Should You Use OTHER Family Trees

[@roberthowe321]

Great tips. Here are some ways I "screen" peoples trees when I "peek" -if someone has a large tree 10,000 -40,000 people, they most likely are just copying from other trees. I usually don't look at the tree. -If the tree doesn't have sources, I usually don't look at it long. -I will often look at the home person in the tree. If there is a direct ancestor with family photos and family document photos, I will take a closer look, I may have found some interesting family history. -I will check for DNA matches with the person's tree. This might be a long lost cousin with family information -I wil often add the person to my tree and then hunt for sources that verify the person -but I leave myself enough time in one sitting to delete the person if it doesn't pan out. Once in awhile I will leave myself a comment that I am unable to verify the person (but I want to continue the search later). I try not to do this very often because it can be easy to forget you did this.

[@AncestryAimee]

Thanks for adding those great tips!

[@michaelrochester48]

Wrong, I have more than 50,000 people on my ancestry page and every single page has tons of documentation. Every profile has something to prove its place placement.

[@michaelrochester48]

@@AncestryAimee I have over 50,000 people on my ancestry page and every single person is documented. Every single one for the people born after 1950 I at least use the public record index, personal knowledge or those data mining sites that are used from voter registration roles. So everything, including people still living are documented.

[@roberthowe321]

@@michaelrochester48 That's great that you have that many people with plenty of source documentation, that's a Lot of work! Most of the very large ones I have come across don't have much documentation. I will still take a "peek" at large trees, but my expectations are usually low.

[@advancedloiterer1820]

My hubby and I have both undertaken DNA testing. Within the first year of our DNA match results, our combined genetic tree had more than 10,000 in population. All DNA and genealogically verified. Welcome to genealogy done scientifically. DNA trumps any genealogical record. In fact, you cannot undertake any DNA verification or research without sneaking a peek at someone else's tree. So, your first point is an inaccurate and outdated assumption. In fact, I won't "sneak a peek" at someone's tree that hasn't undertaken a DNA test.

[@mattpotter8725]

I totally agree, never accept anyone else's tree as being correct without doing due diligence on it before adding anyone. Hints are based off other people's trees as well so caution needs to be taken these as well. I would love to know your thoughts on what to do if even after doing checks you can't be certain (maybe there's not enough detail in the records to say for sure it's correct) and what if it has a DNA link to back it up (Thrulines), evidence as well right? I know if you add something and it's the same as many other people it'll suggest that record to anyone else who adds that person to their tree with the same but if you think it's right but you can't be 100% sure what do you do then?

[@AncestryAimee]

Great question! I don’t add them if I can’t prove it in a convincing way. Sometimes I take screenshots of others trees in case they remove them if I want to look at them later. Thrulines is based on trees so beware of that. If we have a dna match I work hard on the matches tree (I rebuild it) to see if I think they did proper genealogy. We don’t know for sure that’s how me are connected right? We just know we share cM. But if I find other matches that fit and the amount of cM fits, then that can provide additional evidence in my opinion.

[@patranye]

Perfect advice, Aimee. I have to admit that I'm guilty of copying a person from another tree, and not always just one. 🤭That was also way back before I even knew better. But now I do, so now I don't 😆

[@AncestryAimee]

We've all been there! 😂

[@Elke_KB]

I didn't know that about the inactive/active...good tip!!! 4 of my husband's 3xggp's I have physical copies of descendants trees. It was easier to copy that info from another tree than manually type it all. I know bad. That was 25 years ago. On other branches I had copied I ended up with a tangled mess and ended up deleting a lot and starting over. I still like looking at other trees, and in my case have been very helpful (non-American), but there are a lot of bad ones out there.

[@AncestryAimee]

It’s so tempting to copy, but you learn the hard way! Thanks for sharing!

[@ramonaearnest4709]

I never copy other people's trees because I find a lot of errors. I have to do my own research too many people are too lazy to research. I admit there are a couple of mistakes on mine because depending on the website I don't know how to correct my tree. I have very limited skills and I am still learning as I go. Some knowledge I know is because I knew my relatives before they passed. Some later census have my pateral grandfather born in Kentucky but that is incorrect he was born in Tennessee. I know this because my father told me many times and my mother wrote it in our family history book. There's an early census that tells his correct birth place. Another problem that came up is that many years ago the courthouse in my fathers birth town burned down and an unknown person took it upon theirself to go there and add all of my father's siblings names on the paperwork. Needless to say almost all of the information is incorrect sadly. Sometimes it pays to speak to relatives if possible but I'm pretty sure that the younger generation doesn't know. That's why its important for the elder generation to document everything they know. Take everything with a grain of salt!

[@AncestryAimee]

Such great statements - the older generation document wha tthey know and to take everything with a grain of salt! It sounds like you are doing a terrific job! I am actually going to do a video on cleaning up your tree in January - watch for that.

[@carlaporath7076]

Thank you for the advice switching from active to inactive

[@AncestryAimee]

You’re welcome! Hope it helps!

[@alycynde5237]

Definitely agree. Other trees should be looked at but their content world be verified first and only add manually as necessary. Another thing that could be done is contact the tree owner if you have questions.

[@AncestryAimee]

Yes! Good point! Thanks for adding that.

[@singularseeker]

Great Tip....

[@paulacollins3223]

Between Ancestry and to her trees, and Family Search. Review the details, to see if similar to what I know and compare and make notes to review the back up. Hence using the member connect and seeing what they have, most may already be in my tree, but they may have another source i didn't have but reviewing it I agree. If you look up and down (if possible) on the other tree and see if they have others that I agree with.

[@AncestryAimee]

Thanks for adding your strategies!

