have brief cordial messages with, no more than half a dozen exchanged between us due to the fact that she shares very distant DNA between us only 10cm and a closer match with my son 124cm on his paternal line in which we both know how my son is connected to her.
I noticed yesterday she has the whole of my family tree and research appeared on her own Ancestry page listed as B family tree.
How on earth has she managed to transfer the whole of my tree onto her Ancestry page ?
I definitely have not given her an invite to share my tree over to her although my tree is public on Ancestry.
My tree has only 800 names on it all totally verified with lots of hard graft and money dedicated to it,hers has nearly 60,000 people on.
What would you lovely rootschatter do ? Message her regarding this or ignore it ?
For me this is really upsetting....any advice would really be appreciated. Thank you so much for taking time to read my message.
Warmest regards...Helen.
-
I'm not sure how many access rights that you have given to your contact but this is what Ancestry says about 'public' trees:
How public trees look to others
When someone views a public tree, they can see full details about deceased people (including names, dates, and places). They can also view and save facts, photos, and sources from that tree to their tree.
Also, there are levels of sharing:
https://support.ancestry.co.uk/s/article/Sharing-a-Family-Tree
I have always made my trees 'private' on Ancestry.
Gadget
-
Also, another quote
Only you (the tree owner) can edit your tree unless you invite others as editors or contributors. While your tree is public, others can view and save information from it, but they can't change it without your invitation.
I've not checked if they can download a gedcom
Add - they can't download a gedcom
https://support.ancestry.co.uk/s/article/Uploading-and-Downloading-Trees
-
Hi, Helen. I understand how upsetting this can be.
In today's copy/paste era, if your tree is public, this type of thing is bound to happen. If you've shared any genealogy with anyone anywhere in any way, whether on paper through the mail or via email, etc., there's an extremely high likelihood that you will see it in an online tree.
I don't have a public tree but every well-researched (and self-funded) family tree that I have shared with cousins has been posted online to their own trees without them asking permission, with the rare exception of one distant cousin who has put my data into her private tree (with my knowledge).
Here's something that happened to me. My brother and I did our DNA tests and I uploaded an extremely basic, short tree to Ancestry for both of us. It was public for a short time. In that time, someone sent a PM to my brother because they have a very distant cousin match. (We're in Canada, this man is in the US.) I responded, because although this man and I don't have a match, I'm managing my brother's DNA results.
This man could only see my public, very basic tree, and I didn't name my parents, so I thought my privacy would be preserved. Unfortunately, due to my other cousins uploading my research, and then many other people copying and pasting it into their trees, this man in the US was able to connect their trees with my grandparents. He informed me (correctly) that he had figured out that my father was one of the two sons of so-and-so. This upset me a great deal and I promptly made my basic tree private.
This man is guessing that we are related through one particular family line, although he hasn't been able to research our families that far back (and neither have I). This would make him a distant relative through my mother. Over time, this man has copied and pasted both my mother's and my father's extensive lines (including every side branch he can find) from various copy/pasters on Ancestry. Why he feels a need to add my father's family to his tree, I have no idea. He has labelled everything to do with my family with my brother's initials. He has no idea how we're related but he seems to be intent on hoovering up every relative of mine that he can find.
This is how people end up with 60,000 people in their online trees.
I've come to the realization that, if I don't want something proliferating all over the internet with no credit or thanks to me, and with no way for serious researchers to contact me, I can't share it with anyone. It's a real conundrum for me and I still haven't figured out how to feel good about the situation with the online free-for-all copy/paste brigade. I hope you are able to sort it out for yourself and feel better soon.
-
I'm not sure why you would be upset - is it simply the fact that detail you paid for has been used by someone else without paying?
In some countries it is perfectly possible to find details about members of a family tree through the use of research tools oneself, so those details are likely to soon appear online, without them having been copied from your tree.
As said, if you don't want anyone using your paid for research then don't allow the tree to be public, but this negates the ability to maximize dna matches.
Pheno
Pheno
-
I use the Private but searchable type of tree
https://support.ancestry.co.uk/s/article/Family-Tree-Privacy
THis means that
Searchable private trees:
Show up in search results and hints.
Share only basic details, like the number of people and names of the deceased.
Others can see you have a tree and can message you to ask questions or request access.
It does mean that people can contact you if they want more info. It's then up to you.
Gadget
-
I am also upset about facts and photos being taken from my Family Tree on Ancestry. Mainly the photos - not really the facts.
My tree is private, but I have shared it with others who have connections.
Now, Ancestry send me hints of my OWN photos, which others have taken and put on their trees - even my own parents' wedding photo. I am so upset about this - but I will never share my tree again - although it's too late now.
The damage has been done.
-
I'm not sure why you would be upset - is it simply the fact that detail you paid for has been used by someone else without paying?
In some countries it is perfectly possible to find details about members of a family tree through the use of research tools oneself, so those details are likely to soon appear online, without them having been copied from your tree.
As said, if you don't want anyone using your paid for research then don't allow the tree to be public, but this negates the ability to maximize dna matches.
