AI Never Met Your Ancestor: Locating Non-Enhanced Images on Ancestry

I'm truly thankful for all those who upload photos of our shared family members. Sure, I like yearbook photos and newspaper images, but "real" photos are still the gold-standard for me. And I prefer them unedited (for the most part - cropping and straightening don't bother me at all). They may be black and white, sepia, or randomly discolored from age. And if the image was originally in color (be it vivid and clear or faded)? I'm quite OK with those as well. However, I don't care for AI enhanced photos in my tree. 

I freely admit, I've played with image colorizing tools (on both Ancestry and MyHeritage). It was an interesting and marginally fun experiment, but ultimately, these images are nothing more than AI interpretation - a guess.  And when it comes to restoring photos, AI can sometimes change little details, like mouth, eyes or ears. While these changes may not be noticeable to someone who's never seen any image of the person before, for some, they're glaring (and sometimes unacceptable) differences. Depending on the need for restoration, AI may still be the best option...but for me, I'd rather it be without any color enhancement. 

I don't save colorized images unless my back is to the wall, and no amount of searching has uncovered the "original". In fact, when I ignore these images, I take time to type in "I don't save colorized photos". I know the algorithm isn't programmed to read the notes we add, but maybe one day.... But a lot of these AI enhanced images are finding their way into user trees these days. In turn they show up as hints to others. If other users like them? It's great for them! I'm all for family historians building trees the way they prefer. Many users seem to like enhanced images. I just happen not to want them in my tree. To work around this, I try a couple different avenues to locate an "original" image.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

Image 5

First, I'll look at the gallery on the person profile in the original poster's tree. This is really easy to do right from the photo hint. Simply open the image and click on the person's name below who originally shared it, as shown in Image 1. Sometimes, you'll find both the colorized and original images in the poster's gallery. Open the original image and choose "Save to my tree" as shown in Image 2. If you're lucky enough to find it on the first go, you're all set!

But, in some cases, the colorized image is the only available option. My next step is to go to a general search from the person profile in my tree, using the search option at the top right of the screen (the little magnifying glass, shown in Image 3). This will pre-populate details from the person profile in your tree, making the search super simple. 

When the results load, Scroll down to Filters, and select "Pictures" as shown in Image 4. Expanding this section reveals the option for "Public Member Photos & Scanned Documents" (shown in Image 5). This is the option you want! As you scroll thru the results, you have a reasonable chance of finding the original image. It very well may have been originally uploaded by someone completely different than the person who saved the enhanced image. Once you identify the image you want, you can use the same instructions to "Save to my tree".

There is the possibility you won't be able to find the "original" photo no matter how hard you try. It could have been uploaded by a user who deleted their tree before anyone else saved the image, or perhaps the tree was made private at some point. Maybe they colorized and then immediately deleted the original. There are no guarantees. But if, like me, you prefer not to save AI enhanced images, it's really pretty painless to do a cursory search to try and find the original.

I will admit, if photos need restoration, AI can be far easier than some of the (often complicated) photo editing tools. It very well may be the best application for the task at hand. But it's wise to remember, AI never met your ancestor! It wasn't there when the image was captured. It can't know the color of Grandma's dress, or the color of Uncle John's suit. AI can guess, but it can't know for sure. This is why I prefer the original image. The details are left to the imagination of the viewer, just as they were when the images were originally captured and shared with the family.

Do you like AI enhanced images? Do you save them to your tree? Comment or connect with me on my socials and let me know your thoughts!

Image by ZeeShutterz • Framing beauty with creativity from Pixabay

When “That’s Unfair!” Meets “You Agreed to the Rules”

Full disclosure: I asked ChatGPT to help me title this post. AI was NOT used to create the post itself.

A few days ago, in a Facebook Ancestry.com Users Group post, a user was asking people to speak out against Ancestry for blocking Ramapo College IGG (investigative genetic genealogy) users from accessing Ancestry's records and services (including free record collections, Newspapers and FindAGrave). Some members of the group feel it's unfair because they say they're just trying to give a name back to the dead (a wonderful and worthy cause) and they apparently feel they need access to Ancestry's services to do this. 

Ancestry apparently informed the college, using the site is a violation of section 1.3 of the Terms and Conditions. Ancestry clearly states "In exchange for access to the Services, you agree:...Not to use the Services in connection with any law enforcement investigation or judicial proceeding." And therein lies the crux of the issue. Every user agrees to the Terms of Service (TOS) when they sign up for site access. Just because they don't like the rules doesn't mean they don't apply.

It's well known, GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA have a process in place to work with law enforcement agencies with regard to DNA. But neither of those sites have record collections, and this issue (as framed by the person who posted) isn't about DNA matching, it's supposedly about record access. On the Ramapo College website, with regard to IGG it clearly states "We do not list cases of violent crime in which we are working to identify the suspect, due to the sensitive nature of such cases." This muddies the waters tremendously, because they are not simply giving a name to a Jane or John Doe. If the group, in even one instance, is trying to identify a suspect...or even if they find the identity of a deceased person and the identity is then used in a law enforcement case - they've violated the terms of service.

