PDA

View Full Version : 'New improved Ancestry'



julite
15-12-15, 14:54
I seem to have had this foisted on me. I've tried it, don't like it - not at all relaxing/satisfying to use - but can't find how to get back to the 'proper Ancestry'. Am I doomed to be forcibly improved?

Judith

JBee
15-12-15, 15:12
Afraid so - lost the old ancestry either yesterday or today.

I liked the old ancestry where I could highlight a person's profile and it would print off sensibly on one sheet for my paper records. Now it goes over to 2 pages or more and isn't as neat and tidy.

In a person's profile if you are getting a timeline with all the siblings births, parents deaths etc you can get rid of it by clicking facts - then further down there is a Show with dropdown menu of Family events and Historical Insights which need to be unclicked.

Elaine ..Spain
15-12-15, 15:12
Am I doomed to be forcibly improved?
Yes!

TrevorFranklin
15-12-15, 17:44
http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2015/12/14/all-members-now-moving-to-the-new-ancestry/

Anne in Carlisle
15-12-15, 18:25
I've been using it all day and am getting used to it. I only started using Ancestry trees a month ago so am having a double learning curve! Can see some advantages, though.
Anne

julite
15-12-15, 18:36
Thanks for the replies. I had unclicked all the extraneous information, but it's still a messy, bedazzled experience. Having had a quick look at the blog, I wonder what the proportion of the comments are supportive. My sub recently ran out - I intended to renew it in the New Year but now I think I'll save my money and continue my trees offline - a pity because I have benefitted from and contributed to some satisfying collaboration.

kenw55
16-12-15, 10:34
I don't see many comments from all the regulars , are you all sticking your heads in the sand and hoping this load of rubbish will go away ?

Ken

Val wish Id never started
16-12-15, 14:33
Ken I did fill in a survey and said I did not like it but dont know how much notice they will take.

Richard in Perth
16-12-15, 14:56
It won't go away, I'm afraid Ken. They have been warning us for a while that this was coming, not much we could do other than stop using their website. In fact this is what I've done - I cancelled my Ancestry sub recently after 12 years of membership. I have not been happy with the way the company has been headed recently and I am disappointed with the lack of relevant new primary record sets being released of late. Instead, they seem to be concentrating their efforts on getting their subscribers to put their trees online (and the recent decision to "retire" Family Tree Maker software is a part of that) - information which the company then sells to other customers in the form of subscriptions (since you have to subscribe to see other people's trees, even if they themselves made them public). The "new-look" website is also a part of this strategy as apparently it is supposed to be more friendly to users of mobile devices (though who does their research on their phone, I don't know - I struggle to read text messages on my phone, let alone the details of a census image!).

I think all these changes will drive the serious researchers away from Ancestry, which will ultimately degrade the quality of their online trees. Perhaps that is what the company wants - a newer, younger client base who just want to link up to an existing tree with a few clicks on their phone and then move on to something else, paying Ancestry a handsome annual fee for the privilege (and how many of those users will simply forget to cancel their memberships, giving Ancestry a steady income stream for years to come?). I certainly don't think they are interested in the quality of their online data any more - it's all about the look and feel now, all gimmicks but no substance.

There are alternatives to Ancestry around, the most obvious one for researchers with British roots being FindMyPast. I'm not a big fan of the design of their website either to be honest, but I do feel they are more likely to continue to support the genuine genealogist and continue to bring us decent record sets into the future. We can only hope!

Richard

Olde Crone Holden
16-12-15, 15:25
Richard

It is my impression that the recent change in ownership of Ancestry signals its new direction - that of an investment company, run for the benefit of shareholders. If you cannot increase profit then you must cut costs and although the new tree layout isn't part of that strategy, it is as you say, an appeal to those who are really only interested in a trivial way in their trees.

The value of Ancestry (on the stockmarket) is its huge data sets and the subscriber-donated family trees (over 7 million at the last count). Accountants are not interested in family history and therefore do not see that the vast majority of those 7 million trees are at best inaccurate, at worst fantasy rubbish.

I am reminded of what happened on GR. Went from being a genuine company whose onky interest was family history, was sold to ITV who were only interested as an income-generating investment (and lost millions of ££££ because they did not research the true value of the site, merely took it at its face value of 6 million members or whatever it was), to the present ownership who are holding it as a separate company because the Monopolies commission say they cannot merge it. there are complaints on there all the time about lack of input from "the management".

Everything changes. Nothing stays the same. We have to pick our way through what is on offer and always be on the alert for the next unpleasant development!