Pheno
Pheno
I agree, I actually enjoy other people taking my information and using it even if it includes info I may have personally paid for like BMD certificates. If I can use one snippet from somebody else's tree why can't they take one, two, three or more snippets from mine - where does it stop?. The whole principle of Ancestry.com and most social media is to share and without that facility many of us would be floundering. I'm in this jape purely to advance my knowledge of my own family trees and I just dont care what others do. Its not a commercial venture and there are no winners and losers out there.
I appreciate its each to their own and I admit politeness does go a long way which unfortunately is not the case here
I do however admit that I am perplexed as to how the culprit actually executed this deed!!!
-
Based on Gadget’s replies, and my own reading of Ancestry’s help, there are only two ways that this can have happened:
1) One-by-one transfer of 800 individuals with the additional requirement to edit their relationship to build a tree. That’s a lot of painstaking work.
2) Via access to the account. Was the password ever shared with anyone? Is it a secure password, or is it guessable (e.g. based on names and dates).
-
I don't get why people get upset over that sort of thing. If it's very important for you to take credit for your tree, then make it private to begin with. I don't feel the need to take credit for something anyone could (in theory) find, so, as long as they're connecting things to the right family, I don't care. I prefer to prioritize sharing and being helpful over my ego.
I think you should do nothing. You made it public, so they didn't do anything wrong. Likely, Ancestry gave them hints from your tree and they added it that way, so not a gigantic task.
-
I have my tree on Ancestry. It is a public tree. I always make sure I have done thorough research before I add anything to my tree. I would rather people use my tree to copy information than to use a tree that has false information that hasn't been properly researched. I have some 'draft' trees which are work in progress but I make sure the settings for these are private and unsearchable.
Chris
-
These messages make me feel even more upset - if others wanted to take my personal photographs, I think they should have had the courtesy of asking me if I minded.
That is what I would do, before downloading someone else's photographs.
I am not really bothered about the actual research being taken - I am happy to help with that. Just gutted about the photos from my own collection.
-
I sometimes get my own pictures come up as hints and it's as a result of someone viewing my tree anonymously and copying things, they've delved pretty deep into my tree and used quite a bit of stuff I've added to findagrave and Tribal Pages (I use the same profile pic as Ancestry and it's the same basic tree so it should be fairly obvious who created it), any effort I make to contact them is ignored which is their loss as I have way more info about their part of the tree I can share than they seem to have. I can appreciate why they are copying things but the cloak and dagger secrecy to their method is what I find strange. It does sometimes feel like a burglar sneaked in and rifled through my drawers in the middle of the night.
-
I understand why you are upset, but I am not sure there is much point in pursuing the issue.
Like previous respondents my trees are private and searchable, I do regret sharing my tree with one particular person, who despite my request not to decided to copy photos and put them on his public tree, his permission to share was swiftly withdrawn. Even worse was when someone then copied a photo and applied it to the wrong person. Thankfully when I pointed this out to Ancestry it was removed.
However, my main reason for making my trees private was to avoid people copying my mistakes; despite often painstaking research I know there are areas that are less than perfect, particularly in the very large one I use to try and 'tie in' DNA matches.
I am always happy to share information, although not about living relatives, and accept that what people do with it is up to them; living relatives are only put on a tree if discovered using publicly available information or if I am given permission to do so - one person was actually upset that they weren't on the tree. You can never win. :-)
-
The photos are the most precious.
However, it should also be remembered that each tree is specific to the individual who made it, so no one has the same tree, apart from siblings. Then the lines split to maternal and paternal. and so on.
I do provide information to kin* who ask but not a whole tree.
Gadget
* info relating to their ancestors only.
-
Like Gadget I no longer share whole trees, just info relating to the person's relations - once burned and all that.
-
I have 2 DNA matches who have identical family trees apart from their parents, some parts of the trees are OK some are highly fanciful.
I have just received a message from one of them asking me for more details of our match ( my tree is not on line ) I am wondering what to say to her as I guess anything I do say will end up on the trees.
I am thinking of asking her where she found the fanciful information from, pointing out I would like to know as I have tried to break down that brick wall for 20 years with no success ( there is no verified information on the tree ). I have a photo that would show her something but I will not pass it on as sure as houses it will end up on the trees.
It does annoy me when they obviously just copy everything.
-
Also, it must be remembered that information that many of us obtain is not free.
You can only go so far with BMD, Family Search, etc. I have spent many £s on specialist documents, booklets, certificates, travelling to libraries and archives, etc, - my ancestors travelled widely - USA, Canada,various South American countries, South Africa, Kenya, India, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Wales, Scotland, England, Eire, N/Ireland, and a few affines from Continental Europe!
Gadget
PS - if you just want a tree, that's one thing, but to really develop a family story is far more intensive and expensive.
-
Gadget I think some of the younger ones don't realize when we started there was very little online and it could be hard work and sometimes expensive to get information.
-
I don't have an Ancestry subscription (I have tried but they have declined my card - their glitch - my card is okay), but I have had some upsetting experiences on FamilySearch, which is completely free and anyone can do whatever they like. It still upsets me though, so I can imagine how it must be upsetting when you are paying for a subscription.
I was wondering if you could edit the photos before uploading them by adding some sort of copyright mark? I have seen this on other websites regarding grave's photos and such.
