Used to be when you looked at a member's public profile, a list of their trees was on the page. The list is no longer appearing. What happened??

If it is any consolation to you I am noticing the same thing on my "public profile". I wanted the links to my trees to show and had edited to do so. Not too happy with this new development. I will report it when I get a moment.

You sure answer and it sounds like react, quickly, to the tree problem.

I wish ancestry would do the same with the data that we are paying for.

I don't pay for trees, will never pay for trees, and ancestry broke their original policy of NEVER selling user contributed information.

Ancestry didn't break any user agreement. The user agreement for AWT (the old tree system) stated that the trees were free -- and thosse that remain online still ARE. Trees submitted to RootsWeb's WorldConnect were and are free for anyone to submit and view and search--as always.

When Ancestry unveiled its NEW Public and Private Trees, from the very beginning the user agreement was not the same as it was for the old Ancestry trees and for the past and current RootsWeb trees. Anyone who didn't care to submit a tree under the new user terms, and didn't wish to use the new system with its new bells and whistles, didn't have to. As always with user contributed data, decisions about where to submit your tree and what terms you care to agree to are entirely your decision.

Joan

I wish I had kept a copy of when I first used ancestry so that I could prove it to all you that defend ancestry. If I had, this discussion would be mute. I took them at their word, but after a few switcheroos by them I no longer trust a thing they say.

It stated - not verbatim - that they would NEVER sell user provided trees or contributed trees or whatever.

genealogy.com was selling WFT disks and were in competition with ancestry. The "promise" to never sell user trees I'm sure was to attract people to their site rather than genealogy.com.

As soon as genealogy.com and ancestry combined ancestry took over the selling of trees - breaking their policy.

A user contributed tree, is a user contributed tree with maybe one exception - the private ones. The public ones and OWT, etc. should not be charged for by ancestry - that is, if they had stuck to their promise. If someone wants to pay ancestry to keep a private tree that's fine. If they don't want to share, that's fine. There are as many errors in the private trees as the public ones. It's easy to tell they've just copied information from the public ones and other places on the web because the same errors show up over and over again. And yes, it's easy to tell with the private ones, even though you have to jump through a couple of more hoops.

ancestry's "bells and whistles" for the most part stink. It's slow, it's clunky, etc.

I may be wrong on this, but I think it was you that said the WC programmer wanted to or would have upgraded it but after ancestry took over rootsweb they wouldn't let him.

Wonder why? The answer is a clear as a bright sunny day.

I was brought up on to believe genealogy was an on going work. People shared, and one built on to and added to what others discovered and researched - mostly from previous generations.

There are so many errors in the posted trees. They can be useful or at least give you a new direction to research, but I'll be darn if contribute CORRECT information to anyone posting a tree on ancestry so that ancestry can sell it.

If ancestry wants to research family lines, and post the sources and double check that they are correct, let them sell those.

It sure would be nice if ancestry would spent as much time fixing and adding to the type of data most subscribers are paying for. They have broken more collections lately than they have added or fixed and they don't seem to care a bit about real data or quality control for actual souces since trees now appear to be their main emphasis.

Gosh, and I even wrote a non complain message today after they finally added something useful.

It bothers me that the content I add to my tree here is not freely available. So I put most of my "stuff" on my Web site and other free sites. It is tempting to grow my tree here. But mostly I resist.

So far, the historical databases and the newspaper archive from my home town still bear fruit. I will keep renewing my subscription until all that is mined out.

If you like the features of the Ancestry Public Trees but don't like the fact that others cannot access it freely--post your tree on RootsWeb's WorldConnect in addition to the Ancestry trees. Then everyone can find it PLUS you have access to all the features that you may like to use on the Ancestry Public Trees.

Joan

Dianne-

I'm not arguing with you--I'm merely saying that the user agreement for the NEW trees is not the same as the one you and everyone else agreed to with the AWT trees. The agreement applies only to the specific PROGRAM and the Public and Private Trees were up front from the beginning as to how the trees would be used and who would be able to access them.

You took Ancestry at their word that trees you submitted to AWT and RootsWeb's WorldConnect (if applicable in your case) would always be free and wouldn't be sold and would be accessible to everyone for free. That is STILL the case for trees submitted to those programs. That was NEVER the user agreement for the newer Public and Private Ancestry trees. Different programs, different agreements.

Joan

A user contributed tree is subject to the rules in effect for that particular type of submission at the time of submission.

Thus:
Genealogy.com trees are governed by the rules Genealogy.com had for their trees and since Ancestry took them over Ancestry has a perfect right to sell that information as Genealogy.com had previously done.

