RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Brenshaw on Monday 23 February 26 01:20 GMT (UK)
-
unsure if anyone can help me with this matter but its worth a go .... the message facility linked to ancestry.com my family tree - do we have to have our ancestry tree made public to receive any incoming replies to outgoing massages. I've sent alot of messages off and haven't received any replies ... My ancestry tree is private
-
It doesn't matter if it's a public or private tree you can still send and receive messages
You can check if the message has been read just click on your messages and it will say read or delivered
Rosie
-
A lot of people just ignore messages and don’t have the courtesy to acknowledge them.
I tend to look at how many they have in their tree, some have such a ridiculously large number you know that are not serious researchers so I don’t bother to message them.
-
Jebber I think you may be doing some people a disservice here. I have always had a fairly small tree but since the advent of dna I have had to expand it quite considerably, much wider than I would have liked really, to incorporate people/names down to the present day from 5/6 generations back, in order to compute how dna matches connect.
It may not be name collecting but research for dna connections.
Pheno
PS It also doesn't mean that I do not reply to messages!
-
Note Jebber's first four words!
I GENERALLY disregard trees over 10,000 and I'm selective over 5,000. I have fastidiously grown mine to 2,500 over ten years, in keeping with the Genealogical Proof Standard, which most have never even heard of, let alone read or follow. I am adding DNA matches as I identify them. Yes, I probably lose out on some genuinely well-created trees over 10,000 but it is necessary to have limits.
One thing that puzzles me about messages, I send nice match messages, get good replies, but in ten years I've never been initially contacted by one of my 15,000 cousins! I'm really surprised at that. Why not?
Zaph
-
Agree with Jebber about people ignoring them in that case I wouldn't send any more messages ;)
Rosie
-
Yes, people ignore messages, although sometimes they will reply weeks, months or even years later. I always reply. As for Jebbers comment, thank you Pheno for your contribution. I admit to having a large tree, mainly due to working on DNA matches, it is as well researched as I can make it, all sources are quoted and I never copy other people's tree; although I have been known to contact to people to query things, normally without any response. My trees are the fruit of many hard years work by me, my mother and other family members and I am happy to share if people can prove a link, I keep all but one private so other people don't go copying willy nilly and putting things in the wrong context - a picture of my ggrandmother being attached to someone unconnected caused that decison. If people don't choose to contact me because I have done all that work it is sad, they will never know what they are missing out on.
And yes I do know all about the Genealogical Proof Standard.
-
Absolutely wrong. Keep trying but always politely. It's so easy to miss one or be busy, A temporary crisis at home always comes first. I've had replies after 4-5 tries
Zaph
Agree with Jebber about people ignoring them in that case I wouldn't send any more messages ;)
Rosie
-
What's absolutely wrong?
Just to state that trees with over 'n' thousand people are built by name collectors - that's what is absolutely wrong and possibly libelous. Lots of genealogists know what the genealogical proof standard is and adhere to it - and label any person as a possibility and fishing for dna clues - if a particular person doesn't meet that standard.
It's a sweeping statement to classify large trees as name collecting and that the owners can't be bothered to answer messages. What does a small private tree get you in terms of dna research - probably not much.
I do take umbrage at this attitude.
Pheno
-
Totally agree pheno, but I think the 'absolutely wrong' was aimed at the advice not to send more messages, it is always worth another try, as Zaphod says life sometimes gets in the way of dealing with messages.
-
I have a very large tree - but it's not my own, it's a one-place study. It's got nearly 50,000 people on it.
It's the result of 30 years research, and is as solid as it can be, to the highest standard possible. There are no hints from other Ancestry trees.
If you want to have a look, here's a local schoolmaster:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/person/tree/162804729/person/232614112999/facts (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/person/tree/162804729/person/232614112999/facts)
or maybe the bigamous workhouse matron:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/person/tree/162804729/person/232676929551/facts (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/person/tree/162804729/person/232676929551/facts)
Or the plumber who lived with someone for years, only for their lack of a marriage to be revealed when his "wife" died. Her death certificate gives her "married" name - but the vicar buried her under her maiden name!
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/person/tree/162804729/person/232122044260/facts (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/person/tree/162804729/person/232122044260/facts)
You see all sorts doind a one-place study!
If you had relevant family, you would miss out if you ignored it. And yes, I do reply to messages!
-
Absolutely wrong. Keep trying but always politely. It's so easy to miss one or be busy, A temporary crisis at home always comes first. I've had replies after 4-5 tries
Zaph
Agree with Jebber about people ignoring them in that case I wouldn't send any more messages ;)
Rosie
Good for you being successful and for trying I'm afraid one message would be enough for me
Rosie
-
Does anyone else think that the Ancestry system of sending you an email if someone has sent you a message is sometimes at fault? On many occasions the first I've known of a new message is if I notice a red dot on the messages tab, when I log in to Ancestry. (Not in Spam either). So I think it is worth while resending a message.