OC

Jill on the A272
16-12-15, 15:35
I don't see many comments from all the regulars , are you all sticking your heads in the sand and hoping this load of rubbish will go away ?

Ken

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean other people are "sticking their heads in the sand". I started using it from the earliest opportunity. Some of the early quirks have been ironed out and I'm playing quite happily in the sand.

JBee
16-12-15, 15:39
If you delete your private tree from Ancestry - what happens? I mean someone said they keep control but how?

GallowayLass
16-12-15, 16:38
If you delete your private tree from Ancestry - what happens? I mean someone said they keep control but how?

Anything you upload remains on their master/archived server even if you delete your tree from the server that the membership and visitors see on the website.

kenw55
16-12-15, 16:51
A lot of the site appears to now be run by Bling Maps , it keeps sticking pins in places that are not relevant , I will give you one example , Beatrice Lilian Phillips Born 1903 Freshwater Isle of Wight , Married Mar 1923 Portsmouth , Hampshire , England ( that is how it is entered ) , Bling Maps has stuck a pin in Lancashire , so I investigated and by the side of the A646 at Cornholme there is a Bus Stop and it is named Portsmouth Bus Station , So Bling Maps can not find the City of Portsmouth on the south coast , the home of the Royal Navy yet it can find a Bus stop in the wilds of Lancashire , it is the inconsistantancy that is so annoying and it looks like all 4000 people will have to be checked.


Yes I have backed up my tree to my computer . and I will be cancelling my subs when it runs out in Apr 2016

Ken

Richard in Perth
16-12-15, 16:54
Richard

It is my impression that the recent change in ownership of Ancestry signals its new direction - that of an investment company, run for the benefit of shareholders. If you cannot increase profit then you must cut costs and although the new tree layout isn't part of that strategy, it is as you say, an appeal to those who are really only interested in a trivial way in their trees.

The value of Ancestry (on the stockmarket) is its huge data sets and the subscriber-donated family trees (over 7 million at the last count). Accountants are not interested in family history and therefore do not see that the vast majority of those 7 million trees are at best inaccurate, at worst fantasy rubbish.

I am reminded of what happened on GR. Went from being a genuine company whose onky interest was family history, was sold to ITV who were only interested as an income-generating investment (and lost millions of ££££ because they did not research the true value of the site, merely took it at its face value of 6 million members or whatever it was), to the present ownership who are holding it as a separate company because the Monopolies commission say they cannot merge it. there are complaints on there all the time about lack of input from "the management".

Everything changes. Nothing stays the same. We have to pick our way through what is on offer and always be on the alert for the next unpleasant development!

OC

Couldn't agree more, OC. As you say, Ancestry is run for its shareholders, not its customers. Therefore the only way that we customers can have any influence on the company is to stop paying for its services, and thereby having a negative impact on its shareholders. Of course this is a personal choice - you have to weigh up what the company is offering against the cost of your subscription and decide whether it's worth it for you. For me, this equation has finally tipped into the negative this year, given the lack of new data sets being offered, their tinkering with the website and the decision to "retire" FTM software. I am not interested in copying other people's trees, researching on my phone, DNA testing or giving Ancestry free and unfettered access to my years of thorough research, so that is why I've decided to cancel my subscription. It really doesn't bother me whether the company thrives under its new direction or whether it crashes in a heap and self-destructs. It's been useful in my research but it's certainly not irreplaceable. I will miss access to some of its record sets but I'm sure I'll manage with FMP, FamilySearch and the occasional trip to the library for free access to Ancestry when & if they ever put any new data on there that is relevant to my tree!

Richard

JBee
16-12-15, 17:12
I don't understand what they will do with the family trees on the master/archived - surely they can't make them public if they are private trees - so what can they do with them?

julite
16-12-15, 17:33
I have just made my trees private. I remain ambivalent about my decision as I believe genealogists can often achieve more through collaboration. I didn't mind other Ancestry members copying from my trees and I also gained (before my subscription ended) from others with similar areas of research. On the other hand, it seems to be the only way I can 'stamp my foot'!

GallowayLass
16-12-15, 18:07
I don't understand what they will do with the family trees on the master/archived - surely they can't make them public if they are private trees - so what can they do with them?

