AncestryDNA’s new BETA

I have now found a way.......it is buried a little deeper!

 

My Heritage have also launched something similar, it's called "Theory of Family Relativity".

 

Yes, I found a way which works for me, so hopefully will work for you and others. When displaying the list of DNA matches, if I click on the tree symbol in the 3rd column (even if it's showing 'No Trees' so is greyed out) it takes me to the individual's page as if I had clicked 'View Details' in the old list. From here, you can edit notes or write new ones, as before.

Edit: I see you have found a way but I'll leave this post here as it may help others.

 

The 'New and Improved DNA Matches' clearly provides a lot more information than previously, but I do wonder about the privacy implications.

Someone near the top of my DNA match list (I'll call him B) has no tree on Ancestry, but in view of the shared match with a 3rd cousin - whom I have been in touch with and know exactly how we are related - I thought they were probably linked via the same line. I messaged B earlier this year, mentioning the surname of our likely shared ancestors, but received no reply.

Now I find by using the new feature, Ancestry shows our relationship via information culled from other people's trees, showing B's lineage, all named down to his mother. It appears we are 4th cousins. I have checked these public trees (neither owner is a DNA match with me), and they look well researched and agree with information I have down to B's grandmother (I hadn't followed that line any further down) and it looks as though they have his parents correct too. I now see that B would not have recognised the surname I mentioned in my message without knowing his great-grandmother's maiden name.

This is all fine for me, and I plan to contact B again with the new information, though I'd feel a little embarrassed asking 'Was X your mother?' - I will have to think carefully how I phrase my message. B may well not have not done much (if any) family history research, but it does highlight the point that even if someone has no Ancestry tree (private or public), their family line (down to their parents) could be revealed to all their DNA matches (however distantly related it seems) via others who are not DNA matches as far as I can see.

No doubt some would say this is a good thing, but I feel a little uneasy about it. What do others think?

 

I just think it's good to connect with these cousins, share information and help break down brick walls. Obviously if they are new to family history I realise it will be me providing most of the information, but equally they could have information of interest to me about their branch.

Good advice, Peter, as always. I'll just contact them saying I think I now know how we are related (but not saying how initially) and see if that prompts a response. But as you say, if they don't have an Ancestry subscription and haven't logged on for a while (since January in this case) they may well not receive the message anyway.

 

Having looked through all the online information on ThruLines without finding anything helpful, I've now spoken with someone at Ancestry about the 'ancestor substitution' problem, and apparently nothing can be done to reinstate displaced ancestors.

It's possible that this issue will be sorted in due course but in the meantime the only way around this is if the other matches correct their trees.

It was suggested I filter the list of ancestors in ThruLines to show only those in my linked tree, but whilst this removes the potential ancestors from the list, it doesn't reinstate the genuine ancestors they displaced. And the spurious people from other trees who are alleged to be actual ancestors rather than potential ancestors remain in the list even when I apply this filter.

All very frustrating!

 

Oh dear not a happy bunny Pauline. Actually, I am a little surprised as you are someone who gives short shrift when Microsoft attempts to update everyone with their twice annual feature update, (leaving it well alone until the bugs are fixed) and here you are seemingly hyper critical of a brand new Ancestry Beta feature.

I agree with Tim that Ancestry have done an awful amount of additional work in providing ThruLines and New and Improved DNA Matches and I think -reading other posts - most problem areas will be resolved in due time. If not -dare I say it - following |Microsoft's lead, the Beta will be withdrawn pending bug fixes.

 

I heard back from the person I e-mailed last night; she had my "potential" ancestor listed with a question mark beside the name. We had been in contact already due to the fact that we are paternal half cousins on my Joyce grandmother's side and at that time I was still thinking my grandfather's name was what my Dad was told.

I do agree with what has been said previously, about incorrect ancestors being listed, especially since for so many years I did have the wrong information about my grandfather and anyone "copying" my tree would also have that in their trees. I heard from a different Joyce cousin last month who had done that and therefore also had the incorrect information regarding this person. I have since "fixed" my tree but that does not help those who have copied the previous information.

 

I think my spurious ancestors are already starting to disappear, and not because they have been changed in the other trees. I had 32 potential ancestors on ThruLines yesterday but only 19 now.

 

Bob, there is a huge difference between a feature update for Windows, where bugs have been known to render some computers unusable, and a new feature at Ancestry which is there whether I choose to use it or not.

