Ancestry Tree Rating

[Ray T]

Quite disappointed; my main tree rating is up to 6.5. Thought it would be much lower than that as it’s simply an uploaded basic Gedcom from the tree on my computer!

I also have a tree for a specific part of it which is public, partially sourced and that doesn’t even warrant a rating.

[scotmum]

I used to be on an Ancestry Insiders panel. I think they got fed up of my feedback on their services/offerings surveys being truthfull and direct to the point.   

[Ruskie]

That was indeed me hinted at by Ruskie above

It only appears when you open a tree on the activity bar ie : Activity : Invite: Find A Tree

Its an opt-in to ''help you with your tree '' ie tidy up the duplicates and point out the issues with your tree

6.6 Fair
You have 4744 possible errors in your tree.
64 Possible duplicates
14 Only tree documentation
4664 No documentation
2 Other possible errors

As noted the 4664 No Docs would be 3rd cousins spouses etc where dates havent been entered

1. Its a money spinner at $XX per month
2. Again its you the purchaser doing their work to provide them with more hints

And yes I know I have errors in my tree but I dont care - its my tree

Yes, sorry for forgetting it was you David. 

I think anyone with a mind to copy your tree probably doesn’t care if you have thousands of errors either.

Thanks for confirmation that I’ll need to pay to see how many errors I have in my tree.

[LizzieL]

Quite disappointed; my main tree rating is up to 6.5. Thought it would be much lower than that as it’s simply an uploaded basic Gedcom from the tree on my computer!

I did the same - but I got 6.6 

[Biggles50]

Rubbish.

Tree Checker reports duplicates in our trees, there are zero duplicates, each tree has been checked in both Roots Magic and FTM and the duplicates that were caused by Ancestry simply loosing an entry were all found, corrected and reloaded into the trees.

In one tree it says that Ellen Bradley is a duplicate with Ellen Bradley, yes there are two Ellen Bradley's they are Cousin’s.

[Jebber]

I think the whole rating business is rubbish. Mine is rated 7.6. I only have a partial tree which is private, but searchable. One of the errors is because one person has no name or information attached, the simple reason being that it's me and I have no intention of filling in my details. I also have no intention of paying for Pro tools.

It annoys me that I am always getting hints that certain people have no photograph attached to them. I have no intention of adding photos, with one exception, a photo of my maternal grandmother which I took from another tree, it also appears on a number of trees. The person who was first to add it to their tree is a second cousin to whom I gave a copy of the photo along time ago. I own the original and the negative. Many of the other hints I get have no connection to people in my tree. I had one hint which took me to my paternal grandmother on  a tree on Family Search, that had given her parents who had no connection to her whatsoever.

It's getting to the point where  I'm seriously considering letting my subscription lapse.

[familydar]

I don't have ProTools but I do have a tree rating, mine's 9.8  .  Clicking on the info button gives this:  "Trees with over 50 people get an updated tree rating each week, along with a deeper dive into possible errors for 3 people in the tree. Your rating and possible errors will update on Thursday."

I've investigated the three they are allowing me to see.  One is apparently a duplicate of someone with a different name and dates, two have no records (correct).  I await tomorrow's update (realistically more likely Friday as Ancestry is probably working on US time and I'm in the UK) with bated breath 

Jane :-)

[LizzieL]

I've investigated the three they are allowing me to see.  One is apparently a duplicate of someone with a different name and dates,

I've got a "duplicate" like that - different names, different dates and different genders.

I also have a Possible duplicate "John Carr". Same name, same month and year of baptism but different days, same place of baptism and both had a mother with the same name. Hence according to Ancestry they are the same person. This has caused me endless annoyance with hints and incorrect thrulines, which I thought had stopped. Now I expect any remotely related people (or even those who aren't related but for some reason best known to themselves like to add any random tree to theirs so they can boast that they have 400,000 people) will merge these two boys.
What in heavens name did Thomas Carr think he was doing when he not only married a woman with the same forename as his brother's wife (my direct ancestors), but then both decided to conceive a boy with their respective Sarahs on about the same day. They did have a choice in names, but both thought John was a good idea. If it had been their father's name I could have understood it. I suppose I should be grateful they had the baptisms 15 days apart and not on the same day.

[LizzieL]

This duplicates business is bonkers. I've got at least two sets of fathers and sons marked as duplicates. Quite common for fathers and sons to have same name but to born / baptised 30 odd years apart in different places - supposedly the same person!

And I've got a triplicate !
William Hibberd Cluett b 1823 Christchurch, Hants
Thomas Hibberd Cluett b 1827  Christchurch (his younger brother)
William Hibberd Cluett b 1862 Islington (son of William HC 1823)

Obviously they're all the same person.
Imagine how that would totally screw my tree if I made them all one - but which one?
Sadly, I think some people would do that.