Ancestry Messenger

[Brenshaw]

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

[rosie17]

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

[Jebber]

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.

[Pheno]

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!

[Zaphod99]

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

[rosie17]

Agree with Jebber about people ignoring them in that case I wouldn't send any more messages 

Rosie

[ggrocott]

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.

[Zaphod99]

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

[Pheno]

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