Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My photo attached to someone’s Ancestry tree but seemingly no relation to them?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    My photo attached to someone’s Ancestry tree but seemingly no relation to them?

    Apologies if this has already been discussed before. I’ve searched, but can’t find anything.

    I uploaded some old photos I have of family members to my Ancestry tree. I’m happy to do that as I am happy to share photos other relatives may not have seen.

    One photo I uploaded was of my grandmother and her sister, taken in about 1916. A known relative has “taken” this photo (fine) but there is another tree who has as well. I searched her tree and my grandmother seems, with her father, to be a stand-alone entry. So she hasn’t copied the details about my grandmother’s sister, or mother, to her tree. So, if I search my grandmother’s name, I see her details and her father listed but there are no other family connections - his parents are listed as unknown, his spouse is unknown, he has no siblings listed and the only connection my grandmother has is her father. It’s a foreign line (I don’t speak the language), so I thought I would ask here first as I can’t see how we are related.

    Can anyone please explain why this happens?
    :D Charney Jo

    #2
    Maybe your photo was suggested to her as a hint from Ancestry. She might feel that it is a possible connection but has yet to investigate it more thoroughly so decided to save it to her tree so she can research it later.
    Main research interests.. CAESAR (Surrey and London), GOODALL (London), SKITTERALL, WOODWARD (Middlesex and London), BARBER (Canterbury, Kent), DRAYSON (Canterbury, Kent), CRISP (Kent) and CHEESEMAN (Kent).

    Comment


      #3
      Possibly a name collector? Message them and ask why they have the pic on their tree.

      this is the reason my tree is private. I would hate to see my ancestors pictures attached to the wrong people. A lot don't research before they add.

      Comment


        #4
        Ah, that could explain it, thanks. It didn’t occur to me that you can save people without them having affiliated family.
        :D Charney Jo

        Comment


          #5
          kylejustin its not a big tree, so I don’t get the feeling that is the reason. I might go through the other names to see if there are any common locations, for a clue.

          It’s such a shame, isn’t it? I’m very happy to share, but it seems odd that people would want to take photos for someone not “theirs”.
          :D Charney Jo

          Comment


            #6
            I stopped putting photos of my direct line in public trees. My mother had a treasure trove of photos of the siblings of her g'grandfather (b. 1820). Photos also included some of the sibs' children and grandchildren. I figured out who were in the photos and created a tree with the peeps and their photos. I rarely received any acknowledgement or thanks for the effort - that's OK, but a photo of children was copied into a tree - the tree's peeps were not related to my peeps, I had copied both the photo and the back of the photo that had the names and DOB - which didn't match the tree's children! I don't regret doing it, but I'm much more cautious about sharing.

            Long time ago, someone here realized that her (female) ancestor's photo was being displayed on some site for its cinched waist.

            Digital age. Put something on the internet, and you've lost control of it.
            ------------------------------------------------------
            My Families
            London-area Coverly Family Finder DNA Project

            Comment


              #7
              The great thing about ancestry is that you can test trees etc, to discount people, but ancestry doesn't give the author any opportunity to say it is just that, or that they are doing it for a friend, or the many number of reasons why you may do a tree for not your direct line.

              I have to say if my trees are test/friends they are private, and only my main one is public. But the author may not have thought about it.
              Carolyn
              Family Tree site

              Researching: Luggs, Freeman - Cornwall; Dayman, Hobbs, Heard - Devon; Wilson, Miles - Northants; Brett, Everett, Clark, Allum - Herts/Essex
              Also interested in Proctor, Woodruff

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by cbcarolyn View Post
                The great thing about ancestry is that you can test trees etc, to discount people, but ancestry doesn't give the author any opportunity to say it is just that, or that they are doing it for a friend, or the many number of reasons why you may do a tree for not your direct line.

                I have to say if my trees are test/friends they are private, and only my main one is public. But the author may not have thought about it.
                I have a private tree called "Working it out" for testing my theories or for finding out about unrelated people.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Ancestry now have quite a few different 'tags' now, that you can show on the title line of the person's information. I use the DNA ones a lot but there are tags to indicate work in progress or hypothesis etc.
                  Anne

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X