#11
|
||||
|
||||
I've been rather upset I don't have any thrulines since I heard about them. However having had a look at a few online trees today I'm never going to get any. The ancestry trees are just so wrong but also so easily checkable. People don't care if they have the right tree or not and are happy to blindly follow what is already online. I've spent the last hour or so rechecking some of my own work as all the wrong trees had me doubting myself.
It would be nice if Dad's first cousin once removed showed up in the thrulines though. I know his tree is correct.
__________________
Toni |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
BM has a well-contructed tree, and no Thru Lines.
The only reason I can see for this is that I refuse to name her parents on her tree. It is, after all, not MY tree, and she has living decendants who may have qualms. Those of you for whom Thru lines are working, have you named every ancestor? I can see that where twenty researchers have all made the same mistake, and all other descent has died out, Thru lines might not be true lines.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Hi Toni
Yes, if there is a mistake in a tree, there will not be any ThruLines. Can you ask your Dads cousin to do a DNA test? At least then you could if there are any who ARE related but just a have the tree a bit wrong? OH's has no DNA matches with a lady who insists that HER Bennett is the same as HIS, and for a long while I went along with her. Now I have proved that the fathers were different on a marriage certificate. That family has asked about DNA results, but I know there won't be any matches, at least not at the level they expect. May be she will get the message via DNA. Another of OH's matches has stepson linked to the family as the primary ancestor, but its actually his wife, who was a niece of his stepfather - the DNA link is true but the tree is back-to-front. OH's DNA matches seem to have the most problems with their family trees - does this mean my family is more straightforward, or just better researchers? Di |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Since the new features have been added on Ancestry I can't seem to order my results by location. For example, I click on South-East England, but just seem to get all my matches. It's really annoying because I have relatively few matches for southern England, where most of my ancestral lines were from.
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you click on a private individual who is deceased, you will be able to see their name and date of birth, but not for anyone living. Depends on how keen a researcher you are if you want to investigate the deceased further. My daughter shows up just as RC in anyone else's ThruLines, as she has done a DNA test, but no details will be available. As I haven't, I just show up as private no details. This also happens with my second cousin and his grand-daughter (who have had DNA tests) who are listed on ThruLines but only by their "nickname", but her mother does not. No other details are available for them. If there is a mistake in the family trees, then no ThruLines will be indicated, because they will only match a DNA test with a family tree. If the DNA tested has no link to a tree, there is no ThruLine. To make a ThruLine to someone that a tree believes has no descendants, I think at least one tree (probably the DNA subject) needs to make the link. My dad and daughter have dozens of DNA matches who dont show up in ThruLines as they have no family trees, public or private, attached or unattached. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Just be grateful your side is easier to research or your relatives research better. I made a comment to OH that his mum must have gotten her brains from her maternal side as the researchers on the paternal side weren't very bright. Although there is no DNA testing there, there is always hope they aren't actually related. Quote:
__________________
Toni |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I bet that is the reason. Ancestry say " a well-constructed tree for three or four generations" - ie the bit that is the most difficult for them. Because some people are naive enough to use their real names or include their year of birth in their user names, I've been able to work out some relationships without any online tree at all.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
I have 3-4 generations just not the closest 3-4 generations to Dad. It may not be as well constructed as they like as I have year of births, not exact dates but it is enough to get matches as tree hints for my online tree with others who have that person in their tree.
I'll wait until Tuesday to see if ancestry get back to me about my lack of matches and then I might add year of birth to my grandparents and see what happens. Anyone who wanted to work it out could anyway as their names appear in the BMD indexes.
__________________
Toni |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I did read the more details section again and it says it needs 3-4 generations of information which my tree has. It does not have my Dad nor grandparents and only one tree names my grandma but without any other information. Could someone please answer this question? Saves me wondering.
__________________
Toni |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
I have named all as far back as I have the info and I have some Thru Lines.
|
|
|