I appreciate when people share their family trees because I'm interested in real people's history, so it's sad to see that they have their public trees used without permission and feel that they have to make them private.
I don't understand why some people can modify information that has been carefully researched with sources attached and just put some random information without attaching sources or a note explaining the change. That has been happening a lot on FS and when I send a message (chat) to the person asking the source of the information they don't reply. It's very frustrating even if it just takes a click to reverse to the previous information, but imagine having to do this hundreds of times.
Sorry to digress.
-
I'm in the "it amuses me" camp. Whilst my offline tree is a different matter, my Ancestry tree has no family photos attached, in fact it has nothing that hasn't come from Ancestry in the first place. Except ahnentafel numbers, and that's what amuses me. Complete strangers with my parents in their tree bearing those anhentafel numbers. You'd think I'd remember growing up with these siblings :o
The random ahnentafel numbers make it clear that these "foreign" trees haven't been built the hard way. There is obviously some means of cobbling together different ancestry trees with minimal clicks/keystrokes. I've taken an Ancestry DNA test and it seems thrulines may be how it happens. Click on any ancestor with matches on the thrulines page, if in the Relationships (tree view) tab there are individuals in green with "evaluate" against them, a few more clicks seems to be all it takes to add entire branches.
Jane :-)
-
Hi all rootschatters,
Thank you so much for all your messages and thoughts.
Just to clarify I think I was shocked that my actual whole tree with me listed as living and all the additional family photographs etc information is shown on her Ancestry page when I really only have an extremely distant connection < 10cm DNA > with her.
I have never shared my log in details or sent her an invite to share over my tree as you are able to do on Ancestry.
As always you are all a wonderful community and really appreciate the rootschat forum.
Warmest regards and hope you all have a relaxing weekend.
Helen.
-
I was wondering if you could edit the photos before uploading them by adding some sort of copyright mark? I have seen this on other websites regarding grave's photos and such.
Sorry to digress.
Whatever you do, your photos will be all over the web before you can blink.
Years ago I added in Photoshop both the symbol and the word "COPYRIGHT" on my old family photograph before uploading it to my family tree but somehow the photo appeared online in other trees and also not attached to other trees without both the Copyright symbol and word.
I did eventually delete my trees because I was fed up of people being able to change spellings and add unknown branches without making contact.
Some chatters will wonder why my tree wasn't private but it seems to me that every time the website is sold and bought the conditions change.
-
Hi Rena, I'm not a Photoshop expert but I didn't think this could be possible without leaving obvious traces of editing, but if it happened it's really disgraceful.
It's just a suggestion to put people off copying and sharing stuff that's not meant to be copied, but I undestand the internet is still a no man's land.
As the OP has clarified, it's even worse than I thought, sharing a living person's details :o
I have sent messages to some people on FS regarding living persons being displayed on family trees (not their family members). The ones who replied had 'assumed' they were dead because of their DOB, but they're all alive, thank goodness.
-
There are three levels that a person can be granted access.
Guest, Contributor and Editor.
I only ever give Guest access with view living persons checked.
This is what Ancestry has to say ……
Guests can view and add comments. They cannot automatically view living people.
Contributors can view and add comments, photos, and stories. They cannot edit or remove existing tree content or automatically view living people.
Editors can automatically view living people, remove and edit existing content, and add people, records, comments, photos, and stories.
.
.
It does look like they have Editing rights.
Do check what you have assigned them in the Create and Manage Trees section.
If you have only given them Guest access, I suggest ringing Ancestry.
-
Hi Helen,
i said i would read your input, Research and first class observations ,when we put our research, at some expense to our pocket, and many hours spent putting on Roots chat,
confirming our ancestors ,then others who's family tree, Of same name sorry to say have the right, To use your fabulists gynecology findings, So( frustrating) but look on the positive, your great work has helped others ,I am 100% sure your determined to help people with your experience.
Cheers George.
-
Heb66 has found that large parts of her tree have been copied to someone else's, not that someone else is managing to edit her tree without permission.
Jane :-)
-
Hi all rootschatters,
Thank you so much for all your messages and thoughts.
Just to clarify I think I was shocked that my actual whole tree with me listed as living and all the additional family photographs etc information is shown on her Ancestry page when I really only have an extremely distant connection < 10cm DNA > with her.
I have never shared my log in details or sent her an invite to share over my tree as you are able to do on Ancestry.
As always you are all a wonderful community and really appreciate the rootschat forum.
Warmest regards and hope you all have a relaxing weekend.
Helen.
Thank you for providing such a stimulating topic. You really have caught the attention of this community. Based on what I have read here, I certainly will review the privacy levels of my Ancestry and other family tree notes. It would be good to think that you could speak to the person who has 'mined' your family data and ask why she feels such behaviour is OK. Perhaps it is symptomatic of the times in which we now live. KR Andy
-
Heb66 has found that large parts of her tree have been copied to someone else's, not that someone else is managing to edit her tree without permission.
Jane :-)
Quite.
But not just parts - the whole tree:
I noticed yesterday she has the whole of my family tree and research appeared on her own Ancestry page listed as B family tree.