Ancestry World Tree was governed by a different set of rules and to the best of my knowledge Ancestry hasn't broken the agreement to not sell AWT info.

Ancestry Member Trees are governed by yet a third set of rules.

Ancestry has *never* given a blanket promise to not sell any type of user submitted information.

You should also read the fine print in the user agreement - it gives Ancestry the right to change policies at any time.
If you don't like the new policies your only recourse is to not use the service.

I'm one of Ancestry's harshest critics but in ths particular case you are way, *Way* off base.

ok- this is getting spooky!
We are agreeing again!
*GRIN*

Stella,

Why should you be bothered?

The terms of submission as to who can see what seem, to me at least, very clear to anyone who checks them out before submitting anything.

A combined use of Ancestry Member Trees, Rootsweb WorldConnect Trees, and Rootsweb FreePages should allow you show whatever info you want to anyone you want.

Grow your tree on World Connect and Rootsweb FreePages and all your info will be freely availabl;e.

Why are you bothered that I am bothered?

Ancestry.com bigfoots regarding search engines. A search for information on my family yields an Ancestry.com link more often than a link to my site or the GenWeb archives site. That bothers me. Or, maybe a better word, concerns me. Fine print or no fine print.

That is why I use Ancestry.com for research but put most of my stuff out there in the Free World.

Joan,
This is a bit off topic but still well worth mentioning.
Your recent article in this months issue of the Rootweb Review is great and well worth everyone reading.
I've pasted your article here:

10 June 2009, Vol. 12, No. 6
Using Rootsweb
By Joan Young

Evaluating Online Genealogical Data -- To Accept or Not to Accept?
If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone complain that an online family tree or database is "garbage," error-ridden, or sloppily compiled, I wouldn't have to worry about the state of the world's economy. Some researchers even claim that they would never stoop to looking at online user-submitted data (such as RootsWeb's WorldConnect database). Let's take a look...

SHOULD YOU CONSIDER AND ACCEPT USER-SUBMITTED Data?
Don't automatically discard user-submitted data. Information you find online, regardless of the source, may provide the very answers you need. I once found a will mentioned in a WorldConnect tree that provided the maiden name of an immigrant ancestor's wife I'd been seeking for years. The submitter sent me a copy of the woman's father's will which provided conclusive proof. Part of family history research is being a sleuth. Don't merely copy another researcher's files perpetuating errors. Verify and evaluate the evidence you find online.

ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN REVIEWING USER-SUBMITTED DATA:
Did the submitter include his sources? If so, how reliable are the sources? Is the data based upon a birth certificate, marriage record, deed, or other document with a relatively high degree of accuracy? Or, did Susie Submitter copy or merge the information from other files (possibly unsourced) she found online? Obtain original copies of the documents used as evidence where possible, especially if you have reason to suspect there may be an error, misinterpretation, or even a typo.
If sources are not listed, look for a contact address for the submitter so that you can ask about his evidence and conclusions. Once again, verify the information yourself.
Does the submitter's data agree with information you have already gathered or found elsewhere? Conflicting data requires a careful analysis to establish what the best evidence or the preponderance of evidence indicates. Look for the evidence recorded nearest the event it supports and provided by someone in a position to know. Consider whether the person would have had any reason to falsify data (such as a young bride claiming to be of marriageable age or a man wanting to show he is old enough to enlist in military service).
Is the data logical or are there blatant errors in the tree such as children born to women in their late fifties, marriages at age five, or other unlikely events or inconsistencies? Look for red flags such as a tree that links (or merges) two individuals of the same name without regard for dates and ages. Watch out for incorrect assumptions that two same name individuals in different locations are the same person, unless there is evidence to support a move from point A to point B. Genealogical leaps of faith connecting individuals or generations could well be erroneous.
Remember that finding the same information online in multiple databases doesn't ensure accuracy as others may well have copied or merged the information without verification.
Pay no attention to who submitted the data, but rather to the evidence itself. Even respected genealogists make errors occasionally and may not have access to all the information you possess.
WHY WON'T ROOTSWEB (AND OTHER ONLINE HOSTS) REMOVE ERROR-RIDDEN DATABASES?
Companies such as RootsWeb are not the genealogy police or Judge Judy, and cannot be expected to evaluate the accuracy of data submitted (and owned and controlled) by family historians. Submitters have the right to be wrong.

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO COMBAT ERRORS FOUND IN ONLINE DATABASES?
Contact the submitter by e-mail when possible.
Add a Post-em Note (user-added note) indicating the error and any corrections and evidence you have.
Upload your own database so that researchers who find the incorrect data in a search will also find your file. The only database for which you are responsible is your own.