I don't know the technicalities of it JBee but I do know, having seen it with my own eyes, that they use people's data as they wish. I once found a person of interest in a private ancestry tree and messaged the owner asking for permission to have a look or for them to share info. I never got an answer and don't know why. A while afterwards I followed a tip from someone and Googled this person of interest. I found a link to another online tree on a different website that previously I had never heard of. Lo and behold, there was the same tree with same owner and it was public. All I had to do was register and I could see the tree. The site was called Mundia and was suspiciously ancestry-like. I found out by asking around that it was owned by ancestry but they just didn't publicise the fact.
My suspicions had been aroused by the fact that when I registered using the same username as my ancestry account, I didn't have to go through the whole process as it already knew who I was!!
In my ancestry account, I am a guest on 3 trees and an editor on 1. These trees belong to relatives. I went back on to Mundia and searched for someone in each tree who had an unusual name and found matches for all of them. In each case, the tree owner was the same as on ancestry. I told them all of my discoveries on Mundia and they were stunned as they had never heard of it.

Caroline
16-12-15, 18:25
I don't see many comments from all the regulars , are you all sticking your heads in the sand and hoping this load of rubbish will go away ?

Ken


Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean other people are "sticking their heads in the sand". I started using it from the earliest opportunity. Some of the early quirks have been ironed out and I'm playing quite happily in the sand.
As I have been. since it was clear that changes were going to happen, then it seemed silly for me to do other than get used to it!!

One complaint is that it is too dark - I find that a slight movement of the laptop screen fixes that .... :) I do have trouble using Chrome on the site so I use Firefox. I don't understand why the new look should cause cancelling of the subscription and a petition and threats of a mass exodus. If one does cancel, then you can't access the records any more!!

Anne in Carlisle
16-12-15, 19:17
So, I'm coming at this from a different direction. For years my only trees have been on my own computer, not accessible to anyone else (apart from a few contacts from various places). I've been banging on about this for a while now but I'll say it here again ......

When I am no longer here what use is a personal tree on my computer? OK, some of the family my be interested but why not let many, many more people benefit? I have had years of fun finding it all out and I'm really not bothered if people "steal" the tree, my certificates, my stories, my photos, all of which I am in the process of uploading to Ancestry. At the moment I have them private but only because I am working towards getting them in the best shape before making them public.

I only began this process last month and had quite a learning curve getting to know what was possible. Got a bit of a shock when the 'new' layout started but I can see plenty of advantages of the new way. I specially like the way it connects each fact to the sources relevant to it. I have noticed that very many tree on Ancestry have no sources at all! This is not from want of Ancestry trying to get you to do it and the new way makes it even more obvious that sources are needed!

With my own computer program tree I have never attached photos, certificates, census records to the tree itself ..... just the way I work, preferring to keep them separate. However I'm having fun attaching stuff to each person on Ancestry, although they have found very little I didn't already know.

Since two thirds of my family come from West Yorkshire I couldn't do nearly as much as I do without Ancestry. For the cost of the annual sub I couldn't even do one day's research, needing travel and overnight stay.

So, in short Ken, my head is not in the sand. I'm liking it!!
Anne

James18
16-12-15, 19:20
This thread makes for very interesting reading, and many thanks for the replies from Richard, Ken, OC, etc.

My six-month sub (courtesy of FTM) runs out sometime in February next year. I won't be renewing.

Anne in Carlisle
16-12-15, 19:27
Also, just to say, Ken, mapping is a notoriously difficult subject at the moment. There have been endless discussions about the Family Historian mapping.
One problem is that for it to work at all, we must all be much more rigorous with the place names we use. Before uploading to Ancestry I went through my whole FH pleace file making them all "place, county, country". It took a long time but I had been very sloppy ..... after all I knew where my ancestor's village was!

The other thing, though is that I don't actually look at the mapping .... I have a full set of OS msps on my computer and make full use of them. But even they fail to find every place, even when it is actually mapped!
Anne

Anne in Carlisle
16-12-15, 19:29
This thread makes for very interesting reading, and many thanks for the replies from Richard, Ken, OC, etc.

My six-month sub (courtesy of FTM) runs out sometime in February next year. I won't be renewing.


So what about the opposite point of view???

Better stop now I'm starting to rant LOL
ANNE

James18
16-12-15, 19:43
Ha, Anne, I do not think there is much of such a view. ;)

Despite being fairly new to this game, I totally agree about the 'dumbing down' philosophy that appears to be going on. I cannot get my head round the fact they are ditching FTM. It is utterly nonsensical, and has to be for purely financial reasons.

Anne in Carlisle
16-12-15, 20:41
Ha, Anne, I do not think there is much of such a view. ;)

Despite being fairly new to this game, I totally agree about the 'dumbing down' philosophy that appears to be going on. I cannot get my head round the fact they are ditching FTM. It is utterly nonsensical, and has to be for purely financial reasons.

I'm disappointed James. I thought you might have at least commented on my rants!
Anne

James18
16-12-15, 21:15
I'm disappointed James.
Story of my life, Anne!