I'm wondering if the person has cracked the password or has so much time on their hands that the information has been carefully copied :-\
-
Interesting thread, I have a few observations
1/ The only safe way to proceed with Ancestry (and the Internet as a whole) is to assume that anything you upload is accessible to other people, sometimes a few, sometimes very many. If this bothers you, don't upload your tree.
2/ You don't need to put a copyright notice on photos that you have taken, it is automatic in the UK. That said to gain any protection from copyright law requires deep pockets and specialist lawyers.
3/ As others have said Ancestry's private tree setting is no protection, they could change the terms tomorrow. It is also not retrospective so that making a tree private after it was public only helps going forward. If other people (or Ancestry) have copied your stuff you have no control.
4/ Think twice before uploading any images of documents that you have bought to Ancestry, you will almost certainly not own the copyright on them and you have already explicitly given Ancestry the right to use them by accepting their terms and conditions. The privacy setting is irrelevant here.
Really point 1 is all that matters, the rest is cautionary. It's unlikely that point 4 would ever become an issue for the general user, but it's not impossible, a lot of Ancestry's terms are designed to indemnify themselves from any liability by passing it to the user and they can afford much better lawyers than you or I.
PS There used to be a program that could copy other peoples trees from Ancestry, they issued a Cease and Desist and it went away but I imagine similar things are still floating around the Internet.
-
I'm wondering if the person has cracked the password or has so much time on their hands that the information has been carefully copied :-\
Not an Anc expert but is it not just a case of the other person accepting a hint rather than manually copying it? In that case Anc will add the person and facts from the OP tree to the other person's tree. Caveat - I don't build my main tree on Anc, only Q&D ones so limited experience but I think that is the easy way to copy from another tree.
-
I found a photograph of my mother's cousin, someone who I knew very well, posted on an American tree. Apart from the fact that she was an unmarried only child with no children of her own, the photo had been attached to and mingled with the tree of someone of the same name but who was clearly not the same person. I know her family's history well, and have never posted a picture of her, though I do actually possess a copy of the wrongly posted photo. I did try to contact the owner of this tree but got no reply.
-
I'm wondering if the person has cracked the password or has so much time on their hands that the information has been carefully copied :-\
Not an Anc expert but is it not just a case of the other person accepting a hint rather than manually copying it? In that case Anc will add the person and facts from the OP tree to the other person's tree. Caveat - I don't build my main tree on Anc, only Q&D ones so limited experience but I think that is the easy way to copy from another tree.
I read Heb66 as saying that the whole tree was copied. It was identical - 800 entries.
-
I'm wondering if the person has cracked the password or has so much time on their hands that the information has been carefully copied :-\
Not an Anc expert but is it not just a case of the other person accepting a hint rather than manually copying it? In that case Anc will add the person and facts from the OP tree to the other person's tree. Caveat - I don't build my main tree on Anc, only Q&D ones so limited experience but I think that is the easy way to copy from another tree.
I read Heb66 as saying that the whole tree was copied. It was identical - 800 entries.
I read that but it does seem very strange.
Even with a Public Tree someone should nor be able to copy exactly any tree without specific Editing rights being given.
A discussion directly with Ancestry is IMO required on all our behalfs.
-
One of the matches I have with a dodgy tree had when her tree first appeared a few weeks ago 600+ entries, it now has 1300+ entries, so she appears to be copying anything and everything she can.
-
Is this not exactly what Thrulines does. If there is a dna match and you use the 'evaluate' option, at the foot of that sidebar it asks if you would like to add this person to your tree. If you only have the MRCA in your tree currently it will automatically add the descent down to the dna match, thus adding a whole line to the tree.
If the suggested Thruline is not correct when evaluated, it can still be added as a descent, again showing a whole line, but not to an actual MRCA, only to someone of the same name.
Pheno
-
I regularly add 200 examples of a single surname to my tree in a day just building out the tree or a match and that will include GRO refs, address from census,1939, probate and burial where available along with the address, witnesses and such from the marriage cert if it's one of the areas Ancestry have registers for.
If I just want bare bones names and dates using hints or copy and paste it would be far quicker. I can't see duplicating an 800 name tree being too difficult to do if someone sets their mind to it.
-
How annoying, no wonder you are upset. The person with 60,000 on their tree is clearly one of those who does no research but goes around hoovering up other people's work at will. Likely they also guess at anything which nearly fits their purpose, not bothering with little things like baptisms, marriages and child deaths which mean that someone cannot have their own children.
Basically you need to zip it up to Private and if anyone asks to see it say no but give them some specific detail if you wish to do so.
False information is all over the trees. I once deliberately told someone a wrong death year of an aunt - 2000 instead of 2012 to test their integrity and that has been copied to many trees since.
-
Yesterday I replied to the owner of one of the dodgy trees. I pointed out that some dates etc. could be easily checked in the parish records on Free REG and sent her a link.
I also asked her if she could tell me where she had got the obviously copied wrong information from as I had been searching for it for a long time without success.
I have not received a reply from her but looking at her tree this morning she has removed the obvious wrong people etc. and changed the dates to the correct ones.
-
It is strange how we all follow the same pastime but we view it differently.
