Just did a little survey - 1/3 of my matches have no trees!

[melba_schmelba]

I've suspected this might be the case for a while so I thought I'd settle it and go through and count -of my top 50 matches, 18 of those, approximately 1/3 have no trees! This might go some way to explaining why people find a lot less matches than they expect, and goes to show the limitations of searching by surname, or common ancestors. Even those that do have trees, are more often than not unlinked or have less than 100 people so only go up to grandparent or great great grandparent level, probably only on certain lines, so still might not show up anything useful with a surname search. It gets very frustrating when you have a whole group of shared matches, and nearly all have no trees, and any that do aren't useful. I wonder if there's someway Ancestry can get through to people better the importance of adding at least your immediate ancestral line in finding relatives?

[Rosinish]

I've come across people who have not invested in certs!...but rely on DNA matches/info. from books etc. & ones which have trees, have copied wrong info. from hints!

I found someone who'd actually done DNA, had a tree but had included my family from hints!...

I sorted her family out for her (at my cost) on SP (scotlandspeople)!

The people from my family had same forenames/surnames/circa dates as her lot although 2 very different islands in Scotland but on a map probably look closer than they are.

She'd looked at census transcriptions & assumed mine to be hers but had no certs. i.e. births/marriages & relying on free info!

A few certs. from SP was the simple solution for minimal cost.

The woman was thankful of my help to put her on the right road (to the isles) 

I haven't gone the DNA route yet but thanks to your post a few days ago with the Anc offer, I ordered a kit having pondered it for a number of yrs! 

Annie

[Ayashi]

I think part of the problem is why they got the test in the first place- it may have been curiosity about their geographical ancestry (the part of the test that provides vague and potentially changing information about "your ancestors came from Europe!") or it may have been a gift from someone else. They may have no interest in pursuing the finer details or assisting others.

One thing I'm glad Ancestry changed is making a note on the match for whether or not they have an unattached tree (you used to have to go into their profile to find out) and, further to that, a suggestion I made of having an option to filter out those who don't have trees. It's annoying sometimes, especially when they are close matches and you want to know where they fit in, but if you've got thousands of matches you don't want to keep scrolling down page after page of "no tree" "no tree" "no tree" if there's no way you can figure out who they are.

[ciderdrinker]

Hi
I took the test to find out my ethnicity was worried about giving out personal info so didn't immediately attach it to a tree.
When I came to take the plunge I found myself in trouble.
I was aiming to do one tree for each of my great grandparents. I've started on 3 of them ,lots of people,lots of hints.Not to blow my own trumpet but I think I've done a good job.
Then I tried to attach the DNA.
I tried  my maternal great grandfather Mobberly ,trouble is when I tried to attach it ,it brought the first person I typed in on that tree and insisted it was me .This is a guy born in the 1730's .
I can't change  it.
I can't  add it to  other trees.
I can't do a separate DNA tree with all the surnames on.
I can't put the problem right.
It is now absolutely useless.
It's not always the person who took the test's fault .
Sometimes Ancestry says No!

Glad to get that off my chest

But really quite a few people get in touch over my Ancestry tree without it.
And if i'm being honest ,most of them I have nothing to say too.They are 5th /6th cousins we know of no one we both know.I give them some extra info ,I mostly get nothing back.Be thankful your top 50 matches haven't got in touch.

My score is 11/50.The top 2 I already know ,no 3 I can work out from his surname and the rest are 4-6th cousins.I like to  help but it's all there on my tree.As I said I've done a large tree and some connections are so far apart I just have nothing to share. I cringe when they get in touch.I don't want to be nasty ,it's not personal but what can say?
Really ideas appreciated because I'd really like to say something nice.

Ciderdrinker

[sugarfizzle]

Ciderdrinker, Suggestions for you to sort your problem out.

1. Download all 3 trees via gedcom to a family tree programme ftp - there are plenty of free ones if you haven't got one already.

2. Combine them into one tree, by adding them to the same file in your ftp

3. Add a pseudonym if required for you and your parents, attach everybody in the right order, so that you have one complete family tree.

4. Upload this via gedcom to Ancestry

5. Attach your DNA results to you

6. Build up the missing quarter of your tree.

7. Re-add if necessary any attached ancestry records.

Hope this helps. Attaching your DNA to only one quarter of your tree is not going to be very productive, even if you had managed to attach your results to your grandmother's name.

Regards Margaret

[ciderdrinker]

Thanks for that Margaret

Ciderdrinker

[Finley 1]

One serious and continuous reply and that is my Nephew
3 4 pages of people with no trees.. totally useless.

xin

[IgorStrav]

There is one 'bright side' about all this - I share the frustrations of DNA matches often having done very little research.

I have an 'unattached' tree myself, as I have always wanted to keep my tree Private and opening it to attach to DNA requires me to make it Public, so far as I can see.

However, many Rootschatters have been researching family history for some time. 
I would not class myself amongst the 'experts' here (whose insights often amaze me), but I am quite competent to use Ancestry/FindmyPast/FamilySearch and the GRO to follow (or make a good shot at following) other people's family history.

So at least I can congratulate myself on a level of expertise which otherwise we would all here take for granted.

I do find, though, when I demonstrate this slight expertise to inexperienced DNA matches, that they can get quite overwhelmed by the level of information which is readily available online from censuses and other documents in a relatively short time.  So I research their families for them, and then they go very quiet indeed (ie silent), when I tell them what I've tracked down.

[sugarfizzle]

IgorStrav.

You can attach a private tree to your DNA results if you want to, but it isn't particularly helpful to any of your matches. Make it searchable, so that others can at least others see surnames and places

I would rather keep mine private, so have made my main tree both private and unsearchable.

I have attached a direct ancestor only tree to my DNA results - no attached records or sources.

As I am the one who makes contact with others, this works well for me, but it doesn't work all that well for other matches looking at my tree, but it's the best I can do.

Regards Margaret