Anne in Carlisle
16-12-15, 21:26
Ha ha!!
Here I am trying to get a proper debate going but no one comments on my posts. I guess that means you all think I'm a silly old fool but are too polite to say so. Ah well,
I tried!
Anne

Rick
16-12-15, 22:01
Ha ha!!
Here I am trying to get a proper debate going but no one comments on my posts. I guess that means you all think I'm a silly old fool but are too polite to say so. Ah well,
I tried!
Anne

I agree with you Anne and don't get what all the fuss is about. I've been using the new site since early August and I like it too. The bits I'm not so keen on can be switched off (Family Events and Historical Insights) or ignored (once you clicked on Facts, you will never see Lifestory again unless you choose to click back on it). The linking of sources to facts and the speed of creating new source citations are two major improvements. And above all else their record collections are essential to my research, so even if I didn't like the tree-building bit, I wouldn't be able to do without Ancestry.

As for FTM, I'm not a user, but I found this blog very interesting and informative.......http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=1622

Anne in Carlisle
16-12-15, 22:20
Thanks Rick :):)
Anne

Sylvia C
16-12-15, 22:27
Galloway Lass

Mundia is no more, thank goodness.

It was an ancestry site ........... they didn't tell anyone it had been set up, but moved ALL trees over there.

I joined, made my status as private as I could possibly do, and that hid my tree once again

Their aim apparently was to allow more people access to the information on the trees.

some people did like it.

Val wish Id never started
16-12-15, 23:01
I dont think you are an old fool either Anne you make some very good points.

Val wish Id never started
16-12-15, 23:04
Is it right The Mundia site was finished on Sep 30 2014

Jill on the A272
16-12-15, 23:28
I dont think you are an old fool either Anne you make some very good points.

I'm with you too Ann, though while it's a personal view that I have not got a problem with the new Ancestry, I'm not going to do a sales pitch for them - though if I can help anyone solve a problem, then of course I'll be happy to do that.

Anne in Carlisle
16-12-15, 23:42
Thanks Val and Jill. Thought I might be alone, glad I'm not.
Anne

GallowayLass
17-12-15, 00:11
Sylvia and Val, thanks for the update that Mundia has gone. The basic worry still remains though. They could and can do what they like with data that members upload and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that there could be future "Mundia" type sites.

Olde Crone Holden
17-12-15, 00:28
Well I'm sure you all read the small print when you joined Ancestry, didn't you - the small print which states that any data on that site belongs to Ancestry to do as they wish with it. I have always had grave concerns about their privacy policies and have never put anything on Ancestry that I don't mind the whole world seeing. The same misgivings apply to their use of DNA information. It is not so much what they do with it today that worries me - they are an ethical company as far as I know - it's what happens to the information next time the company is sold and they get further and further away from the original set up.

There does seem to be a mindset that all the genealogy companies ought to be there to please us and do our bidding. Those days have gone I'm afraid - they are there to make a profit and if something is not profitable then they get rid of it - FTM for one thing, Mundia for another thing and some of the DNA testing too.

Also...it baffles me that all this moaning goes on where Ancestry will never see it. If you really have an axe to grind, tell THEM, not us, no one on here can do anything about it. Other than commiserate of course - but that won't change anything!

OC

Val wish Id never started
17-12-15, 00:44
Thought you would be in bed OC you have an early start tomorrow;)

Richard in Perth
17-12-15, 05:22
Hi Anne - I understand your sentiment about wanting your tree online, for posterity. I agree with this and would have no problem if the Ancestry member trees were open to all - subscribers and guests alike. However, I do object to Ancestry taking my data and then selling access to my work to others. As OC says the T&C that Ancestry impose are quite draconian in my view - anything you upload to their site becomes their intellectual property in perpetuity, with no recourse whatsoever for the original owner. Far better in my view to use a free site such as Tribal Pages if you want to host your tree online - at least that way anyone can make use of it, not just those with a subscription to Ancestry. You also get far more control over your own data that way.

Yes the ability to link your facts to Ancestry sources on their online trees seems good on the surface, until you realise that you will need to keep paying a substantial annual fee forever if you want to view those sources again. Stop paying your sub and you lose access to those sources that you found and linked! Quite a clever business model, isn't it? At least when working with FTM or similar desktop software you could save a copy of the image to your PC which then became yours to keep, irrespective of whether you maintained a relationship with Ancestry or not. And what about sources that are from other repositories, both online and offline? It is another clever way that Ancestry encourages their client base to use their website exclusively, build their trees in such a way that they become inextricably linked to their site and therefore force us to maintain a subscription with them or risk losing access to all the work that we have done.