I don't see it as collecting ancestors which I then possess, I see it as shedding light on my ancestors. The great and the good (and the bad) will always have their history's written, we are writing the histories of the unwashed, unlettered and up til now forgotten people. I publish this on Ancestry because I want others to see it, copy it, use it, extend it. I want others to tell me if they think it's wrong, I want to (and have done many times over the years) collaborate with others to improve my family's history. I have seen connections that I have found after years of looking (intermittently) get copied and begin to outweigh the nonsense trees on Ancestry. None of this could happen if my tree wasn't public.
I think of what I am doing as like the child spending years researching and writing the autobiography of their famous parents, I want to publish, I want to show the world these people and I want it to understand their lives.
-
Hi Everyone, I have just ead this entre thread and It has opened a wound i thought I had got over.
Many years ago i started n my gandmother's family lines. i came across someone whom I thought i could trust. they appeared genuine and we emailed each other for ages with informatioin etc. then i sent them three or four private family photos. one in articular was of my grandmother. No one else could possibly have had this as i have the original in /sepia in an old ovval wooden frame. but there was also a small colored one that had been commissione by her daughter ata commercial photographic studio some years later.
i emailed this along with one that had her sisters's young family c 1900 and again in 1912, plus one of her two daughters as kids.
I was absolutely gutted to fine that the family photos are now on the internet as well as the colored one of my grandmother.
I found this a betrayal of a private connection. I have a limited family tree which is private and it will stay that way.
I have just helped two DNA matches with parts of this tree. what they choose to do with it remains to be seen but it's a part that most are not interested in.
my point here is that people break your trust and that hurts. an copying a whole tree of 800 people is similar.
Essnell.
-
I fined that trust today ,every one is your friend, then trust is beyond most including family,
the only one you can ever trust is YOU.
Cheers George
-
I had a similar occurrence with a young man from South Africa who had the whole of my tree, including every single photo, certificates etc. In his tree.
I queried this and he said he had an interest in my family and that was that.
It left me fuming.
quote author=Heb66 link=topic=890297.msg7640889#msg7640889 date=1742556399]
Hi lovely rootschatters,
Yesterday I logged into my Ancestry account as I do daily to check my new DNA matches and do a little family history research on my family tree which I have built up with my own verified research over the last 25 years.
I noticed a lady who I have brief cordial messages with, no more than half a dozen exchanged between us due to the fact that she shares very distant DNA between us only 10cm and a closer match with my son 124cm on his paternal line in which we both know how my son is connected to her.
I noticed yesterday she has the whole of my family tree and research appeared on her own Ancestry page listed as B family tree.
How on earth has she managed to transfer the whole of my tree onto her Ancestry page ?
I definitely have not given her an invite to share my tree over to her although my tree is public on Ancestry.
My tree has only 800 names on it all totally verified with lots of hard graft and money dedicated to it,hers has nearly 60,000 people on.
What would you lovely rootschatter do ? Message her regarding this or ignore it ?
For me this is really upsetting....any advice would really be appreciated. Thank you so much for taking time to read my message.
Warmest regards...Helen.
[/quote]
-
It is strange how we all follow the same pastime but we view it differently.
I don't see it as collecting ancestors which I then possess, I see it as shedding light on my ancestors. The great and the good (and the bad) will always have their history's written, we are writing the histories of the unwashed, unlettered and up til now forgotten people. I publish this on Ancestry because I want others to see it, copy it, use it, extend it. I want others to tell me if they think it's wrong, I want to (and have done many times over the years) collaborate with others to improve my family's history. I have seen connections that I have found after years of looking (intermittently) get copied and begin to outweigh the nonsense trees on Ancestry. None of this could happen if my tree wasn't public.
I think of what I am doing as like the child spending years researching and writing the autobiography of their famous parents, I want to publish, I want to show the world these people and I want it to understand their lives.
Sorry but all this will do if further expand the number of error strewn family trees that exist on Ancestry.
I do not believe that very many who are interested in a specific family will undertake due diligence, they will simply add the people to their own family tree on the assumption that the source tree is correct.
By far IMHO the best method on Ancestry is to set your Trees as Private but Searchable, then proceed with caution should anyone wish to have access.
-
The random ahnentafel numbers make it clear that these "foreign" trees haven't been built the hard way. There is obviously some means of cobbling together different ancestry trees with minimal clicks/keystrokes. I've taken an Ancestry DNA test and it seems thrulines may be how it happens. Click on any ancestor with matches on the thrulines page, if in the Relationships (tree view) tab there are individuals in green with "evaluate" against them, a few more clicks seems to be all it takes to add entire branches.
Jane :-)
The green "potential ancestors" that appear, with Thrulines but also if you have a parentless individual in your tree is definitely how much of this happens. Also Ancestry used to provide in hints to three other trees at a time with trees that have the same person in their tree, and it took a couple of clicks to link everyone. Now it's just one tree. I suspect many do not notice is the green EVALUATE button next to the potential ancestor in Thrulines.
Most of my trees are private including a large (30,000+) quick and dirty tree for when I'm playing around with ideas and still searching. I became very frustrated with incorrect info about one set of ancestors (in the 1970s was printed and distributed at a family reunion) that I have made that tree public with images from parish records, newspapers etc. I regularly make contact with the incorrect info based on the 1970s info and send them a link to the tree (as many do not have a sub). It's slow work.... Five years on from working out who were the correct parents of my Scottish gtgtgtgt-grandmother was there are still numerous trees that show her from Alloa, not Fife, and with the wrong parents. And Ancestry brings up the wrong parents (in green) for her.
