the mess that is ancestry + DNA links

[kylejustin]

does anyone have issues seeing DNA matches' trees or not able to see the connection when ancestry suggests the ancestor link?

i don't have a sub, and i have a DNA match purporting to be from a 4th great grandmother according to thrulines (fantastic!! possibly knocking down this brickwall !!). this person has a public tree, and no matches in common. however, i can only see this person's 3rd great grandparents without a sub (if you click on 2nd great grandparents individually it gives info, but you can't view the tree), but you can usually get around this by clicking on the thrulines link on the match....except thrulines didn't have one? despite saying the link was my 4th great grandmother....

i switched to a family members account who has a sub, and went to this matches profile, and there was no tree? i had to search public trees for her grandparents and looked for the name of her tree to find it and view the tree? this happens quite often, mind you. where the match page says there is a public tree but when you search that profile none is shown.

anyway, i can't see my ancestor anywhere in this tree, or any link whatsoever. so have no idea what ancestry is bloody on about! haha

[Anne in Carlisle]

Must be something to do with not having a sub? I must say I have never seen one that says it has a public tree but then doesn't have one showing. Seems odd! Sometimes they have other, hidden trees on their profile and sometimes they have more than one profile!!

If you have a sub you get shown 'Common Ancestor' suggestions which IMHO are better than Thrulines. I find that more than 80% of these have proved accurate when I research the tree on paper. Some of them are complete rubbish however and I think it depends on how many people with wrong trees have added their information to Ancestry. Every so often Ancestry seems to lower its algorithms and you get a large batch of spurious matches but I still go through them because even then some do prove worthwhile.

Anne

[teasie]

Thrulines usually says something like Public Linked Tree (with) X People. Sometimes the X is as few as 2 people, and Ancestry uses data from various other trees to generate the suggested common ancestor link.

For example, my father has a 57cM match to someone with a public tree containing just 2-people (the tree owner and his father), yet Ancestry has suggested that my father's Great Grandfather may also be this persons 2xG Grandfather.

[kylejustin]

If you have a sub you get shown 'Common Ancestor' suggestions which IMHO are better than Thrulines. I find that more than 80% of these have proved accurate when I research the tree on paper. Some of them are complete rubbish however and I think it depends on how many people with wrong trees have added their information to Ancestry. Every so often Ancestry seems to lower its algorithms and you get a large batch of spurious matches but I still go through them because even then some do prove worthwhile.
Anne

this is what i'm talking about, and yes usually very accurate, though in this instance there was no family line from this match, just my line showing. Searching their tree showed no trace of the surname either. So can't see any reasoning from ancestry as to why this ancestor is the link. Not a couple mind you, just one ancestor- which in other examples of this is never accurate if the ancestor was only married the once. I do have common matches from one person when they have multiple marriages and it's correct.

Though when you have matches that only have less than 5 people in the tree, in order for ancestry to say how they are related, some of them must be in other trees that connect to known relatives. I usually make a not they are potential descendants of the couple ancestry says. I think generally these are correct too, based off matching with other known descendants of families.

[kylejustin]

Thrulines usually says something like Public Linked Tree (with) X People. Sometimes the X is as few as 2 people, and Ancestry uses data from various other trees to generate the suggested common ancestor link.

For example, my father has a 57cM match to someone with a public tree containing just 2-people (the tree owner and his father), yet Ancestry has suggested that my father's Great Grandfather may also be this persons 2xG Grandfather.

Which i do find accurate, as other known matches of that family will match DNA with these matches. Sometimes if a name or two is able to be seen as opposed to living names, you can confirm them.

[Anne in Carlisle]

I usually set to and build a tree for them. In many cases of people born and living in the UK this is relatively easy but not if they are in USA, Australia or NZ! I have blank 5 generation charts and build a tree into them. If I haven't found anything leading to one of my areas or surnames by the 5th generation I give up! Of course, this is sometimes not possible if there is any illegitimacy or a lot of common surnames. I have linked quite a lot of DNA matches, which Ancestry has not flagged up, in this way.

I agree about Ancestry sometimes only suggesting one ancestor, its very bizarre but usually I find them correct, the matches are full relations even though Ancestry is suggesting they are half cousins.

Its always worthwhile looking at 'unlinked' trees. Many of them are just one or two 'private' people but some are good trees which Ancestry can't use to suggest matches because they are not linked to the test owner.

I have 368 DNA matches entered onto my tree, proven on paper as well as the DNA matches. But on my husband's tree I have only managed 196.

Anne

[kylejustin]

Agreed it is difficult outside of england due to privacy laws, though in regards to americans i have maybe 6 matches i can find a link too. Most of the time they have the required generations and time period for the relationship, but either no matching names or the lines are all american well before suggested relationship. In this instance i can only think they have incorrect trees.

I do think secret illegitimacy also plays a part in some trees. I have so far got DNA matches to most families since 1800ish, only 3-4 families at 4th great grandparents i can't see matches for.

Just frustrated at this match, as this ancestor is a brickwall due to people with same name at same time in london, and i was hoping ancestry could help me solve which is mine.

Having said that i got really excited to see my aunt had 2 matches to our french mauritian side, not descended from my 3rd great grandparents....a good reminder that even if you can isolate matches to a particular family, without being able to pinpoint which generation you never know if it's the husband or wife's families....unfortunately i don't match either but is proof those families are DNA connected.

[gloryer]

it was like that for a while but back to normal now

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

If the match has media attached to the relevant tree you can use that as back door to the tree.

Click the profile of the match which should then show their tree(s) and 'photo gallery' for their tree(s). Click 'view all' on the gallery linked to the tree of interest and on the storymaker studio page click 'view all', this should then open up the media gallery and at the top right of the screen you will find the 'tree search' option where you can check for names within the tree. I used it quite a bit as a way to view things without a sub.

[Anne in Carlisle]

Yes, use that quite often. Also if you click on the match profile you sometimes find they have several other trees that are not linked to their DNA test. These trees can be better ones sometimes.

It is a real pain that the number of people in an 'unlinked' tree are not shown on the main match page. Very often they are only one person or just a few private people. However I have had a fair number whose unattached trees are sufficiently large to get a handle on the link. Time consuming but always worth a look.

Ha! Curses to those with no trees at all and a common name!!

Anne