As to what Ancestry can do with deleted or private trees, well certainly under their T&C they give themselves the right to use this data "in perpetuity". They can even sell it on to a third party if they so chose. I doubt that they would do this to be honest, but who knows what will happen down the track, when the company inevitably gets sold once more. And how do you think those "shaky leaves" hints work, especially for common names? I suspect that this feature is powered by their member trees and the sources that have been linked to individuals within them - e.g. if you link to a particular census entry for an individual then the Ancestry system knows all the other member trees that are linked to that same fact and can therefore suggest other records that have been linked to that person by those other members. Quite clever and nothing wrong with this in itself of course, but once again, Ancestry are using their members hard work and taking the credit (and sub fees) for it! Whether they use deleted and private trees in this way I do not know, but it wouldn't surprise me if they do.

As I said it's a personal decision whether you use their site or not - if you're happy to accept their T&C, find their site useful and are prepared pay their asking fee for it then why not? Go for your life! All I'm saying is that I no longer feel I'm getting value for money with them and therefore have decided to cancel my sub and take my business elsewhere - my choice!

Richard

Anne in Carlisle
17-12-15, 09:55
Thanks Richard, and of course I can see your point of view too. Don't worry my whole tree plus sources stored in separate files has been on my own computer for years. To be honest I'm running out of possible research, although it continues when possible. I'm not interested in having 10,0000 plus people in my trees and stick to 'blood relatives' so each tree has approx 3,000 to 4,000 in it.
The Ancestry excercise is giving me some tidying up incentives and any alterations are MANUALLY entered on my off line tree! I also intend to turn to Lost Cousins when I'm done with Ancestry adding. I have also added my stuff to a couple of small, local to area, public sites. Anyone from Lincolnshire tried Red1st, Isle of Axholme based website?
Anne

kenw55
17-12-15, 11:09
Well I'm sure you all read the small print when you joined Ancestry, didn't you - the small print which states that any data on that site belongs to Ancestry to do as they wish with it. I have always had grave concerns about their privacy policies and have never put anything on Ancestry that I don't mind the whole world seeing. The same misgivings apply to their use of DNA information. It is not so much what they do with it today that worries me - they are an ethical company as far as I know - it's what happens to the information next time the company is sold and they get further and further away from the original set up.

There does seem to be a mindset that all the genealogy companies ought to be there to please us and do our bidding. Those days have gone I'm afraid - they are there to make a profit and if something is not profitable then they get rid of it - FTM for one thing, Mundia for another thing and some of the DNA testing too.

Also...it baffles me that all this moaning goes on where Ancestry will never see it. If you really have an axe to grind, tell THEM, not us, no one on here can do anything about it. Other than commiserate of course - but that won't change anything!

OC

There is a very good reason for complaining on this and other Forums , that is it is picked up on Google searches and hopefully help somebody make up their mind .
There are thousands of complaints on Ancestry Blogs etc . Try a Google search .

Ken

Olde Crone Holden
17-12-15, 12:21
Ken

It might help people make up their minds (to do what, though?) but it won't change anything at Ancestry. What you don't know doesn't hurt you and new people will sign up with Ancestry and think it is a marvellous tree facility. I love TP but I know lots of people who hate it. Personal opinion.

OC

JBee
17-12-15, 12:40
Once I am gone my trees will be open to the world for whoever wants to see them on the various sites ie ancestry, tribal pages etc. I'll also keep my paper copy

Anne in Carlisle
17-12-15, 14:27
Snap JBee! I still have to get round to Tribal pages but I will!
Anne

bcbrit
17-12-15, 22:42
My biggest problem with the new so-called improved ancestry is the darkness of the background in the family tree. It is very difficult to read with this murky and muddy colour.

I work on ancestry during the day usually, and am using a desk lamp to help read the page. And no, I have no sight problems !

I have turned off everything I could on the site, so that the front page looks a little less messy.

I did do the survey, and commented on the colours. I will also email them and complain about the colours.

I am still using FTM version 4 for windows 95, and have never linked it to ancestry. I use it for a basic tree, and printing out a tree etc when I go archives etc. My husband has said my FTM should be okay when I decide to update to Windows 10. I am using Windows 7 at the moment.

I will be sticking with ancestry as I have rellies in the UK, USA and Canada. I also use FMP.