As to large trees, like many people on here I have been researching since the 1980s and was lucky enough to have inherited sound research by rellies (no longer with us) for a quarter of my tree. My tree has also expanded a lot when trying to prove or disprove a DNA thrulines match. It's got a lot wider, but not much taller, very few lines back before 1700. I wouldn't refuse to contact people just because they have a large tree.
-
Yes, with the DNA stuff my tree has got a lot wider, and a bit taller. It has also developed quite a few 'hanging trees' where I have groups of DNA matches that link to each other but which I cannot, as yet, link to my tree. I hope that one day they may lead me to the fathers of Annie Marie Hayward and Amelia Pinnell and the parents of Mary Ann Waddington, who I have been searching for for over 30 years. :-)
-
Lizzie has a point about Ancestry's system. Over the years I have seen many people complain that they had been sent a message that they did not know about. There can be many reasons of course. (including the old faithful forgetting to tell Ancestry your new email address) Emails don't even bounce these days so how can they know if there is a problem?
Another problem that often gets overlooked is that Ancestry have been hosting trees for a very long time now. How many of those earlier genealogists have already joined their ancestors? Like Farcebook, there is no way of telling.
-
Lizzie has a point about Ancestry's system. Over the years I have seen many people complain that they had been sent a message that they did not know about. There can be many reasons of course. (including the old faithful forgetting to tell Ancestry your new email address) Emails don't even bounce these days so how can they know if there is a problem?
Another problem that often gets overlooked is that Ancestry have been hosting trees for a very long time now. How many of those earlier genealogists have already joined their ancestors? Like Farcebook, there is no way of telling.
I definitely have three DNA matches who have passed away - I only know because I was told by other relatives. There are probably many others who I haven't heard about.
-
Yes, I have DNA matches who have passed away, in several cases I have added them, as a result of doing research, and realised they had already died.
-
It's very disturbing when you know these people do have direct links to your DNA and many are the missing link in progressing your research any further.
I have now realized there is a function button that tells you your message has been sent and "READ", that was interesting to know. At least now i know they got my message and that they cared to ignore it, how selfish !!....so much to why we all get on here to do our family trees and research.
Today I received a reply message from someone I sent a message to 2 years ago.... he is a direct relative, but he has since been sick
I'm near finished on finalizing my family tree right up to my GGGF on my mother's side, more thanks to DNA direct links than posted messages.
All is good, will wait for more advanced DNA technologies to do some of my leg and research work.
-
Personally if we initiate contact ourselves the Message we send is short yet hopefully intriguing to the recipient.
Probably about 50% respond.
Of those who initiate contact we always respond, but usually messages fizzle out.
Occasionally things take time, 12 years is the longest before a reply was sent to us.
My Wife had her third highest DNA match show last week and we are now in contact with them.
I collaborate with two other Ancestry users on our trees, one has been very helpful as they went to the churches concerned and looked through records that have not been transcribed and shared that info with me.
I helped a high cM match of mine determine who his Grandfather is likely to have been.
Yet another cM match of mine had the totally wrong family line in her tree. We share GGP’s so we are close, did I get a thanks, no. As it happens she is my highest match on Gedmatch so it is a total waste of effort contacting her.
-
My tree has grown to nearly 10k though if someone cares to read my profile it's apparent why that is the case. I've reached the point of not sending messages anymore as they were being read (so the account was being actively used), but never responded to. I can find people who will readily ignore me to my face, I don't need the internet for that.
-
Hi
Whenever I feel inclined to message somebody on Ancestry, I always check their profile to see when they were last online.
I would feel awful if someone had to renew their membership just to chat to me about Centimorgans and disappearing people in my tree.
In general, my communication exchange experiences have been positive.
But I too have never been randomly contacted via Ancestry ie the initial contact was always through me.
Rebel
-
Hi
Whenever I feel inclined to message somebody on Ancestry, I always check their profile to see when they were last online.
I would feel awful if someone had to renew their membership just to chat to me about Centimorgans and disappearing people in my tree.
I contacted someone some time ago with some extra info on a common rellie and they replied quite promptly. But said they couldn't view the image I mentioned because they didn't have a current sub. So they managed to use the message system without a sub, but this was a few years ago and maybe Ancestry has now withdrawn that facility
-
The message system is free and no sub is required to initiate contact or reply to messages.
-
Oh
That's good to know. thankyou!
But people still never answer----!
Rebel
-
I feel it's often the case that they don't know the answer, don't wish to admit it and not responding is the easy way out. If subsequent messages are read and there is still no reply that's different. There's a point at which not replying (by choice), becomes blatant ignorance in my book.
-
Hi, idiot here, because apparently my tree size alone is enough is 'proof' that I don't know the concept of genealogical proof standards." Interesting that one measurement can be consider proof of not valuing evidence.
