"Common ancestors" not working

Follow up. Further investigation shows that the DNA cousins I have with Common Ancestors are still shown with them. it is just that using the Common Ancestors filter no longer selects all of them. And throws in a few that it then says haven't got any.

 

I greatly dislike the "unviewed" button and I am terrible at keeping notes of what I previously looked at, so I made a color dot for "no clue/not at this time". Its where the majority of my matches go so they are in my mind properly sorted for a future date. I normally only work on matches I have my families connections colored in, and then once a week I do a "DNA roulette" day where I use the filters and update matches in the no clue folder with common ancestors.

 

In the last couple of days I have found a similar thing. My match list is showing older matches, newly with the common ancestor tag, but when I click on the tag to see the detail it says that no common ancestors have been found. I hope that that this is simply a glitch in a new update and that all will become clear when the bug is recognised and removed. But I do despair about the absence of a simple communications channel to report these things to Ancestry. How will they know?
In general I have found the common ancestor lines to be quite reliable, as long as you verify the whole connection independently from your nearest proven ancestor. Some do contain simple but manifest errors in spelling or locations (eg generations hopping the Atlantic or through time) but finding and correcting this is what sets us apart from the "name collectors".

 

Mine are in a mess at the moment and I'm seeing the same as for example JFB is reporting. It's happened in the last couple of days. I download mine periodically so I can keep check on changes and last did so on 6 June when I had 119. I also give them a particular colour tag and keep that on even if they lose Ancestry's indicator. As of half an hour ago I've only got 61 with the Ancestry indicator and some of those when opened have the we can't find a link between you message. For the moment I'm taking the view it will sort itself out over the next few days. I hope . . .

 

I have not uploaded a new tree since the first upload about 3 years ago. I only expand it as lines are proven to my satisfaction.

 

Just to add to my comments above that was 61 sorting by relationship. After posting I tried sorting by date out of curiosity and got 55 hits and only 29 are common to by relationship. Even my daughter is missing when I sort by date. As I said hopefully it will all sort out within a couple of days.

 

Today I have noticed that the "Ancestors with new links (sic)" filter has disappeared from ThruLines.
And a few of the new, empty, Common Ancestor tags that have appeared next to older DNA matches that I questioned a few days ago are now showing a proposed common ancestor, But the connections are wrong, and supported by too many trees that are not sourced.
Ancestry appear to be de-valuing their DNA tools.

 

I have had a Common Ancestor that was incorrect, however that was because my own tree was also incorrect ... as it turned out. The inaccuracy in my tree was only established via DNA - I had followed the paper records but the paper records were incorrect.

My Ancestry tree doesn't have any sources either - I have enough trouble maintaining those offline without duplicating the effort.

 

The "Ancestors with new DNA matches" filter has re-appeared in Thru Lines today. Showing zero which is OK, better than nothing at all.

 

This week I have added a new 'daughter' to one of my trees - with suffix "Error Alert" - My wife had a common ancestor match with a cousin where 63 Ancestry family trees had not shown the correct parents. They had a mis-mash of correct and incorrect information, but were 'insisting' through their trees that she was born in Totton Southampton and baptised in Ault Hucknall, 190 miles away, even though parish records showed her in her local parish church, a distance of 750 yards. Her preferred, and incorrect, father was park keeper at Hardwick House rather than a blacksmith. The DNA cousin is descended from the Totton Elizabeth, my wife related to the Derbyshire one.

 

Would that not be passing on the same problem? As the Thruline would now add you to the list of trees recommending this path.

 

I have one instance of this and it drives me bonkers. Common Ancestor is listed as Christley Paul Vaught (1752-1830) and his wife Anna Elizabeth Phillippi (1764-1849), through their daughter Rosanna Fern Vaught (1795-1869).

According to the common ancestor tool, it says that Rosanna Fern Vaught married Adam Shaver (1789-1864), and had a daughter named Eliza who married Harvey Peery.

My ancestor Elizabeth Ann Bowser (1837-?) it says is the same as her daughter Eliza. I've gone through all 18 trees it says it used and dug into West Virginia research and Virginia research where this would have been and can find zero evidence of a connection, other than that Elizabeth Ann married William Edward Perry, which is a semi-close last name match.

I know we share DNA, that's accurate, but this common ancestor is very not right and there's no way to say to Ancestry, hey, you need to fix this. And I have a string of six matches with this same issue.

 

I have added Tricia's DNA cousin's relative to the offspring of Tricia's cousin "George Barton Hibbert", who is the false 'parent' as "Elizabeth Emma - Error Alert" - given her her correct date and place of birth and her baptism (with the record saved under source) and added a "Custom Event" that explains the error. Her true parents, and grandparents, are in my tree as extra parents under the Edit Relationships tag, but tree visitors can't, I think, see these. As I have not found a link between the two families I can't add them to Tricia's tree as real relatives. George's real daughter (Elizabeth, with no 'Emma'), can be traced through Tricia's tree to the 20th century. One 'problem' ? is that George is reputed to be the illegitimate son of one of the Dukes of Devonshire (no DNA evidence so far found) and some people like to attach their tree branches to the nobility if they can.

 

Yes, or famous people. My husband's 3rd great-grandmother was a Nelson, born in Ireland about 1787 and I have seen trees linking her to Lord Nelson. Others list her father as Reverend Nelson, he may have been William Nelson b.1731 but I really have no factual information regarding the family before they emigrated to Canada. The dates and places definitely rule out Lord Nelson but still some want to believe.

 

My 4G grandfather Thomas Adams (1777 - 1860) was born in London and died in Buckingham. An American NOT-descendant added him to their tree as Thomas Boylston Adams (1772 - 1832, Massachusetts), son of John Adams, 2nd president of the USA.
Grrr.

 

This is why I strongly believe that for those Ancestry trees where the owner profiles themselves as "advanced", Ancestry should add a button to "mark down" an incorrect link on the ThruLines page, and to request a re-evaluation by the algorithm.