[@rockyroad7345]

I learned the hard way of accepting other people's trees by wasting time down a rabbit hole for days. I'll look, but unless I can find documented proof, it's a no go. I've actually proven and corrected several including bad photos, but I never post my personal tree on any site. I've spent too many years doing research to give it up, but I've found a few wonderful researchers and distant relatives I share information with. Find A Grave is also full of bad information the further back you go in time.

[@AncestryAimee]

Completely agree about Find A Grave. You’ve got to be careful with that one too. Thanks for commenting.

[@lynmilner2697]

I have 2 trees. One for people who I have verified and one for people who I am testing / thinking about (mostly from relatives who are also doing trees and don't agree - I test all options and then only put in the information that I have verified).

[@AncestryAimee]

That’s a great idea. Thanks for sharing it!

[@caseyzahn3226]

Great advice! I cringe when I find someone’s tree and it is obvious they didn’t do the research on the person I am looking at.

[@AncestryAimee]

Me too!

[@robertlittle7314]

Has anybody experimented with floating trees, to store similar or identical names of ancestors? The idea is to attach the records for "the same person" on the floating tree, creating a repository for records that could lead us astray or, perhaps, keep those records in an easily retrievable place should we find that we had the wrong person after all.

[@AncestryAimee]

That’s an interesting idea! The hard part with floating trees is finding them again. So I recommend you tag those individuals “floating.”

[@SusanG-qv2wr]

When I first started using Ancestry I didn't realize that many people accept info from Family Search, info which is often not backed up by any sources. Years later, I'm still cleaning up the mess that made and I'm afraid others may have copied it from me! I no longer enter anything unsourced. But.... Maybe you could do a video on removing and starting over?

[@AncestryAimee]

Terrific idea! I should do that. We all do it one way or another. I had to years ago when technology changed, but it's sometimes necessary and can be very helpful! Thanks for suggesting that. I would say that the FamilySearch tree does have sources. It's a collaborative effort though and there are many errors in that tree. FS is working to verify information and rate the individual people in the tree. AI is making that easier. So as you said, find the proof!

[@bellavee4096]

Hi Aimee. Hope you are well and survived the fire. This may be a bit off-topic, but what I'm curious to know is if I "peek" at someone else's tree, will they know I "peeked" at their tree? Thanks much! B

[@AncestryAimee]

Not long ago Ancestry released the ability to see who has looked at your tree. So yes. Good question!

[@AncestryAimee]

And thank you! We are doing great and very happy our street wasn’t damaged in the fire.

[@michaelrochester48]

I have used other people‘s trees only because they might’ve done additional research that I might’ve overlooked. It all depends on what is documented. If it has zero documentation, I am less likely to use it. If I do copy somebody from a tray, I go throughevery stop to get as many census and record material that I can to prove the Ancestry and decent.

[@AncestryAimee]

I'm glad you take the time to do your own research!

[@TheAngelin2000]

why do you want to put it private if you want to know who your family is? many found me by letting them find me

[@AncestryAimee]

I completely agree. Different strokes for different folks I guess

[@scorpy09]

I use only the sources attached to other trees if I think they really support my tree.

[@AncestryAimee]

Love it!

[@Carlaparrott-d6z]

Thank you Aimee. But why is it when I am working in my tree, and I see a potential ancestor. When I click on that ancestor to see who they are and see if it is my person, it now says that ancestor is in someone else’s tree and now I have to pay to see that ancestor. Before it would show you that ancestor and you could message the person who shared that ancestor as well. I have tried an ancestory group and they said I mst be looking at someone else’s tree. How can I when it is my tree, not a collaborative tree. I am so confused.

[@AncestryAimee]

I'm confused too. I haven't seen that. Do you have a current Ancestry subscription?

[@Carlaparrott-d6z]

@ , I do not. I have been working on my tree but this just came up in the past couple of months.

[@AncestryAimee]

@@Carlaparrott-d6z I would imagine that is why. They must have changed it. Wheny you don't have a subscription you can't see records, now I guess you can't see other's trees too. Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware.

[@Randy1743]

It's okay to look at other trees but take it with a grain of salt unless there is solid information to back it up. When I first started genealogy over 10 years ago I assumed everyone probably knew what they were doing. That was a big mistake! Later on it caused me to do a lot of deleting and corrections. It also caused me to run into a lot of self inflicted brick walls. If you have a public tree Ancestry has added a feature to let you know who is looking at your tree. If you are peaking at my public tree I now know who the snoopy people are that are looking at it.

[@AncestryAimee]

Don't you love those self inflicted brick walls?!? I sure did that too when I started. I think we all make those types of mistakes (or others) when we begin. Thanks for sharing Randy!

[@BonnieDragonKat]

As somebody who's adopted, looking at other people's trees can actually help. But I don't tend to add people to mine unless I've got paperwork to back it up. Like my biological paternal second great grandfather, ancestry is making suggestions on who could be his father, but there's no paper trail to prove that he was anywhere near the state of Pennsylvania which was where my second great grandfather was actually born. We don't know what city in Pennsylvania because there are no records with any cities listed just that he was born in Pennsylvania. His name is extremely common so you know it's kind of hard to find a match. I've actually found like six or seven David foxes that were born about the time of my second great-grandfather in Pennsylvania. I know that my second great grandfather is who he is because I ran both his last name and his wife's last name in my DNA matches and I came up with paternal matches that go back to both. The trees I'm most likely to peek at are going to be the ones that are tied to my DNA matches.

[@AncestryAimee]

Great example! Thanks for sharing. Good luck too!

[@carlaporath7076]

I changed my Ancestry so ancestry trees do not show up under my hints.

[@AncestryAimee]

I do that too and then sometimes go back to turn it back on. Good suggestion!