-
"I don't see it as collecting ancestors which I then possess, I see it as shedding light on my ancestors. "
I agree. Moreover, we do not own our ancestors. They are historical figures, albeit usually minor, unsung figures. Anyone is quite free to investigate them for whatever reason. My grandmother is somebody else's great aunt or second cousin twice removed. Or maybe someone just finds my grandmother to be an interesting person. In fact, her life has been used as an example of the evolving attitudes of female missionaries.
-
The root of the problem lies in the conventions of academic research. Family history research is just that, although many enthusiasts are unaware of it, and have never brushed up against the "rules" which govern it. Researchers are expected to review what has been published previously, present their own findings and draw conclusions, then include a list of sources. The sources should include primary sources, which family history is generally good at, and also secondary sources - i.e. other people's work in the field, which Ancestry never explains, and has allowed it to become a free-for-all.
In the academic world you would not get far by behaving like this, and most people expect better manners, but there are those who do not understand it and Ancestry does nothing to educate them, so this is the result.
-
It’s not Ancestry’s job to educate. They don’t care what people put in their trees, as long as they get subscribers.
-
Exactly. Which is why I do not subscribe.
-
It’s not Ancestry’s job to educate. They don’t care what people put in their trees, as long as they get subscribers.
Seriously. Is there no validation on Ancestry?
-
Seriously. Is there no validation on Ancestry?
None that I've ever seen. It appears to be some sort of whoever shouts the loudest wins process.
Unfortunately it's too useful to not subscribe. I used to have to go to Edinburgh and into the depths of the City Chambers to access Cemetery records, I can now do it sitting at my desk, this alone is worth the subscription.
I just have to accept that along with the usefulness is all the cr*p we have been discussing here. The only people who can fix this are Ancestry but money rules there these days so it isn't likely they'll do anything.
-
The root of the problem lies in the conventions of academic research. Family history research is just that, although many enthusiasts are unaware of it, and have never brushed up against the "rules" which govern it. Researchers are expected to review what has been published previously, present their own findings and draw conclusions, then include a list of sources. The sources should include primary sources, which family history is generally good at, and also secondary sources - i.e. other people's work in the field, which Ancestry never explains, and has allowed it to become a free-for-all.
In the academic world you would not get far by behaving like this, and most people expect better manners, but there are those who do not understand it and Ancestry does nothing to educate them, so this is the result.
Which is partly why as someone who has done 'proper' historical research in other, non related but historical areas, I always attach my sources, shove stuff in the comments and notes sections and don't at this stage make my tree public, quite apart from the fact that I don't want pictures copied and ascribed to the wrong person. Always happy to help other people with their research and very grateful for the assistance I have received over many years of trying to expand the tree but very wary of promulgating incorrect information - I have seen enough of it widely copied in other areas I have researched. When sharing information with other people I often say 'I believe' and the equivalent of 'this is why' rather than 'this is fact'.
[/quote]
Seriously. Is there no validation on Ancestry?
[/quote]
As far as I can see Ancestry do absolutely nothing to validate any of the information they publish - why would they? The old adage of 'caveat emptor' applies to any information on there - they are simply selling a product after all. I agree it is too useful not to subscribe, when I can afford it, and the hints, which seem to have got better are useful. I just check them all, against the originals and the information I already have, before accepting them.
-
Yes Ancestry are only in it for the money but I don't think we have got to the bottom of how any one can easily grab a whole tree and add it on to their own.
This what is so annoying when you have spent years, probably some when there was so much less information online and checking everything to find someone who obviously not done the research grabbing it without even asking your permission.
-
Yes Ancestry are only in it for the money but I don't think we have got to the bottom of how any one can easily grab a whole tree and add it on to their own.
This what is so annoying when you have spent years, probably some when there was so much less information online and checking everything to find someone who obviously not done the research grabbing it without even asking your permission.
We have certainly not bottomed out how a whole tree can be copied verbatim.
I have no idea how that could be done, well I do, but that is outside my technical capabilities to create a program to copy the whole tree like for like.
I have had images borrowed, which is a tad annoying as I have the original photo album. The really really annoying thing is that some of them have applied them to the wrong family members in their tree.
-
The root of the problem lies in the conventions of academic research. Family history research is just that, although many enthusiasts are unaware of it, and have never brushed up against the "rules" which govern it. Researchers are expected to review what has been published previously, present their own findings and draw conclusions, then include a list of sources. The sources should include primary sources, which family history is generally good at, and also secondary sources - i.e. other people's work in the field, which Ancestry never explains, and has allowed it to become a free-for-all.
In the academic world you would not get far by behaving like this, and most people expect better manners, but there are those who do not understand it and Ancestry does nothing to educate them, so this is the result.
Well said, MollyC.
-
I don't think we have got to the bottom of how any one can easily grab a whole tree and add it on to their own.
You could always try asking them. I would approach it by praising their tree, and saying you wish you knew how to add so many people because you find it such hard work and can they tell you their secret.
You never know a bit of subterfuge might work.
