Searching Ancestry Public Trees

[Sloe Gin]

I would never assume that because no sources have been added, the tree owner has none.  They may  keep their main tree, complete with sources and other information, elsewhere. 
I don't keep a tree on Ancestry, but I do have a tree on GenesReunited which I haven't updated it in years, not since I got genealogy software on my PC.

[bugbear]

I would never assume that because no sources have been added, the tree owner has none.  They may  keep their main tree, complete with sources and other information, elsewhere.

True - but it means that deriving benefit from the tree is more difficult, and involves so much checking it might be quicker to just do my own research directly.
 
The commonest instance of what you describe is when a tree is mainly well cited on ancestry, but births have EXACT dates, not nearest quarters. I normally infer that the tree-maker has (in fact) ordered and paid for a certificate from the GRO.

   BugBear

[Sloe Gin]

Well, I wouldn't copy anything without checking, but I was thinking more of whether it was worth contacting the tree owner to compare notes.  (I realise a lot don't reply, for various reasons.) 
I just meant I wouldn't write them off simply because they hadn't attached any sources.

[LizzieL]

I would never assume that because no sources have been added, the tree owner has none.  They may  keep their main tree, complete with sources and other information, elsewhere. 
I don't keep a tree on Ancestry, but I do have a tree on GenesReunited which I haven't updated it in years, not since I got genealogy software on my PC.

I have a tree on Ancestry. I didn't construct it person by person on the Ancestry website, but uploaded it as a Gedcom file made from a tree made on my 1995 version of FTM. The original file had a multitude of sources, scans of bmd and parish records and photographs etc. When uploaded to ancestry all this was stripped off, so my tree looks like one of those completely unsourced trees that everyone on here tells newbies to completely disregard.

[carol80]

I have a tree on Ancestry. I did it years ago. When my membership ceased i went through my tree and removed all citations and references to documents i have. People can e-mail me regarding my tree but as i am no longer a member my reply can not be sent to them.

Hopefully someone can use it as a guide only.

I did this so my work would not be copied.

[Sloe Gin]

People can e-mail me regarding my tree but as i am no longer a member my reply can not be sent to them.

I thought non-subscribers could reply to messages, just not initiate them. 

[carol80]

I have tried to reply to e-mails that have been sent though Ancestry and i get told this e-mail can not be sent.
I am only too happy to reply to e-mails and help people out as it also helps me progress further but Ancestry will not let me.

I will give Ancestry a ring next week and find out from them.
I don't like people thinking i am ignoring them.
           Carol

[pharmaT]

I would never assume that because no sources have been added, the tree owner has none.  They may  keep their main tree, complete with sources and other information, elsewhere. 
I don't keep a tree on Ancestry, but I do have a tree on GenesReunited which I haven't updated it in years, not since I got genealogy software on my PC.

I have very few sources "properly" cited on my Ancestry tree, most events just cross reference my own system of storing sources.  It's not that I don't have sources behind my conclusions