I hope that ancestry will take notice of peoples complaints, but I doubt it - ha ha !

bcbrit

Val wish Id never started
18-12-15, 00:56
I'm getting wild with it its taking some getting used to.:rolleyes:

Sue1
18-12-15, 03:01
No Ken, A good number probably haven't renewed their membership - I haven't.
Had a really good look at the site today, some things I liked but other things are really irritating .............whose Tree is it, mine or theirs? I am putting the info on the Tree not ancestry.co. and I don't want them to add to my Tree. One child lived for 3 months - there is a "tutorial" which describes what a difficult time he lived through - he lived for 3 months for goodness sake!
Also, I am not American and I do not write dates in the way they do - it may be a small thing but it really irritates me - I JOINED ANCESTRY.CO.UK!
I feel it is no longer my Tree; it doesn't look like my Tree and I can't view it easily in the way I could before. I suspect Ancestry have shot themselves in the foot and to compound the felony they have discontinued FTM which many people worked offline with apparantly.
Have started to put my Tree on Family Search - it is free at the moment and my descendants, if interested, will be able to view the Tree without becoming members of ancestry.COM (if that website is still in business!)
Sue

James18
18-12-15, 03:44
@Sue

Earlier today I had to 'report' a couple of baptism dates I'd found on Ancestry, as both had been transcribed as US style dates, when clearly - being Surrey baptisms - they were UK style dates, and this is particularly obvious when in one case the given date would have been before the child's birth.

I have no problem with people from the US and elsewhere helping to transcribe old UK records, but they need to learn to use UK spelling and date formatting, or it results in totally unnecessary errors.

PS: I haven't forgotten to reply to your PM, it's just a lot to digest and reply to!

Caroline
18-12-15, 08:46
Earlier today I had to 'report' a couple of baptism dates I'd found on Ancestry, as both had been transcribed as US style dates, when clearly - being Surrey baptisms - they were UK style dates, and this is particularly obvious when in one case the given date would have been before the child's birth.

I have no problem with people from the US and elsewhere helping to transcribe old UK records, but they need to learn to use UK spelling and date formatting, or it results in totally unnecessary errors.


The date issue is an underlying programming problem and pops up in various places/records and will have been reported a gazillion times for months judging by their FB page but clearly is taking a while to solve - same with the map/location problems too. :(

Anne in Carlisle
18-12-15, 08:54
I did try Family Search and began adding my tree. However I am definitely NOT comfortable with the fact that anyone can add to and even alter your tree if they think it is not correct. How wierd is that? I don't mind alternative trees being offered but if they stary changing my stuff the I won't know where I am! The aim of this, apparently, is the gradually get the right answer, Wiki style, by the whole world contributing. And, of course it is very American, like Ancestry! The main advantage is that it is free. It can't be emphasised enough ... if you want complete control keep your tree to yourself NOT online.
Anne

bubblebelle
18-12-15, 09:59
I have to say I was working on one of my twigs yesterday, now I have moved from 'Lifestyle' (I really don't want to know that they MAY have done or seen something or other) to 'facts' I found working on my tree quite easy and did highlight a few 'errors' that I may not have seen previously, ie an illegitimate birth which as it was so close to marriage I thought that the husband would likely to be the father but finding the baptism of herself with her brothers, a few years later, indicated that she was indeed illegitimate.
I certainly feel more comfortable with the old style and am very likely to let my annual subscription to lapse, especially as I find myself use FMP and Familysearch so much more nowadays as I am at the stage of using the Newspaper and older parish record facilities.
I have used both free Rootsmagic and Legacy, I found both were easy to navigate and use, the only reason I bought FTM was that I wanted to amalgamate several smaller trees that I had been working on individually.

julite
18-12-15, 18:57
So - when I choose to look at my trees, I'm stuck with the busy. jazzy format., but what has happened to the 'relationship calculator'? Has it gone or is it hiding or can't I see the wood for the tree? I know I can work out relationships for myself but it's useful to have confirmation that I'm right ( or not)!

Olde Crone Holden
18-12-15, 21:03
Sue1

Do be aware that the T and C's on familysearch mean that you are giving them your information to do what they like with, exactly the same as Ancestry. This may not worry you - but you should be aware.

