Not really! We used to complain about tiny trees in this forum, so a few minutes ago, when I got a message from someone chastising me for having too large of a tree, I had to laugh.
This happened over at "another company" after I invited the person to share genomes. Here's one line from his reply that made me smile:
"Your tree is quite large, including siblings and their spouses - making it hard for others to find common ancestors."
This person seems very nice and polite, and they're also experienced with genetic genealogy (!), so I'm just amazed.
He even advised that, in addition to not including siblings, shared trees shouldn't go past the ggg-gp level. (FWIW, he seems to have viewed my tree here on Ancestry, so I can't even blame that other company's horrid GEDcom interface.)
You have to laugh...
The title of this post is meant to be a joke, but it does remind me of how a few people here have complained about huge trees as a likely sign of someone who just copies and pastes everything.
I admit that I've seen a few DNA matches with 40,000-person trees and instantly rolled my eyes. But really, that's unfair of me (at least until I actually spy missing/wonky sources).
After taking the test, I started working harder on adding more cousins, mostly from the past 120 years, and only those which are easy to document. (Ya gotta love the Texas birth and death online databases, esp. the actual images of death certificates - squee! - but I digress.) I've barely touched a smidge of one side of the family and still have added at least 1200 cousins in the past few months. That puts me at nearly 10,000 people, which is more than what 95% of my matches have, I'd say. Maybe people are now rolling their eyes at my number!
Anyway, that's today's PSA: "Don't hate on the huge trees!" :)