If you use a spam-filtering program, in order to receive the RootsWeb Review please make sure that you're allowing e-mail from rootswebreview@email.rootsweb.com. The RootsWeb Review is a free publication of The Generations Network, Inc., 360 West 4800 North, Provo, UT, 84604
Reprints
Permission to reprint articles from RootsWeb Review is granted unless specifically stated otherwise, provided:
the reprint is used for non-commercial, educational purposes; and
the following notice appears at the end of the article: Previously published in RootsWeb Review: 10 June 2009, Vol. 12, No. 6

"Ancestry has *never* given a blanket promise to not sell any type of user submitted information"

I say they did. I will go to my grave saying they did. It was one of the first things that caught my attention when I first started this hobby in the late 90's.

Maybe the question should be.

Why wasn't/isn't the programmer of WC allowed to add enhancements?

Answer:
Because ancestry wants it to become an outdated dinosaur and if people want the "bells and whistles" as you say, they have to post their trees at ancestry so ancestry can sell the information maybe get new subscribers by advertising "just click on the leaf" or whatever they say.

User contributed is user contributed no matter what it's called or what shape or form ancestry presents it.

The WorldConnect programmer HAS added many features since the program first debuted about 11 years ago. Do I wish he had the time to add more? Sure...but it isn't fair to say there have been NO enhancements and new features added to WC.

Joan

Perhaps that is how you INTERPRETED what you agreed to, but it isn't the case. The agreement pertained to the individual tree programs--not to Ancestry/TGN as a company.

When TGN purchased FTM they purchased a company that already had in place an agreement with submitters that trees would be sold on CDs and Ancestry didn't change the existing policy with regard to the FTM (WFT) user agreement.

Each tree program has its own rules and agreements and policies AND promises. None of the promises has been broken. I suspect the legal department wouldn't allow the company to violate a contract/agreement with its customers even if Ancestry wanted to do so. (grin)

Joan

Even were that the case- and I'm pretty certain it isn't- the terms of use tend to change frequently (too frequently according to some).

Each time you renew you are renewing under the terms of service in effect at the time of the renewal- not the terms in use at the time of your origial subscription.

I still maintain Ancestry hasn't broken any promises - but they may not be making the same promises they once did.

Whatever the case may be I'd suggest you move on with your life - and hopefully to another service you find more fulfilling.

The terms of service haven't changed for an EXISTING program such as the trees. Sure...terms can change for usage of subscription features when you renew (it's a new contract), but an agreement for a program you submit your data to doesn't change after you have submitted. That's a big part of the reason (in my opinion) that AWT was retired rather than updated and a new tree program with a new agreement was introduced. That legally and ethically enabled changes as to the submitter agreement.

Joan

"HAS added many features since the program first debuted about 11 years ago."

That's not what I said and not what I meant.

I love WC they way it is. I like the post-ems, etc.

One of these days I'll try and find the message, posted by you, I believe, regarding what I was referring to.

Joan-

That is more or less what I meant.

Under one subscription there may be One World Tree or whatever available and upon renewal One World Tree is no longer available but Ancestry Family Tree is; and then the next renewal AFT isn't available and Ancestry Member Trees is.

Introductions of new programs or features with specific user agreements can happen at any time--they don't have to wait for a renewal. I suspect you mean Online Family Tree that is no loner available as opposed to One World Tree. (I know -- it can become confusing.)

Joan

Yes, that is why I said "or whatever".

Too bad Ancestry didn't stick to one format like WorldConnect.

Even with WC's lack of certain functions I still like it better than anything Ancestry has come up with.

From March 2, 2000 Ancestry pages (thanks to xandervan for the link):

"The Ancestry World Tree is one of the most popular databases at Ancestry.com. Composed of pedigree files submitted by our visitors, it is the largest collection of its kind on the Internet. We know the value of sharing family trees and that you are our best family tree data source. Without your interest in family history there would be no Ancestry.com. The World Tree is a mutually exchanged gift — our latest technology combined with your best research efforts. Together we create a database containing millions of names to help you find fellow researchers, connect with distant family members and to provide a free service for everyone interested in tracing their roots.

Contribute to the Ancestry World Tree
Everyone benefits from sharing research and collaborating with others who may be researching the same lines. As more data is added, the World Tree becomes more valuable to everyone. We need your contribution to make Ancestry's World Tree grow.

When you submit your family tree you help the Ancestry World Tree grow rapidly. Your file will remain your own. Only you can change, update or remove your work from the tree and Ancestry.com pledges never to sell your data or charge anyone to search the World Tree."

As you can see from the last paragraph, Ancestry is only talking about World Tree.

Seawolf671

Many thanks for this!

The list of trees is once again appearing in public profiles. Thank you for fixing this.