Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a great story. I am working through DNA matches and actually broke down a partial wall this evening through distant cousins' trees. I may reach out tomorrow morning and say about what you said, "I noticed my blah blah blah...was in your tree..." But I've posted before that I don't have great luck in getting messages back. Your response may help in getting better answers.
Well not everyone answers...…..that's a given.
I usually don't bother messaging people who haven't been on Ancestry in a while.
I wonder about that, too. I did see a tree with 200,000+ and I was very suspicious about it.
I did not look at it, because I had previously looked at a couple of trees in the 70,000 to 120,000 range and there was nothing there.
What I mean is, you have a tree with 78,000 people and 81,000 documents.
What does that tell you? It means they just copied other people's research. The vast majority of the people in the tree have one document only, and that is a link to other trees on Ancestry.
I have 14,000 people with 36,000 documents, so roughly each person has 3 records. I've been doing that since July last year. I thought I would end up with 15,000 but it's looking now like it will be over 20,000, possibly 30,000 or more and that's just 1/4th of my family, because those 14,000 are just one of my grandfather's ancestors and I'm only at the 2nd and 3rd great-grands.
My grandfather's wife's side won't be nearly as large, because I already know I'm going to run into a lot of brick walls very early on. The one is from Scotland, and his name is so generically common it's almost literally John Smith.
I agree that I don't pay much attention to people's trees who only link to other family trees.
Ancestry lists the family trees with sources first, so I check those out and if the sources are there I add them.
If people add spouses that don't make sense or two sets of children born at the same time or other such nonsense, I just don't add them.
One thing about working your lines as far as they will go in any direction is you tend to see the same users over and over and learn who is a serious/careful researcher and who just slaps BS together.
Where do you see how many documents you have on Ancestry? I see number of photos, but I'm not seeing number of docs.
I usually don't bother messaging people who haven't been on Ancestry in a while.
Of course they don't all answer! I usually message if they've logged in within the last month. Anything beyond that I assume they aren't very interested in all this.
Where do you see how many documents you have on Ancestry? I see number of photos, but I'm not seeing number of docs.
The Tree Overview on the menu option.
It will tell you how many documents, how many photos, stories, video or audio, the last person visited, the home person, and the most recent activity, plus you can add a little blurb about who you are and what your tree's about so others can see.
One of my trees has a blurb that shows the Y-Haplogroup being J-M172.
I have a unique surname that less than 90,000 people in the World currently have. There's less than a dozen in New Zealand, about 100 in Australia, maybe 30 in Canada and the rest are in the US, Ireland or England (literally, not Wales and not Scotland).
About a month ago, someone contacted me with information about their grandfather and great-grandfather. I told them very politely I didn't recognize the names, and to have a male get a Y-DNA test at Family Tree, then gave them a link to another web-site.
The other web-site has all 16 family groups, one Y-Haplogroup J (me), two I's (the original indigenous population in Ireland before the R-people came), and the rest are R's (and there's 5 or 6 different R-lines).
Those 16 "Adams" are the 16 men who adopted my surname at the time the Normans came to Britain in 1066 CE and then to Ireland in 1169 CE.
All 90,000 or so of us are descended of one of those 16 "Adams" (unless they're the result of a non-paternal event like an adoption or extra-marital affair). So, if your surname is Walker, that's uniquely English, and there were maybe 5 or maybe 25 men who took that surname when the Normans came, so all Walkers are not genetically related, unless they come from the same family group, and the only way you can know that is with a Y-DNA test.
The good thing about sites like that, is people have already researched their ancestors back to the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s, so the work's been done, you just have to figure out how you fit in there.
Anyway, she didn't get it and got all snarky because she thought I was disrespecting her, but it's not my fault we're not related.
It will tell you how many documents, how many photos, stories, video or audio, the last person visited, the home person, and the most recent activity, plus you can add a little blurb about who you are and what your tree's about so others can see.
One of my trees has a blurb that shows the Y-Haplogroup being J-M172.
I have a unique surname that less than 90,000 people in the World currently have. There's less than a dozen in New Zealand, about 100 in Australia, maybe 30 in Canada and the rest are in the US, Ireland or England (literally, not Wales and not Scotland).
About a month ago, someone contacted me with information about their grandfather and great-grandfather. I told them very politely I didn't recognize the names, and to have a male get a Y-DNA test at Family Tree, then gave them a link to another web-site.
The other web-site has all 16 family groups, one Y-Haplogroup J (me), two I's (the original indigenous population in Ireland before the R-people came), and the rest are R's (and there's 5 or 6 different R-lines).
Those 16 "Adams" are the 16 men who adopted my surname at the time the Normans came to Britain in 1066 CE and then to Ireland in 1169 CE.
All 90,000 or so of us are descended of one of those 16 "Adams" (unless they're the result of a non-paternal event like an adoption or extra-marital affair). So, if your surname is Walker, that's uniquely English, and there were maybe 5 or maybe 25 men who took that surname when the Normans came, so all Walkers are not genetically related, unless they come from the same family group, and the only way you can know that is with a Y-DNA test.
The good thing about sites like that, is people have already researched their ancestors back to the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s, so the work's been done, you just have to figure out how you fit in there.
Anyway, she didn't get it and got all snarky because she thought I was disrespecting her, but it's not my fault we're not related.
Well that seems kind of hit or miss contacting someone just because you share the same surname.
There have been lots of times people contact me based on a shared connection they see and all I can tell them is "sorry, all I know about them is what is contained in my tree". Even then, some of those convo's turn into general ones about the area the family lived or the family line in general. I've learned helpful info that way or been able to share it.
I thought the 6th cousin a few times removed contacting me to ask if I had any recipes from her great grandmother because she was putting together a family cookbook was a bit strange lol!
The most annoying are those who stubbornly cling to incorrect information when the facts are all there.
But, I will usually talk to anyone because you just never know who has a family Bible, pictures, stories or other items that aren't and may never find there way online.
Well that seems kind of hit or miss contacting someone just because you share the same surname.
There have been lots of times people contact me based on a shared connection they see and all I can tell them is "sorry, all I know about them is what is contained in my tree". Even then, some of those convo's turn into general ones about the area the family lived or the family line in general. I've learned helpful info that way or been able to share it.
I thought the 6th cousin a few times removed contacting me to ask if I had any recipes from her great grandmother because she was putting together a family cookbook was a bit strange lol!
The most annoying are those who stubbornly cling to incorrect information when the facts are all there.
But, I will usually talk to anyone because you just never know who has a family Bible, pictures, stories or other items that aren't and may never find there way online.
This is the worst. With ThruLines using trees to find "potential" ancestors this is even more important. I have a misinformed line that is connecting a non-grandfather to my family. I could dismiss it, but this is literally the ONLY line that I have documented proof of their exisistence because his mother was a DAR member.
The thing about family trees is the they are only "valid" so far back. Any genealogist worth their salt will tell you that generational "breaks" occur in every line, where someone wasn't honest, there was an "adoption" or an affair.
So, these people that have 90,000 some odd members on their tree, I would seriously question the validity of that tree.
Ashbeeigh this was a good ten years ago. I was researching a line on my mother's side and looking through...I think it was Rootsweb? Someone had "traced" and made a tree going back to "Adam and Eve". It was amusing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
