There are challenges for those using the Ancestry DNA that are not apparent from the marketing of the product. You only get back what you put in might be an appropriate caution?
There are some considerable family trees in the Ancestry data base.
It’s taken many decades of dedicated research to build them. Long hours at libraries, state archives, the not inconsequential expense of purchasing access to documents or even more for professional researches in another country. For our extended family and the two ladies who have done it all without the aid of DNA guidance, sharing all with a random stranger reported as a possible third or forth cousin is just a waste, unless there is something in return!
Many family trees are consequently hidden or inaccessible. People do so to protect their work from misuse, or for commercial gain, or perhaps embarrassments, or lots of reasons?
Note: From our use of the Ancestry product and a similar PC product over many years.
Those trees dating back more than a hundred years or so and those linking to famous characters in history are the exception.
There are some very large trees that contain substantial errors, or are completed based on guess work or hunches or perhaps a fair assumption (unproven).
Historical records dating back prior to the early 1800’s tend to be limited, often only recording details of those of value, importance or criminality. And for many communities where written records were sparse, religious and political upheaval everyday and property assigned only to the titled, few written records of everyday individuals exist. History was passed on orally. Eg highlands of Scotland.
It’s an interesting topic, but don’t be fooled by expecting want isn’t there to be found. We can trace 3 out of 4 family back to the early 1800’s reliably, and one family further only because of their apparent wealth as landowners.
The best use of the DNA has been to identify other family history researches with common family members, who are also seeking the same common links!
