|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Thru Lines - new feature on ancestry
In Beta, and it looks as though it is going to replace DNA Circles. Seems to be closely related to the new shared ancestor hints that is part of the "Ancestry Lab" DNA upgrade which is also in beta. I have to go and eat now, so will try it out later.
__________________
KiteRunner Family History News updated 21st May Lancashire Non-conformist records new on Ancestry |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Initially it seemed there was just a load of my direct ancestors on the page, and I had to click on each one to see whether it had found any connections from that ancestor (which would take forever!) But then I found out that was only true if I filter by "All ancestors" or "Ancestors from your linked tree". If I choose "potential ancestors" instead, I get a lot of "private" and a few possible ancestors. But in all the cases which I've looked at so far, the DNA matches shown share a known ancestor with me, and then the "potential ancestor" is someone who they have in their tree as a parent of that known ancestor, which may or may not be correct.
So not much use in my opinion, but then DNA Circles weren't much use either, except that they could sometimes tell you that certain people who didn't come up as matches to you had actually had their DNA tested, whereas normally Ancestry doesn't let you know whether non-matches have tested or not.
__________________
KiteRunner Family History News updated 21st May Lancashire Non-conformist records new on Ancestry |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I found this when I looked at Ancestry this morning. Actually I found it quite useful.
We have some matches which we could not place within the family tree. The Thru lines show that one of them is the granddaughter of my 2nd cousin. He is linked to a family tree which I can see, but i noted that she is linked to a tree of 5 private people - today this has been upgraded to 25 people, although many are still private. So the Thru Lines are matching private (living people) if they share DNA. Some go down to matches as small as 7cm and one appears to be a descendant of a presumed (on my part) brother of my 3x great grandfather. Another one is descendant of my great grandfathers half sister, I am looking forward to having a further look at her tree! Until now, I have not looked at any matches below 25cms, unless they have an attached tree (and even then its rare to find a common name), so I have missed these very small matches. At this point, I am happy to think that I have reached a point where I am happy to say my mysterious 3xg grandfather Charles Tupper is a brother of James and William, with two descendants with whom we share DNA. For what I have been able to look at briefly, I cant see any one who might share DNA through my Brighton ancestors. Di |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I have found it useful for the same reasons as marquette but like everything on Ancestry you have to be cautious but what it does do is give you a clue and at least a starting point so you can check the connection.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
It's not working for me.
__________________
Toni |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I really don't see the point of it including all the ancestors where there are no connections so I have to click each one to find out. Or am I missing something?
__________________
KiteRunner Family History News updated 21st May Lancashire Non-conformist records new on Ancestry |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Someone has got my Quaker 5x-great-grandmother, born to Quaker parents, born in Whittlebury, Northants in 1754 (correct), then baptised in Chelmsford in 1736 and again in Derby in 1754. Her mother supposedly died in 1757 in Wellington, Salop, and she was baptised again in 1770 in Cheshire!!
I feel a headache coming on. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Do hope Ancestry is not doing this, and that I am wrong. Otherwise we may be looking at a virtual mountain of misinformation being generated, which is not going to help anyone at all, casual or professional researchers alike, I fear. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Trees uploaded or created through ancestry may or may not be accurate. Don't get me started on whether a 'professionally' created tree might or might not be more accurate than one worked on by a so-called amateur!!
I'm not sure what you mean by ancestry "relying" on people's tree research? Ancestry do not vet the trees they hold on their site and wouldn't know if a tree was 'professional' or otherwise. Individuals can choose to copy someone else's tree at their peril!
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Wow - then this means 'proceed with extreme caution' then
|
|
|