-
Seriously. Is there no validation on Ancestry?
None that I've ever seen. It appears to be some sort of whoever shouts the loudest wins process.
Unfortunately it's too useful to not subscribe. I used to have to go to Edinburgh and into the depths of the City Chambers to access Cemetery records, I can now do it sitting at my desk, this alone is worth the subscription.
I just have to accept that along with the usefulness is all the cr*p we have been discussing here. The only people who can fix this are Ancestry but money rules there these days so it isn't likely they'll do anything.
I understand and appreciate the cost benefit that you have explained Steve. For a while I was using Ancestry to delve into UK records from Cyprus. I've more recently found that I can export my data from Ancestry into Roots Magic. This allows me time to dig around other sources. As a consequence I've bought Genealogy - Essential Research Methods by Helen Osborn and plan to buy or subscribe to other relevant, to me, publications or portals. I'm resigned to the fact that others may have plundered my Ancestry files if it is as easy to do as seems the case. Perhaps, just perhaps they may achieve something helpful! Ancestry no doubt will be busy developing their product and they may have regard to the frustrations being expressed by so many here. I won't hold my breath!
-
Ancestry trees can be similar to heraldic visitations, error strewn. Even if I find potential ancestors in a visitation, I like to try to verify it myself.
-
"Ancestry are only in it for the money"
Well, yes, it's a for-profit corporation, so there's nothing surprising about that. If you don't put your tree out there as a public resource and just use Ancestry as a convenient source of records, you won't have any problems. It's that simple. I no longer subscribe to Ancestry, but when I did, I just used it as a library. I wasn't plagued with hints, no one could steal anything from me, and I had no complaints.
There are lots of other corporations seeking to profit from family history buffs. One sells an image of my grandmother - if you're interested, it will cost you $39.00. Or you can just go to the missionary magazine that they purloined it from and clip it out for free.
-
Hi Everyone,
Today I opened my tree to see the rating as from else where discussions but my Grandmother's photo was there in her profile. I have never added any photos to my tree. Ancestry says I have 7. All collected by them from others some of which were originally privately sent to one cousin. some are actually record images also not from me. However I do have all of them. from doing my own searching and purchasing where I have to.
I deleted the profile image. I may put up a cat photo instead.
Once bitten twice shy. Sadly you just never know what someone will eventually do with these things.
Essnell.
-
I THINK WE ALL NEED TO CHILL ,If what we print, on RootsChat helps others well that a good result,
Rather than us being full of are own importance, We need to help each other Follow their family bloodline.??
Cheers George.
-
Hi George E H Haycock.
No one said anything about not helping others .. i believe that there are two aspects to this discussion
1 Trust 2. how did the tree get copied entirely.
That's the issue. Unfortunately there appears to be no answers as to how to deal with either.
And..... I regularly help others and so does everyone on this thread -- and this forum.
Essnell
-
Hi George E H Haycock.
No one said anything about not helping others .. i believe that there are two aspects to this discussion
1 Trust 2. how did the tree get copied entirely.
That's the issue. Unfortunately there appears to be no answers as to how to deal with either.
And..... I regularly help others and so does everyone on this thread -- and this forum.
Essnell
Well said.
I’m not sure if it has been mentioned so far and whilst it will not help in this case changing your Ancestry account password would be a good move.
Plus make the trees private but searchable.
-
I can understand Helen feeling upset- my experience is that l do not have information tree names etc of my adopted family in any website can you imagine my surprise when l saw a photograph of my adopted father on Ancestry he would not have been happy seeing it -he dead many years ago. I contacted the lady and asked where she had got the photo from( l have the original in an album) did tell Her that
Her reply " oh l picked it up on this site's
I have put his name into search on Ancestry but still unsure where she got it from!!!!
-
Hi everyone. I received the above post by Murrell late last night here in Oz on my phone. i opened it.
read it and then discovered at the end 4 links to places where one can get whole family trees,photos etc. i have no idea if they require subs or what but it begs a huge explanation from someone.
One was google. So they are all playing with us.
Essnell.
-
One explanaition could be that an official photographer had retired and died. Then his estate has been auctioned off by his family and somebody buys the stock.
The photographer owns the rights, which presumably passes to the new owner.
-
I have my ancestral tree from, Orm De Eydock ,Adock, Haddock and others, all under De Haydock (1165) today with my grand son ,From Lancashire England, to County Tyrone N.Ireland , And Belfast, Then now N.S.W. Australia, and Queensland, i never would have any photos, Showing Ancestral Family Its a no go on Rootschat for all to see.
.
-
I like to keep my Ancestry tree public, especially as 99% of the people are long dead. I often have notes added under details, explaining my sources as well as attaching them, or I add a note explaining possible leads, and "More sleuthing needed" at the end.
-
Hi lovely rootschatters,
Yesterday I logged into my Ancestry account as I do daily to check my new DNA matches and do a little family history research on my family tree which I have built up with my own verified research over the last 25 years.
...
... yesterday ... the whole of my family tree and research appeared on her own Ancestry page listed.
I definitely have not given her an invite to share my tree over to her although my tree is public on Ancestry.
My tree has only 800 names on it all totally verified with lots of hard graft and money dedicated to it, hers has nearly 60,000 people on.
