Dis- and advantages of adding a tree to DNA results

[diplodicus]

My whole tree is online and I am happy to let people make of it what they will. I always ask before copying any images and so far, nobody has said "no". I did once create a "bare bones" tree of direct ancestors but given the limits of autosomal testing, this is likely to exclude many opportunities. If another researcher reaches back to a distant sibling of whom you were unaware of one of your own, then no connection will offer itself.

Like most of you, I have invested quite a lot in the GRO and other sources but then again, I have benefitted far more from others who have done the same thing and then shared their results.

Yes, there are some "data hoovers" out there but they must be way too busy copying to do anything useful with the material they collect. Their trees are rarely of any research interest but if it keeps them happy...

[jillruss]

I don't think that's quite the point.

Like most other people, I don't like tree-snatchers, partly because of all the work I've put into mine for 'joy riders' to come along and half-inch the lot without a please or thank you.

And I agree with Guy (who's obviously much more altruistic than me!) that, once you put your tree 'out there' you've given it up to all and sundry.

What I don't care for is the mindless way people adopt parts of my tree without questioning. In my very early days of research, I gave some theoretical info on a particular stubborn brickwall to someone but emphasised that it was just my theory which I was looking into. Some time later, I accessed those particular parish registers and found a childhood death for the chap in my theory so had to start looking elsewhere.  The point being that I still find my original theory in lots of trees, the owners obviously having annexed this poor lad who died in infancy and his earlier family - probably for all eternity!!

Not only is it dishonest, its totally counter productive. A serious researcher would not accept info withour looking into it him/herself. I just wonder how many 'serious' researchers there are out there, and how many are just playing at it?

Hence my reluctance, like Martin, to post my tree on Ancestry. However, I gave in and posted my tree for DNA purposes - and I still say it hasn't made a ha'pence of difference to the number of matches making first contact (god, I sound like ET!!). 'Scuse me whilst I just phone home!! 

Jill

[diplodicus]

I assume that these "serious researchers" have already leaned not to trust anybody else's tree without careful verification?

Fortunately, I have never been considered as "serious"

[Sinann]

I don't have any matches with a tree linked to their DNA so I don't know if I would be able to see a linked tree.

I can't see any of the trees they do have because I don't have a subscription, so I'm never bothered if a match has a tree or not, I work from messaging alone.

Granted if I was trying to get as far back as many of you are I might feel differently.

[Ayashi]

One of my DNA matches today commented: "You've certainly done more research than your tree would suggest." I'm not entirely sure how to take that lol

[smudwhisk]

If you have a private tree on Ancestry, what information is passed to matches please?  Just the surname? Name? Any location details from the facts associated with individuals?  Just wondering as I've created a minimal direct ancestors tree which is private in preparation for when the results arrive.

[diplodicus]

No data from the tree is displayed.

[sugarfizzle]

smudwhisk, No direct information is given to matches at all if your tree remains private.

However, 'shared ancestor' hints are available but you don't know who the shared ancestor is!

Surnames and places of birth are searchable for both public and private trees.

Regards Margaret

[Gadget]

As far as I can remember those with private trees come up when I put in a surname or location search, but that's all.


Gadget