#11
|
||||
|
||||
I think I must scare some people rigid, when I say, okay, you have no online tree, but I reckon you are... (Come to think of it, they are usually the people who don't reply)
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
I feel it would be too scary to do that, Phoenix, so I try to send a more generic message even if I have figured out their tree.
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Lol, I hope I don't come across quite so bluntly, but the absence of a tree doesn't necessarily mean you can't pinpoint them.
I do think it's scary, which is probably why there are a lot of seasoned researchers on Ancestry with no trees up.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
I say you have X in your tree if it is easy to see that person and have had a reasonable success rate with that. It helps if I can provide a bit of information they don't appear to have. I've had no luck with matches that have no trees though.
You would scare me Phoenix, knowing the relationship when there is no tree.
__________________
Toni |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Well I just spent an hour disproving a ThruLines suggestion and also a DNA matches private tree only to discover when I went to write notes on my offline tree that I have already disproved this suggestion years ago.
I still can't work out how a different match that also seems to link in to what I disproved is related.
__________________
Toni |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you look at the Thrulines, it tells you whose tree the information is taken from - on one match, my tree shows for my daughter's line, but there are at least 3 other trees linking to the supposed DNA match. I guess that means checking each of the trees which provide one or two generations and make sure they do fit together. There appears to be no way to tell Ancestry that their ThruLines suggestion are wrong, which will be a bit annoying as we check off their suggestions. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
I was wondering if we could tell ancestry they are wrong.
I think the link is through the woman I think is my relative, not the woman ancestry is suggesting is my relative. The problem is while I can disprove the other woman I can't work out where my relative came from. She arrived on earth in time to marry, had 3 children and then returned to wherever she came from. I don't know why but they are not suggesting a link for her husband. Inconveniently there are 3 men of the same name, who marry within a few years of each other, to a woman with the same first name and 2 of the men, at least, have the same occupation.
__________________
Toni |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
f you are click on it and fill in the survey it is only short but there are boxes where you can write stuff and I have used this to make suggestions, I have now filled in about 5 , whether they take any notice of it is another matter. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
I am getting the feedback option and yes I have given some. I have to admit I saw it on one screen and thought they wont care if this match is wrong. I should have been thinking to tell them they need an ignore button in general.
__________________
Toni |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I gave feedback when my 2x great-grandfather disappeared from Thrulines (not from my tree) and a suggested impostor appeared. He had disappeared from a cousin's Thrulines too though she didn't get the suggestion of another person, He returned after 2 days. Now another ancestor has gone awol today from Thrulines
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|