I think there is also a huge difference between offering someone potential ancestors from other trees where they have none in their own, and simply replacing ancestors already entered in their tree - without so much as a “by your leave”.

 

The only change I’ve noticed in mine is that one of my displaced ancestors has now been replaced by a different one - the new one’s name is ‘Unknown’.

 

I started looking at the other new feature; when I clicked on the Common Ancestors filter quite a few names popped up that I had not connected to anyone yet. I started by making groups of different family names, so was able to connect a lot of the C.A. names right away but the first two that were without groups look as though they do definitely fit. Unfortunately, I have still found no one connected to my paternal grandfather. Everyone is attached to either my mother's family or my paternal grandmother.

 

I have to admit the New and Improved Ancestry list is good - particularly as it now marks everyone on my father's DNA results list as "Mother's Side" who shares DNA with my grandmother - and since I use my father's DNA list to look for his father's links, it's so much easier!

I completely understand your issue Pauline, as checking my father's list today brings up a pair of Ancestors I know are wrong - everyone uses them, and I can't understand why, since they're meant to be the parents of my ancestor, and anyone who is even looking a little can tell that their birthdates are wrong (they're born after their supposed child), and I have the death register for their child who shares the name with my ancestor - he was 7mths old when he died, in the same year my ancestor was in his 70s -they give the child's death date as my ancestor's. But because a lot of people are seemingly a little dim when it comes to actually checking birthdates, they have now appeared. One DNA soul who matches me has added a "DNA verified" image - which I'm fairly sure is completely wrong, as if it was correct, they should appear as a DNA match for my father, and they don't.

And an ancestor who is on my tree has now become "private" for some reason, when they were appearing fine yesterday.

My pet peeve is that ThruLines doesn't have the buttons to take you back to where you were before clicking into it. Probably because it's a beta feature, but it doesn't seem like a proper reason not to have the navigation worked out.

 

Your way is much more straightforward. Thank you.

 

Explain please (anyone) why if ThruLines was not there before why - assuming one has looked at it, tried it and disliked it - one cannot just ignore it? It reminds me of the someone complaining that they had nightmares after reading a book, and someone saying, well don't read it anymore.

Once examined it seemed obvious to me that ThruLines was Ancestry's attempt to do something I had done on a one off basis many times. Discovering other Ancestry Trees under 'Hints' at variance in part or even total with my own, causing me to check my own house was in order, and if so decide to communicate or ignore. (In the early days I tended to communicate more often than not, but later did so only when satisfied the other Tree was otherwise reasonably sound and not a waste of time).

At least the other Beta feature 'New and Improved Ancestry' gives a choice to opt in or out and that I believe has merit and if this turns out to be the case, will explore further.

 

I agree completely. You don't have to use any of the new Beta features. These just offer new ways of investigating links with your DNA matches - and displaying these in an easy-to-follow format. Obviously you need to check these, as you would any conventional 'hints', but to Ancestry's credit they have made it much easier to find potential links than wading through thousands of hints.

Of course there are bound to be positives and negatives with any new feature. I agree with Pauline that it is annoying when ancestors in your tree are replaced with false 'potential ancestors'. For example, my ancestor Thomas Johnson was replaced in ThruLines with a Thomas W Johnson (clearly the wrong person when I looked at the tree in question) and further potential ancestors named 'Distant Johnson' and 'W of Distant Johnson' appeared. And I have quite a few 'potential ancestors' which are 'private' or very speculative (some with just a common forename), which aren't any use at all. There is also a tendency to describe relatives as 'half' cousins if only one parent of an ancestor is shown in the tree (when they clearly have both parents in common). I think you just have to ignore these anomalies and focus on the positives.

Having looked in more detail at the new features this afternoon, ThruLines is showing me connections to 18 DNA matches which I hadn't found before. On the face of it (having looked at the trees from which the information is derived) these all look promising and fit with my research, though I will need to investigate them in more detail to be sure the people really are related as Ancestry is suggesting. Yes, no doubt I could have found these through searching other Ancestry trees myself, but it would have taken me far, far longer.

 

Not sure what you mean here. I just click on the 'back' button on my browser and it takes me to the page I was on previously. I notice that after you have been looking at links for a particular ancestor, if you use the 'Back to all ThruLines' button it takes you back to the top of the page (i.e. your parents) but if you use the browser back button it takes you back to the place you were in the list, which I've found much more convenient.