Have thrulines changed?
 

My Dad's paternal lines do not seem to have many DNA matches on ThruLines but there was someone who has some of my ancestors in her tree showing up and making them private on my thrulines. Stupid as I could work out my own relatives. The system seems to have changed though as she no longer shows up on ThruLines but I can still find her private tree if I search for my relatives.

I was going to ask does this mean that ThruLines now only extrapolate from trees you actually have a DNA match with but a different line still extrapolates using a non-DNA match tree.

So has thrulines changed for anyone else or have you read anything? I'm curious to know why the first contact is no longer showing up in my thrulines.

I notice that Labs is " new and improved"
Last night they were apologising for problems, so perhaps there has been an update in the last 24 hours?

I'm not sure about Thrulines, but I did notice that they have fixed a problem with the beta profiles.

I only noticed beta profiles when I posted this last night. Does anyone have opinions on them?

One of my Thru'Lines matches has disappeared too. This was only the link to my Jones line and although the match only had a very small tree Thru'lines had decided that we had a common ancestor. I had traced it back and it looked OKish but as his name is Smyth and I'm researching Jones there could be a multitude of errors!


As to the new profiles - they now sometimes show the person's ethnicity which to me indicates that they've taken a DNA test but the sentence " *** is either not a DNA match or has not taken a DNA test" is still there :confused:

It could be that they manage a test that is a match to you rather than they are a match themselves. I check that with every manager but many of them are not related, which makes me think the husband or wife is the interested party but not the relative

I realise that people have more trees under their user name than their own - I know I do! I have several lines with no shared matches at all - I know that illegitimacy is an issue on one- and I've been looking at people (not matches) who show these ancestors on their trees in the hope that they may have had a test to help me work something out - quite what I'm not sure:d I suppose that if, according to my tree, we share a common ancestor and we're not showing as a match that there's possibly an error or another illegitimacy.... Hardly scientific but it's a start.

A new addition to Thrulines today (or at least, I haven't seen it before today) - "Filters" includes one for "Ancestors with new DNA matches", so you don't have to go through them all to see what's new.

Good, I wish on the all DNA Matches we could select more than one filter ie matches you haven't viewed and with publicly linked trees.

Also, now you can move your cursor across the ancestors shown in ThruLines and see how many DNA matches there are on that line, and the range of shared cM's, without having to actually click each one.