And while I generally support the idea of accessing records already freely available to the public, there's absolutely no mechanism on Ancestry to prevent these same users from accessing public user trees, and potentially seeing information NOT publicly and widely available (such as photos, documents or other user uploaded content). Sure, I get it - it's easier for researchers at a site with the vast record collections Ancestry has. If I could only have one subscription, it would be Ancestry, precisely for this reason. But convenience alone does not make it alright to violate TOS, no matter how well intentioned a user may be. 

If all they're after are these "public" and "freely available" collections, they can find the same information elsewhere (though it will likely take more clicks to do so, or potentially require them to visit a physical location to obtain the records). FamilySearch and the National Archives come to mind as free resources (assuming they don't have similar terms and conditions). If I had to guess, the really big loss here is most likely access to user trees. 

To be clear, I'm all for identifying unknown remains, especially to provide closure to families who don't know if their relative is alive or dead. I have a lot of respect for those who embark on this, often difficult, journey. But I have to say, I 100% support Ancestry on this one. Given we're already aware researchers knowingly took advantage of loopholes on GEDmatch in the past, why would we ever believe IGG researchers would limit themselves to free record collections only, never being tempted to look at user trees? Searching a bit further on the Ramapo website, I found this:  "The IGG Center has three missions:

• Using IGG to resolve cases involving violent crime, unidentified human remains, and wrongful convictions
• Training students to become proficient and ethical IGG practitioners
• Researching the field of IGG and finding ways to expand its reach to further secure justice"

Given this, it's clear their intended reach stretches far beyond just accessing public records to match a name to remains. And if they truly intend to be "ethical IGG practitioners" shouldn't it include teaching their students how to understand and abide by TOS for each and every site they utilize in their research? I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to understand the complex nuances of the law, but violating TOS to obtain an identity might just make the results legally unusable in a court of law. 

This isn't about Ancestry willy-nilly restricting access to the site. It's about users who've apparently been getting away with violating TOS and now they're upset they can't continue to do so. It was never ethically responsible for them to use Ancestry in the first place. Is "I'll never peek at your tree" good enough for you? It's not for me! 

This is just my opinion, and I know some people will feel very differently. Totally fine. We don't have to agree. But I'm glad Ancestry is enforcing TOS and removing their access to the site. It's not about my privacy. My tree is public. It's about those who think rules don't apply to them, even though they agreed to play by them.

Image by AvocetGEO from Pixabay

Mennonite Resources

On my paternal line, I descend from those of the Mennonite faith. My family on this line hails from the Lancaster, Pennsylvania area - the heart of Amish country! On the surface, Mennonites and Amish appear very much the same. The Mennonites are a bit more relaxed and a little more tolerant. But they do indeed have many similarities, and both are certainly very devout.

I've documented my family being Mennonite here in the US from at least the 1790's (potentially earlier) through to the early 1900's. A portion of the family moved away from Lancaster, heading west, to Wayne County, Ohio - another of the largest Amish and Mennonite communities. Based on research by other family members (though I've not worked quite far enough back to confirm with my own research), some of my ancestors may have been part of the Swiss Anabaptist movement in the late 1700's, arriving in the US as they fled religious persecution.

From the Mennonite Church USA site:

"Mennonites are Anabaptists...Anabaptism grew out of the 16th-century Radical Reformation (which followed the Protestant Reformation). Technically, Anabaptists are neither Catholic nor Protestant, although they do share some beliefs of both.

The first Anabaptists separated from the state church when they began re-baptizing adults and refusing to baptize infants until they could make an adult decision to follow Christ. Anabaptism literally means to re-baptize."

If you ever find yourself researching someone who was Mennonite, here are some of the resources I've used. As with many churches, they have a wealth of genealogical material available. I've also added these to my Genealogy Toolbox for easy reference:

• Mennonite Church USA Archives: MennObits - worth checking out their related links page as well
• Mennonite Heritage Center
• Mennonite Life Online Research Databases
• Family Search Wiki - Mennonite Church in the United States

One thing I can say for sure, my 2nd great-grandfather (shown above on the left), Tobias Swinehart (1833-1911), had a pretty impressive beard! His sister-in-law, Esther (Homsher) Brown (1834-1927), my 2nd great-grand-aunt (shown to the right) was a member of the Mennonite Church until she passed away. You could look at either of these images and know in a heartbeat they were either Amish or Mennonite. As I move forward to more recent generations, I've not found anyone still in the Mennonite community. But I'm not ruling it out as a possibility! I still have much more research to do in this branch of my tree. 

Image by Sophia Martin from Pixabay