1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Some new members aren't following the advice on posting links - please read it!
  3. If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  4. Both the main LostCousins site and this forum have been upgraded to that you can log-in securely. If you are not automatically taken to the secure site simply add https:// at the beginning of the URL.
  5. Guest - have you tested your DNA with Ancestry? Do you have English or Welsh ancestors, and do you know which counties most of them came from? If so please take part in my project by completing the NEW spreadsheet and uploading the results
  6. Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join please register NOW!

AncestryDNA’s new BETA

Discussion in 'DNA Questions and Answers' started by jorghes, Feb 28, 2019.

  1. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    Updating your tree 2 days ago will have restarted the process, I believe.
     
  2. JudithB

    JudithB LostCousins Member

    I have heard back from Ancestry again and the problem may be that my tree is in my maiden name, whereas my DNA test was ‘registered’ in my married name, which I have now changed. They suggested if I am not connected to Thrulines within a week, to get back to them. Thanks Pauline and Peter for all your suggestions.
     
  3. Helen7

    Helen7 LostCousins Star

    This seems strange. My DNA test is in my married name but my tree is in my maiden name and I’ve never had any problem getting connected to ThruLines.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. jorghes

    jorghes LostCousins Member

    Found another interesting addition to ThruLines - and "evaluate" button on possible relatives, highlighting where the information has come from.

    I was just checking to see if I could correctly identify a relationship in a DNA note (which was generally broad from prior to ThruLines as the other user had a private tree), and it popped up (reasonably useless, since it gives all the links as "Private" beyond the sibling of my ancestor who they're suggesting the link is through).

    There are two sections - DNA linked trees and non DNA linked trees, presumably the DNA linked trees are considered more reliable?

    However, on each "private" individual is a green "evaluate" and clicking on it gives a list of trees etc where this link is found - although Private being the daughter of Private on 15 trees isn't going to help me evaluate that information! (It gave there examples of Private being the child of Private - the first on 1 tree, the second on 15 and the third on 23...)

    I'm now going to have a look to see if it's available in general ThruLines as I just accessed it through the Compare two individuals section. I can organise screenshots if needed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Helen7

    Helen7 LostCousins Star

    Yes, I noticed this the other day - like you I came across it when comparing individuals, but I have this in general ThruLines too. It's useful in providing a direct link to the trees where Ancestry has found the information.

    I find it puzzling that I rarely get anything in the DNA linked trees section, even where my DNA match has the relevant person clearly identified in their public tree.

    If you click on a Private tree in the list (either in the DNA linked or other members trees section), it shows you the name, date and place of birth of the relevant 'Private' person in their tree, which should help you to evaluate. The 'evaluate' button is shown for everyone who doesn't appear in your DNA-linked tree, so all those in public trees are directly named.

    Further innovations I find useful when clicking on someone in my DNA match list to compare trees: a) surnames that appear in both your tree and theirs are highlighted in green, and b) you can now display 7 generations of their tree by clicking on the 'expand tree' button (top right).
     
  6. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    But only if you have a subscription.
     
  7. jorghes

    jorghes LostCousins Member

    This isn’t related to the DNA betas, but for interest’s sake, there is now a beta for hints, which include reasons for why you accept/reject hints - not sure what this will do, but maybe improve their hints in general?
     
  8. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    I opted into this about a week ago, and am hoping it may improve the hints being offered. Mostly I've just used the tick boxes for feedback - wrong date, place etc, or already have this information - but sometimes I use the comment box instead or as well.

    One type of hint I find annoying is, for example, a baptism from FamilySearch of a supposed child of the person concerned - all you get is the names, with no date or place, and no image to check for further detail. For these hints I've added the comment that there is insufficient information in the record to know if it's relevant or not.

    And once or twice I've added the comment 'completely ludicrous'. I used that when the hint offered was a baptism almost 100 years after the person died.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    I've been looking at this, and have found that sometimes there seems to be less information available now than previously. One of my alleged potential ancestors - supposedly father of my ancestor Elizabeth Jones - is clearly wrong, but whereas previously I could see whose tree the supposed father came from and view him there, now when I click on Evaluate it comes up telling me that none of my matches' trees, nor any other members' trees, show him as father of my Elizabeth Jones.

    So how and why is that person still showing as a potential ancestor? The information must be coming from somewhere, surely? :confused:
     
  10. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    Is it possible they used a mixture of public and private trees, so can't show you the information?
     
  11. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    I don’t think so - with a private tree you usually get something like ‘Private’ with parents ‘Private’ and ‘Private’.

    Edit: And it’s listed as a private tree.
     
  12. Helen7

    Helen7 LostCousins Star

    Yes, I have found exactly the same with several of my 'potential ancestors' - very annoying. However, in one case, when I clicked on their spouse (another 'potential ancestor'), the evaluate button listed several members' public trees with information about the couple. So I can see the husband's name and details through looking at the details for his wife.
     
  13. Helen7

    Helen7 LostCousins Star

    But even for a private tree, you can see the name and birth year of deceased persons if you click on the link. And also how many records, sources and photos are attached to this person in the private tree (and how many people in total are in the private tree). I agree, living people still correctly appear as Private.
     
  14. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    That didn't work with my alleged potential Jones ancestor, unfortunately, but the wife had a fairly unusual name, so I was able to find the couple by doing a search in public member trees. The couple did have a daughter Elizabeth Jones, but she clearly wasn't my Elizabeth - not least because their Elizabeth died in America in 1775, whereas mine was still having children in England for several years after that.
     
  15. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    Yes, you are quite right. I think the person I'd just looked at must have been incorrectly marked as living, even though they clearly couldn't be. So even after clicking on the link they were still showing only as 'Private'.
     
  16. JudithB

    JudithB LostCousins Member

    Thank you to all who have helped with suggestions on why I could not connect to Thrulines. With your help, I am now connected and my next ‘job’ is to explore how to use it, following information I have read above. Thanks again.
     
  17. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    That's good. I wonder if part of the delay in getting connected was due to ThruLines moving out of the beta testing phase at the start of this month.
     
  18. canadianbeth

    canadianbeth LostCousins Member

    It is possible to mark a possible ancestor as incorrect on ThruLines? My 4th great-grandfather on my Dad's side is another "unknown". My 4th great-grandmother did marry later when James was six - a John Hall Grinham - and his father is incorrectly listed as my 5th great-grandfather. Just as the Joyce line continues through my Joyce grandmother, with my grandfather being unknown, it continues through my 4x great-grandmother, who was also a Joyce. She had six more children (one also named James) with Grinham but I have so far only traced one further; she married a man named Keen and had five children. I have not gone any further with them yet. When I clicked on evaluate I saw some family trees listed but the first few did not mention my actual great-grandfather at all.

    There a lot of other potential ancestors listed in later generations, most of which I know are correct, but if they are listed in my tree, why would they say "potential"?
     
  19. jorghes

    jorghes LostCousins Member

    I don’t think you can mark them as incorrect. As for those who are already in your tree and marked potential, I’m not completely sure, but some times when there are different spellings and dates, Ancestry can think they are two different people.

    I went and had a look at one of my “potential” ancestors and noticed another addition - not only were there links to member family trees, but also two “relationship documents”, which detailed two records in this case from Ancestry’s database of Scottish births and Baptisms, both of which would most likely render this particular potential ancestor as an actual ancestor.
     
  20. Bob Spiers

    Bob Spiers LostCousins Star

    I think the question mark at the end confirms your were asking if it is possible to mark a (potential) ancestor as incorrect, rather than -as shown - a statement that 'it is possible'. I do not believe it is possible and I see jorghes agrees.
     

Share This Page