I have been researching for 26 years. It is my sole hobby, I also have no social life. So when I'm not working, doing housework or parenting I work on my tree. So I have put a lot of hours into it. I very much value evidence and trying to do it properly. I can say that not one error in my tree has been down to lack of trying. Tiredness perhaps, conflicting sources eg when people make up a father on marriage certs to hide illegitimacy. When I find a mistake, I work to correct it.
Not one of my sources are another tree from Ancestry. My sources are from a wide range: BDM certificates, parish records, kirk session minutes, census returns, shipping records, passport applications, university matriculation records, graduation records, poor law records, professional registers, employment records, family records, family Bibles, books that people on my tree have written (as evidence of work they produced not of names etc), newspaper BDM records, newspaper articles, tax records, wills, probate calendar entries, prison records, court records, HEIC records, Commonwealth War graves, medal rolls, honours lists, Hansard, to name a few.
Numbers do add up. Just one small part of my tree. There's me obviously, I have been married twice (may as well add another failing) and I have 2 children. Granted that's only 5 people.
Then we add in the siblings from my generation which is 6 and 5 of them have married so far. I record the parents of a spouse when adding them as part of their identification so that is up to 24 people.
Between them they have had 10 children so far, one of whom married and had a child so far which takes us up to 38.
Add in my parents and those of my ex husbands, then add the 35 siblings they had between them which makes 79. 31 of these siblings married and had 84 children between them taking my tree to 260.
Of these children 60 of them have married so far and 175 children have been born so far. That's 621 people.
Every single one of these people were born after 1900. I have met 75% of these people and the remaining 25% of them I know people who met them. Repeat this process for grandparents, their siblings etc and the numbers mount up fast. I have spent many days in Scotland's People Centres and before that New register house before it was digitised. If you plan these visits you can get a lot done in one day.
-
Folks,
Apologies to those who are offended by my posts,espescially Bri_Boy.
After more than 30 years of research i have to ask,where do i find "genealogical proof standards"?And who set these standards?
I have two trees on Ancestry,an ancestral tree with 5308 souls,and a one place study of 7324,which makes me a name collector to some,however Ancestry's ratings are 9.8 and 9.5 out of 10 would indicate i have some things correct.
I use public trees for leads and then carry out my own research for verification.I generally use messenger when there is a glaring error in the hope trees will be updated,and 25% response would be baseline.I recently found 163 public trees had a girl pregnant and married at 13,wrong death date etc suggesting a lot of copying,messages sent and less than 10 replies with three accepting the error.People are loath to admit that copying other trees is their only source.
You can't force a response so learn to live with it.
Eric
-
Yep, all my trees have a 9.8 on Ancestry, although how much of a recommendation that is I'm not sure. :-)
I have found that the trees grow exponentially when one of the family members emigrates, particularly if they go to the USA where they have huge families, all of whom survive, who in turn have huge families .................... A certain Joseph Montague on my tree springs to mine, without him the extended tree would be a LOT smaller but he has produced lots of useful info and the DNA links confirm that the paper trail is correct back to his parents.
-
I have c8000 not because of DNA stuff but because I merged mine and my partner’s trees.
Plus I’ve followed my birth father and my Dad who brought me up - having 3 parents adds to the body count lol.
Oh and many branches are those mega families of 15+ kids and successful parents as most survived (except for the 2 families decimated by measles).
When you have mega families who use the patronymic naming convention so you end up with 7 Henry Lowthers all born in/around Wigton within a decade you need to follow them all to know you are following the right one to war or prison or whatever.
The other drivers for my larger wider tree… (and I know it’s not huge yet)
My lot are incredibly dull - no drama, no stories- if I find someone on a collateral line with an interesting name I’ll expand out of curiosity.
Illegitimacy- when you lose whole branches early on what are you going to do? Give up this amazing hobby or workout what happened to the uncle of your 3rd cousin twice removed’s husband when he went to South Africa?
Collateral lines and distant relatives have knocked down my brick walls - my lot often ended up being servants to richer distant cousins.
Yes I was a stamp collector. This is the same kind of hobby for me. That doesn’t mean the veracity of my research isn’t good.
On Ancestry I look at the record counts on an individual - I don’t care if it is on a tree of 10000+ if it has a good record count - good means more than I have.
All my core tree have high record counts which someone can see when they search. A message will get them access. The ones with low record counts are either peripheral interests or in a time/place of minimal records.
One thing I am passionate about if anyone wants my info I’ll help. There are two points on my tree where lots of other trees get it wrong - a bigamist and a clerical error. My aim is to contact everyone who has it wrong! If they were correct I wouldn’t exist!
Sorry for the essay I have time in my hands, I just wanted to defend the big tree and how it can come about!
(I’m a 9.7 due to the way back when women I don’t know the surnames for!)