For me this is really upsetting....any advice would really be appreciated. Thank you so much for taking time to read my message.
Warmest regards...Helen.
I am so sorry Helen, but once you go public online, it is difficult to stop your paid, 1,000s hours and years of research, from being used or copied by others.
The word Plagiarism springs to mind ...
https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism#:~:text=The%20University%20defines%20plagiarism%20as,your%20work%20without%20full%20acknowledgement.
A Canadian contact, printed and bound their Commercial Pilot and Air Force Family member and some family research as a private work, in a limited print run book format, asserting their rights, book was not to be sold, etc., giving copies to their family, the National Libraries and a few others.
Not always possible, due to cost.
Mark
-
I cleared my hints again yesterday but they are back within 24 hours hosted in the other trees, if I leave it three or four days I'll soon be over 100 hints primarily based on the same half a dozen images.
One picture in particular appears multiple times in my hints. It was in my tree and copied by one person who has a tree and has been copied by 20+ tree owners.
In some ways it's frustrating as they take the images but not the details and if they looked at my tree would find all manner of details that the bare bones tree they favour doesn't have. Many don't seem to want anything beyond a name and a picture.
-
Hi Everyone
Did the OP say whether her tree was Public or Private. Maybe it is public and she did this unknowingly.
Question: when first setting up a tree is is initially Public by default?
Essnell
-
I have one very basic public tree linked to my DNA and its surprising (I know it shouldn't be) how many trees this information appears on other peoples trees. My remaining trees are private and non- searchable.....off I go to double check them all yet again :o
Nesta
-
Hi Everyone
Did the OP say whether her tree was Public or Private. Maybe it is public and she did this unknowingly.
Question: when first setting up a tree is is initially Public by default?
Essnell
By default Ancestry trees are Public and Searchable.
They are supposedly only Editable by people given such rights by the Account Holder.
-
Hi Everyone
Did the OP say whether her tree was Public or Private. Maybe it is public and she did this unknowingly.
Question: when first setting up a tree is is initially Public by default?
Essnell
This was covered in the first page of replies.
-
Hi Gadget, and everyone else,
Sorry about the double asking.. I did look through before questioning but missed it in the middle of the first posting.
In that case there is not much Helen can do about this. Except make her tree as previously said PRIVATE.
Better late than never.
Another suggestion is to acquire ones own tree builder. There are several out there,. and not put every thing up on whatever search engine you choose to pay for. I think this has already been mentioned but it is worth considering. Two I know of are Family Tree Builder and this one Gramps an open source program by Ubuntu. It works on any system.
Essnell
Ps; Just looked up where to get Gramps : Here: https://gramps-project.org Take a look at what it does. Essnell
-
My family tree is open Slater, If It helps who ever to find their family's blood lines, So b it,
unless they have consent, From all their Ancestral family to keep it secret ??
Cheers George.
-
I think this has already been mentioned but it is worth considering. Two I know of are Family Tree Builder and this one Gramps an open source program by Ubuntu. It works on any system.
Ps; Just looked up where to get Gramps : Here: https://gramps-project.org Take a look at what it does. Essnell
I've been using GRAMPS since 2009. You'll never need to use anything else. It has some many ways to store info and it's sourcing is excellent. You can make much more detailed reports than on Ancestry, which is fairly basic. It's not actually developed by Ubuntu.
On the main topic. It always surprises me that there are people who scrabble around others' trees, sucking in 1,000s and 10,000s of collateral relatives. Yet if you contact them they often don't reply. It doesn't make any sense to me. There are always enough dead-ends to occupy yourself. Then the lives of siblings. It doesn't make much sense to me to blast through levels of cousins. But I think many people only know how to research by copying what's in public trees.
When beginning I soon found the usual situation. You may be happy to furnish your often meticulous data, but people can't be bothered to reply with a few bits of info or even a "thank you". And that a lot of my meticulous research has ended up in public trees by one way or another, very often with mistakes. So I very quickly found to keep my tree private.
It's just what is it. You don't want to have it written on your grave stone, "Was always upset about ungraceful people."
It's a simplification, but one of my main observations in life is: the punishment for good people in life is that they sometimes know bad people - while the punishment for bad people is that they will only know bad people.
I've come across a number of bad people in my life. And it used to make me very angry. But now I see that it's just the price of being alive. These things happen. And I'm lucky enough that I haven't been stuck all my life with such people. While they have been.
-
When searching ,Family ancestors ,We cannot 100% be so accurate, So when we share this
Well meaning assumptions, we should expect others to give evidence, Of other contributors
with knowage, Of change to your family male blood line ,As we all find too common, Due to
large family's, Ones passing and their name, Given to another birth, (Like john B. 1280D. 1281
then
John B.1283 or a child Passed on birth) There name still added to a new baby, So remember
other family members on, A different male blood line, (Same Ancestors) my help construct for
both family trees.
Cheers George.
-
You cannot stop others from unintentionally, Seeing your family tree, That my contribute? Or identified?,
Information reputable which fills blanks on there Ancestors tree ,Also since Ancestry Information is now
big money organisation, Selling information at cost? PS. The only tree that is free today, is growing near Were you live.
Cheers George.
.