Dis- and advantages of adding a tree to DNA results

[heywood]

I didn’t have a tree for quite a while because I just enjoyed the experience of seeing the extent of DNA matches.
I then contacted one or two people with limited responses so I decided to share a tree with basic surnames across a couple of generations. This hasn’t produced anything either.
I contacted two new people last week who appeared on my list but it looks as though they were just online to post their results.
There are very few trees posted but of those that are, I can see where the likely relationship would occur.
I am still fascinated by it all though. According to Ancestry, there are more than 450 people in 4th cousin or closer. I do not intend to get in touch with all of them 
 In my closest contacts, I have an adoption so no idea how that person links and just last week a new one that I would like to know how we are related. The others, I can identify easily.
There is another adoption in 3rd cousin links - otherwise I can make a good guess at connections but would like to confirm.
Perhaps seeing the results of testing, might encourage more to research in the future. We can live in hope.

[Guy Etchells]

I've got my test results on various sites, but with no accompanying tree.  I don't want my research stolen. Should I,
 
A. Stop worrying and provide it as completely as possible.
B. Just provide basic pedigree.
C. Not provide it?

Martin

First it is impossible for your research to be stolen if you upload a copy online.
For it to be stolen it has to be taken from you (i.e. you no longer have it), and this is not what occur.

You must either mean you don't want it copied or you don't want to share it, either way don't put the tree online.
I must admit I cannot understand why people do not want to share their research especially these days when it does not cost anything to share. In the past when we shared we would have to copy the information by hand or even go to a shop and have the pages of research duplicated or photographs duplicated at a chemists etc., these all cost money yet researchers freely shared their research.

I am dismayed that so many researchers these days are so 'protective' about their research, if others in the past had been there would not be the resources available online today that are used by all.

Cheers
Guy

[Mart 'n' Al]

 Thank you all for your comments. I will be going ahead and adding my tree.

Martin

[Ayashi]

My parents did DNA with my mother's results being connected to the existing main tree. There have been a couple of slightly creepy if possibly well meaning people who have added my line (not so bad) but also my photographs (fairly awkward) and even one person who circumvented the "private" area of my tree by looking up my cousins and adding info and photos from their trees (never talking to you again!!)

I would definitely say to anyone doing DNA to put up a skeleton tree at least though, especially if you want others to contact. I've done a lot more contacting than I've had people contact me but in a lot of cases the people I've matched with have had private trees, no trees or a handful of people on their trees. With hundreds of results, priority has to go to the ones with a decent amount of info for me to look through- unless there are shared matches that make someone of interest, there's not much point in spending much time trying to figure out someone who hasn't provided anything to look at. If I suspect or have any information to share with them that might help their research, however, I have often sent off a message regardless of whether or not I get a reply.

I now have something like 53 trees where I've found at least one point of shared ancestry, but this was work that I had to personally put in.

On a side note, if your tree is public, you don't have to link it to your results IT CAN STILL BE SEEN IN YOUR PROFILE. Ancestry has changed results to now show if someone has an unlinked tree so matches can still look that up. You'd need to keep the main one private and have a public second tree that's viewable.

Ayashi

[familydar]

Ayashi, the problem with not linking a tree to your results is that people looking at the unlinked tree could struggle to work out which of the people in it could be their DNA match.  Compounded when there are multiple unlinked trees to choose from.

I have a linked public bare bones pedigree only tree going back as many generations as I'm confident about (some people only know as far back as their GPs, if that's all I had online we wouldn't stand much chance of a surname in common with a 2nd cousin, let alone someone more distant) and a much more extensive (rambling) private tree.  I find this approach works for me.

Happy New Year everyone 

Jane :-)

[Gadget]

I also have the same as Jane.  A simple direct line tree online, linked to my DNA results, and 8 separate trees off line  (great grandparents lines) that include all relatives on those lines. If I had a single tree, it would get very confusing, especially in those lines that are extremely fecund.


Gadget

[Finley 1]

Yes ... I did that after advice xxx on here.. one simple basic direct line attached to DNA and 400 other trees that are private.. ish  as much as private is allowed..  think it wont be long b4 all are public  or at least on a new t.v. show... for Ancestry.   
anyone proove their related they can view .. but not for tree grabbers to add my family as an off shoot of their 12,00000 already confusing  branches.

 


xin

[sugarfizzle]

Thank you all for your comments. I will be going ahead and adding my tree.

Martin

I'm glad you have come to that decision, Martin. It is unlikely to help you as such, but may help others to confirm matches.

When I see a close match with no tree, very small tree, or a private tree, I know there is little chance of me finding a positive match. When someone has a large, public, well documented tree I am much more likely to connect, though not always.

Regards Margaret

[DavidG02]

I have a direct line tree. ie parents of parents etc. No offshoots, no twigs

I look at more matches that have trees than dont. Even something as simple as location helps me decide if the tree is relevant to my search

Sometimes a tree may NOT give a name to chase but it may give a location and date that I can surmise a possible solution- not that I then accept that - but at least I can put it into the context of my DNA list.

ie my mothers matches have a lot of Irish connections yet the paper trail says there shouldnt be any. It could be many reasons ie blanket baby or even my own inadvertant handling of her sample.

But I appreciate everytime I see a tree because it helps