Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic: Ancestry Tree Rating  (Read 2992 times)

Offline ggrocott

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,366
  • I will find them eventually!
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry Tree Rating
« Reply #27 on: Friday 14 February 25 09:46 GMT (UK) »
Does anyone know what the ratings are out of?  Mine come out as 9.7 and I know one of mine is not great.
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Tagg, Bowyer (Berkshire/Surrey), Adams, Small, Pratt, Coles, Stevens, Cox (Bucks), Grocott, Slater, Dean, Hill (Staffs/Shropshire), Holloway, Flint, Warrington,Turnbull (London), Montague, Barrett (Herts), Hayward (Kent), Gallon, Knight, Ede, Tribe, Bunn, Northeast, Nicholds (Sussex) Penduck, Pinnell, Yeeles (Gloucs), Johns (Monmouth and Devon), Head (Bath), Tedbury, Bowyer (Somerset), Chapman, Barrett (Herts/Essex)

Offline GailB

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry Tree Rating
« Reply #28 on: Friday 14 February 25 20:26 GMT (UK) »
Quote from: ggrocott on Friday 14 February 25 09:46 GMT (UK)
Does anyone know what the ratings are out of?  Mine come out as 9.7 and I know one of mine is not great.

It is out of 10 but it is labelled "Elite". My tree was 9.7 when I first got pro tools but I went through all of the supposed errors and fixed it up. It went to 9.8 then 9.9 then on to Elite.
Armitage, Atherton, Barton, Beck, Bradshaw, Brumfitt, Chetwin, Conalty, Connolly, Connor(s), Davidson, Hilton, Hoey, Johnson, Jones, Knight, Lester, McDonald, Molyneux, Morris, Pownall, Rushton, Spark, Stanley, Tunstall, Welsby, West, Wharton, Williams, Wilson, Windridge, Windstandley

Offline LeedsHipPriest69

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry Tree Rating
« Reply #29 on: Saturday 22 March 25 08:25 GMT (UK) »
At first I thought this tool, or at least the free version (as a true Yorkshireman I don't want to be spending more than necessary), was potentially useful.

Today however the 3 free prompts suggested a possible duplication, fair enough i thought best check. Turns out the possible duplication William Dickinson 1787 and Robert Dickinson 1789, was complete tosh, I have baptism details, marriage details, child baptism details, the works.

I'll put it down to the free version being less well informed with less algorithms, but i doesn't exactly make me think it's worth investing in.
Benn (Yorkshire), Cock (Ashill, Norfolk), Dickinson (Newton on Trent and Saxilby, Lincolnshire)  Rhodes (Yorkshire), Tew (Shropshire/Staffordshire), Wilks (Yorkshire)

Offline Sloe Gin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,442
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry Tree Rating
« Reply #30 on: Saturday 22 March 25 12:52 GMT (UK) »
I have a "weekly tree rating" of

6.5   Fair
You have 1637 possible errors in your tree.
26 Possible duplicates
0 Only tree documentation
1608 No documentation
3 Other possible errors

That looks quite good to me.
I haven't bothered with sources and haven't attached any documents.
I have plenty of both but not included on the Ancestry tree, which is only there for DNA purposes.
I wonder what the 3 possible errors are.
UK census content is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk  Transcriptions are my own.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]