Isolating Ancestry Family Trees

[avrilw]

Hi
I have been using Ancestry for years so I really should have sorted this before now but -
When you have a really common name in your tree, Ancestry throws up several members trees containing similar names.
Some are obviously way out. Is there a way to isolate the 'maybe ' trees and ditch the rest?
I really can't see the wood for the trees (sorry) when Ancestry gives me 37 possible matches and many just are not viable.

Avril

[KGarrad]

The best solution is not to look at tree matches!

Many of them are so innaccurate, it's just not worth the bother.

I tend to take notes from apparent decent tree matches, and then go and find real data myself.

[iluleah]

The key is to ignore 'online trees' and research your own ancestry by using and following the trail of  real records/images of real records otherwise what you will end up with is a tree of unrelated names and unable to prove any one

[avrilw]

Hi
I never take what they say for granted either, if they have anything new I will go check that out for myself. Sometimes though, someone will have a child I may have missed.
You are right about the rubbish on them. Several trees say one of mine was born in Sulawesi but no-one has any proof. They all say he died in 1870, but again no proof. The problem with that is we did not call Sulawesi Sulawesi until around 1880, some ten years after his death. So no chance whatever that there is a written record giving Sulawesi as a birth place.

[Comberton]

If you mean the Ancestry Member Trees that come as a hint, you can select individual trees by ticking against them instead of ticking to select all trees.

[Rosinish]

The best solution is not to look at tree matches!
Why Not

Many of them are so innaccurate, it's just not worth the bother.
Who told you such rubbish 

I tend to take notes from apparent decent tree matches, and then go and find real data myself.
Why, when all the info. is there to glean for FREE

I took up the 50% Fancestry Worldwide Offer for 1 yr & have just had a quick look at the hints I have on my very BASIC tree from long gone days before I knew the pitfalls benefits of having my info. online & what a lovely surprise!!! 

My info. from relevant sources although some are circa dates...

My 3 x g g/mother b c1794/7ish married my 3 x g g/father 1822ish (most likely where census' give their PoB) 

Had 7 known children pre 1843 (have all Baptisms) but there are gaps where there could have been more between 1st - 1824 & last - 1842 (all in same area as their PoB) to which I have all marriages (where applicable) & deaths, all in their PoB & my 3 x gs died there in their PoB.

Tonight I found info. on my 3 x g g/mother having an illegitimate child in 1811 (aged bet. c14yrs & 17yrs some 125 miles away) but she must have been a good mother as she waits for the son to grow up a little before returning to her census' PoB, marrying in 1822 

Well...whether that son was taken those 125 miles back to where she was born (according to the census') I don't know or did he return the 125 miles to his PoB later to marry in his PoB 

That illegitimate son went on to marry in 1838 in his PoB & produced a family of 5 with many descendants 

My tree for that line has almost doubled in the space of 5 mins     

Annie

[KGarrad]

The best solution is not to look at tree matches!
Why Not

Many of them are so innaccurate, it's just not worth the bother.
Who told you such rubbish 

I tend to take notes from apparent decent tree matches, and then go and find real data myself.
Why, when all the info. is there to glean for FREE

My own personal experience is that the majority of trees on Ancestry contain errors!
Most tree owners, IMHO, are simply name-collectors who aren't interested in the truth.

When I started, I blindly copied data from other trees - assuming it to be accurate.
I eventually had to delete many, many people from my trees after I found the mistakes people made.

One tree even had my father married to his own mother!

[StevieSteve]

Great! Another chance to be snobby, generalising and patronising about Ancestry users while ignoring the original question.


Unfortunately, I don't think Comberton's solution works how it's wanted

While it does filter out the non-wanted trees, it's only for that session. If you go back into the tree hint later, the rejected ones will still be there. There doesn't seem to be a partial Ignore button

The problem with that is we did not call Sulawesi Sulawesi until around 1880, some ten years after his death. So no chance whatever that there is a written record giving Sulawesi as a birth place.

That doesn't necessarily mean that there's no record, the user has put in the location and they can put in what they want.

Middlesex hasn't existed for 50 years, but if you find a reference to "Greater London" in my tree, then I'll be seriously cross with myself

[Pheno]

'Most tree owners, IMHO, are simply name-collectors who aren't interested in the truth.'

I must take issue with this KGarrad.  I agree with all your other sentiments and I know the above is only your humble opinion, but 'most'!  I would hate to think I am lumped into that category simply because I choose to record my online tree on Ancestry.  I am certainly not just a name collector and check out all my facts before putting online and am happy to correspond with people who have different info to me and to amend my details should a change be proved.  I have been doing my research for over 40 years and know all about the pitfalls of blindly accepting info from tree hints.

Pheno