OC

Sue1
18-12-15, 21:44
Hi OC, Yes, I am aware that I am giving them my information and I am also aware that they do not have a very good reputation for accuracy BUT ............. I really cannot be bothered to start all over again and at least any descendants won't have to pay to view it.
When I tried to put the Tree on, I did not use my current (or maiden surname) - interesting that because I was contacted and told what my name was by the site!
I said that I would either put it on under the name I said (for those living) or not at all - they agreed. No one has altered my Tree but there is an area on each sheet for people to add suggestions - it does not affect what I have added.
They were also unhappy that I had not added my husband by name to the Tree.
I said that there would be no Tree at all if they insisted because it was his wish that his name did not go on there. In my particular case using a different surname makes absolutely no difference because it was different to the rest of the family anyway.
I have yet to get used to using the site - not all that easy sometimes - if you don't fill in the bits they want you to fill in you cannot proceed.
One thing that I do have that is of interest to them (and I didn't get my info from them) is that I am related to the Broughs of Biddulph Moor - the Mormons are doing ongoing research into this family (haven't a clue why or what is special about them) and there is a Brough Family Organisation which has a get-together in Cheshire every year - I have never been I'm afraid.

I suspect that every website you use for ancestry eventually "possesses" your information - I am really not all that worried about that; what does worry me is compromising people's privacy and I have been extremely careful not to do this. They also tell me that no one else can view the "living" part of the Tree - I wouldn't like to put that to the test.
If someone is happy to do so, it is possible to upload a gedcom to FSOrg. I have chosen not to do so. Sue

Olde Crone Holden
18-12-15, 22:02
Sue1

It may be that the research of the Broughs is for church members, who have a religious duty to posthumously baptise their relatives. (At least four generations). If they are unable to define their exact relationship then they baptise anyone of the same name, that way theirs will (probably!) be included.

I personally couldn't care less about posthumous baptism but some people get very upset by it.

OC

Sue1
18-12-15, 22:53
OC: How very curious - first time I have heard of that.
They are out of luck if I am supposed to be included in that practise!
Sue

Olde Crone Holden
18-12-15, 23:44
Sue1

You won't know about it!

(Sorry, taking the thread off topic)

OC

Sylvia C
19-12-15, 01:04
what is the tree like on FMP???

All my information is on my home computer, but not in traditional tree format, as my daughter said there was no way she was interested in such "dry" stuff. She wanted information on their way of life, etc .......... artsy f***sy stuff!!

I have a small tree on Gr, but I have not added to it in years.

I also have a tree on ancestry, that I have not added to in years, although I do still check for other trees that might be connected.

I have just joined FMP ...... well, OH has paid the sub as my Christmas present.

If ancestry is going to be so hard to use, is it worth putting a small tree up on FMP?

Anne in Carlisle
19-12-15, 09:26
I have uploaded one tree to FMP. Find it a bit clunky really and the main disadvantage (for my purposes, which are to make it all public) is that they are only private trees at the moment. Can't really see the point of that given that we keep on emphasising you need to have your own stuff on your own computers or even in filing cabinets!

And, by the way, I'm not finding Ancestry hard to use! You do NOT need to look at peripherys such as Lifestory or Tutorials. They are just extras for those who might be interested.
Anne

PhotoFamily
19-12-15, 17:59
wikitree.com is free. Each person entered into the tree is given their own wiki-page, and yes, like any wiki, can be edited by anyone. Living and recent ancestors can be private/restricted (they have several levels). You can upload from a gedcom - mine did fine except when there was a "cont" field - a line continuation. I haven't loaded all my tree, but I have been thinking of adding some more.

The display format is not my favorite - but I like it better than familysearch's! And I have some sort of a cousin who apparently must edit every page for persons that have one of my family surnames.

I don't find the new ancestry terribly hard to use, but I dislike the presentation, and I dislike having to learn new locations for the functions that I had down pat.

Sue1
19-12-15, 20:13
For the first time I have tried viewing my own Tree on ancestry.co.
I haven't found it so difficult but rather unweildy - I prefer to present my own Tree (or I did) and now it is added to by others. I do think, as long as it is accurate and sensible and not just added for the sake of it, that the historical bit is probably interesting for those who come after us.
Bit of an error (no excuse for it whatsoever) on one of mine - a relative died en route whilst emigrating to Australia - she and her family were on the vessel Wilson Kennedy and quite a number of the passengers died - also instead of taking 3 months to sail there, it took five months.
The Master and Surgeon were interviewed at length afterwards due to the large number of deaths from sickness and STARVATION!
Ancestry had put that they sailed to USA aboard the Wilson! At least I can alter their errors but never expected to have to do this.
What I can't find is a list of people on the Tree in the way it was so that all can be seen - I have someone (and their are many with her name "Ellis") whose part of the Tree I need to look at and since I cannnot remember her first name, I don't seem to be able to find her ...............?have I missed a clue somewhere?
Sue

Sue1
19-12-15, 20:20
For Administrator: Please could my second identical post be erased. The first was added at 19.11 - many apologies - Sue

Anne in Carlisle
19-12-15, 21:58
Sue, no one can change your tree on Ancestry. The lifestory bit is just their attempt at colour for those who want it. You don't need to look at it at all, just select the 'Facts' tab and deselect the extras on the facts list. Your tree can bee seen in pedigree or top to bottom form by selecting the icon at the top left on the tree page. You can search for a person in your tree on the top right.
Anne

Caroline
19-12-15, 22:01
For Administrator: Please could my second identical post be erased. The first was added at 19.11 - many apologies - Sue

Sorted. :)

margaretmarch
20-12-15, 09:02
For the first time I have tried viewing my own Tree on ancestry.co.
I haven't found it so difficult but rather unweildy - I prefer to present my own Tree (or I did) and now it is added to by others. I do think, as long as it is accurate and sensible and not just added for the sake of it, that the historical bit is probably interesting for those who come after us.
Bit of an error (no excuse for it whatsoever) on one of mine - a relative died en route whilst emigrating to Australia - she and her family were on the vessel Wilson Kennedy and quite a number of the passengers died - also instead of taking 3 months to sail there, it took five months.
The Master and Surgeon were interviewed at length afterwards due to the large number of deaths from sickness and STARVATION!
Ancestry had put that they sailed to USA aboard the Wilson! At least I can alter their errors but never expected to have to do this.
What I can't find is a list of people on the Tree in the way it was so that all can be seen - I have someone (and their are many with her name "Ellis") whose part of the Tree I need to look at and since I cannnot remember her first name, I don't seem to be able to find her ...............?have I missed a clue somewhere?
Sue

You can see a list of everyone in the tree for any surname you have by clicking on the search button next to the name of the tree in a profile view (top left). It's not available in tree view.
Margaret

Caroline
20-12-15, 09:45
You can see a list of everyone in the tree for any surname you have by clicking on the search button next to the name of the tree in a profile view (top left). It's not available in tree view.
Margaret

You can also click on Find a person - right hand side - in Tree view. :)

Bo the Bodger
20-12-15, 15:22
So - when I choose to look at my trees, I'm stuck with the busy. jazzy format., but what has happened to the 'relationship calculator'? Has it gone or is it hiding or can't I see the wood for the tree? I know I can work out relationships for myself but it's useful to have confirmation that I'm right ( or not)!

I've found this feature is a law unto itself - it comes and goes at random with no rhyme or reason. It was there on Thursday and Friday it wasn't - and it isn't there today either :(

Caroline
20-12-15, 15:26
I've found this feature is a law unto itself - it comes and goes at random with no rhyme or reason. It was there on Thursday and Friday it wasn't - and it isn't there today either :(

I gather from the replies from them on Facebook that this is known issue and they are working on it, which is presumably why it is there at some times and not at others. :0

julite
20-12-15, 15:38
Thanks Caroline and Bo - I now know I'm not staring blankly at what I need to click. The relationshipt appeared for one great aunt (and I did nothing to get it there) but nothing for anyone else - distant or close.

Judith

Sue1
20-12-15, 15:42
Many thanks for that - will have a look for it.
My problem is that there are, in some cases (and always the ones I wannt to look at) lots of folk with the same surname and I can never remember the first name, hence the necessity to find the list of people on Tree.

[typos will occur with, I suspect, increasing frequency - double "n" as above - I didn't type 2 "n"s - a couple of weeks ago I knocked over a cup of coffee and it went into the keyboard - suspect it is a bit sticky inside - fortunately a stand alone keyboard so it hasn't affected computer]

grumpy
20-12-15, 21:35
Irrespectively how one views trees put up in Ancestry, they have had a win in our family. Had a look yesterday and found a tree - just slightly incorrect from my side

put up by a second cousin with whom we met in 1984 and stayed a night with them. In 1987 they moved to Alderney and we lost touch. However now regained and

I have already had a nice reply to the introductory email that I sent. Three cheers for A trees.:o

Sue1
22-12-15, 18:32
I have tried very hard to use the new Ancestry and thought it may well be OK BUT I am finding errors on my Tree ++ and not just in the story bit - place of death has been changed from Drumbinnion to Dromore in Ireland - the census saying Drumbinnion is right there beside where this has been changed! One chap was born in Colorado - he wasn't - he was born in Co. Tyrone!! Think I might be going potty with this - I am referring to the main part of the Tree, not the "story" ................. I suspect this is going to be the end of genealogy for me. My enthusiasm has completely gone.
I am so disappointed but I just cannot do the whole Tree again. I do, however, have a Gedcom saved from just before the change - where can I put that I wonder?

Sue