AncestryDNA’s new BETA

[Pauline]

I had already been in contact - or tried to be in contact - with the tree owners concerned.

One thing about ThruLines is that things keep changing and you need to keep checking back. Another of my ancestors has now been replaced (somewhat annoyingly as it's consequently wiped out a whole line of ancestors) and this time I can't tell from the private tree owner's username if it's someone I've already been in touch with or not. Anyway, I've sent a message and we'll see what happens.

On this, I'm aware that not all the trees used by ThruLines are those of DNA testers so I was a bit unsure how best to explain why I was contacting the person concerned. Has anyone come up with a good (and concise) solution to this?

 

[PhoebeW]

I wonder if some of us are just seeing more “errors” than others. I don’t mean differences in the trees of our cousins but seeing our ancestors in the trees of people who aren’t really related, or just false links caused by the ThruLines algorithm. Most of the names in my tree are very common forenames and surnames so it isn’t really surprising that John Jones and Mary Williams are causing difficulties for north American researchers.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Is anyone else finding ThruLines unavailable by substitution of a 'Grow your family tree' notice which begins..'Try adding more people to your family tree." After several days of having ThruLines available? I am getting this message for both my DNA linked Trees. But in all other respects I am able to access Ancestry and have had no problems in this respect.

 

[jorghes]

Is anyone else finding ThruLines unavailable by substitution of a 'Grow your family tree' notice which begins..'Try adding more people to your family tree." After several days of having ThruLines available? I am getting this message for both my DNA linked Trees. But in all other respects I am able to access Ancestry and have had no problems in this respect.

I am still able to access it - but mine is now delineated by subheadings, which makes it a lot easier to read!

 

[Bob Spiers]

Despite clearing all Ancestry caches, and having to sign in anew, ThruLine still not available as it was before, nor is Advanced DNA Matches Beta. My opening DNA page has defaulted to its old state - DNA Story/DNA Matches. Except Circles no longer shows being replaced by an advert for DNA ThruLine Beta and telling me to grow my Tree, as if it wasn't big enough already. I have emailed Ancestry and await to hear what they have to say.

 

[Pauline]

mine is now delineated by subheadings, which makes it a lot easier to read!

They've also made some improvements to the navigation, which you raised in #36.

 

[KC4]

Roberta Estes has written a long, personal, evaluative account view of "Thrulines" entitled:
"Ancestry’s ThruLines Dissected: How to Use and Not Get Bit by the ‘Gators"
..............which ends with 14 "ThruLines Recommendations"
It may make interesting reading for those who have, or have had, any sight of Thrulines.
[Search engine: Roberta Estes: "DNAeXplained - Genetic Genealogy"]

 

[Helen7]

Roberta Estes has written a long, personal, evaluative account view of "Thrulines" entitled:
"Ancestry’s ThruLines Dissected: How to Use and Not Get Bit by the ‘Gators"
..............which ends with 14 "ThruLines Recommendations"
It may make interesting reading for those who have, or have had, any sight of Thrulines.
[Search engine: Roberta Estes: "DNAeXplained - Genetic Genealogy"]

Thanks for pointing out this interesting article. Those of us on this forum who have tried ThruLines are hopefully aware of the pitfalls mentioned, and have probably come across examples of most if not all of the 7 categories (Groups 1-7) described and illustrated there. Group 7 - Inaccurate Potential Ancestors - has been a particular bone of contention here.

I think it is really a case of sorting out the useful information that ThruLines can provide whilst being aware of its limitations.

 

[Helen7]

I am still able to access it - but mine is now delineated by subheadings, which makes it a lot easier to read!

The subheadings are also useful in enabling you to easily see if ancestors are missing.

I now find that two of my 2x great-grandparents are missing, and all their ancestors have also disappeared. These are all in my tree back to 4x g-grandparents on all lines and 5x g-grandparents on most lines, so I've 'lost' 24 ancestors from the ThruLines page that were previously there. It's not that they've been replaced by 'potential ancestors' from other trees - they've just disappeared!

Not surprisingly, the DNA matches found through these ancestors have also disappeared from my 'common ancestors' list.

 

[peter]

Yes, I get that, but where my ancestors have been replaced by someone from another person's tree, I had already been in contact - or tried to be in contact - with the tree owners concerned.

That's probably where the difference is - in the past I haven't spent much time looking at trees with obvious errors.

But even trees with errors can have hidden gems. One I looked at yesterday had a different marriage for my great-great grandmother's youngest sister. I knew the marriage I had was right, because her brother-in-law (my great-great grandfather) was a witness and the address both parties gave was his address. So the second marriage must have been someone else with same name.... or so I thought.

When she remarried 9 years later, to a different sailor, she used her maiden name and claimed to be a spinster. My first thought was that she had been divorced by her first husband, but no. So I reckon he went off to sea, she didn't see him again, and she felt she was entitled to ignore that first marriage.

 

[Pauline]

I now find that two of my 2x great-grandparents are missing

Yes, some of my ancestors have likewise simply gone missing, along with all earlier generations and all the ThruLines that were there for all of them. I have no idea why.

 

[peter]

I now find that two of my 2x great-grandparents are missing, and all their ancestors have also disappeared. These are all in my tree back to 4x g-grandparents on all lines and 5x g-grandparents on most lines, so I've 'lost' 24 ancestors from the ThruLines page that were previously there. It's not that they've been replaced by 'potential ancestors' from other trees - they've just disappeared!

Have you uploaded a new version of your tree? As I recall Ancestry say it takes a few days for ThruLines to appear.

 

[Helen7]

Have you uploaded a new version of your tree? As I recall Ancestry say it takes a few days for ThruLines to appear.

No, it's the same tree as I've had linked to my DNA results for several months (public direct ancestors tree). It also shows me siblings of the direct ancestors from my private tree.

 

[PhoebeW]

No, it's the same tree as I've had linked to my DNA results for several months (public direct ancestors tree). It also shows me siblings of the direct ancestors from my private tree.

Another pair of my ancestors disappeared from ThruLines the other day - that’s sixteen individuals now including six duplicates from pedigree collapse.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Have you uploaded a new version of your tree? As I recall Ancestry say it takes a few days for ThruLines to appear.

I can endorse that because today I have ThruLines back as before (plus sub headings) and yes, I did change the DNA linkage from a cut down to a full Tree. For the record the few days was of the order of about 4.

 

[Pauline]

For the record the few days was of the order of about 4.

That's useful to know. Two of my replacement ancestors are shown in solid outline boxes in ThruLines because they are already in my tree as 'other spouses' (ie married to ancestors but not themselves ancestors). Yesterday I tried detaching one of these in my tree from the ancestor she married to see if the correct wife will then show in ThruLines, and was wondering just how long I should allow for any change to show.

 

[Pauline]

That's probably where the difference is - in the past I haven't spent much time looking at trees with obvious errors.

I don't specifically go looking for tree with errors, but I fairly regularly do searches in public and private trees to see who else might have my ancestors in their tree - and often find trees with errors in the process.

I guess I want to be able to use ThruLines to do what it's there for - show "how you may be connected to a particular DNA match". I can't do that with ancestors who've been replaced or are simply missing.

 

[peter]

I guess I want to be able to use ThruLines to do what it's there for - show "how you may be connected to a particular DNA match". I can't do that with ancestors who've been replaced or are simply missing.

But what about the ancestors who haven't been replaced, and aren't missing?

 

[Helen7]

yes, I did change the DNA linkage from a cut down to a full Tree.

I would be interested to know if this gives you any more connections via ThruLines.

One thing I've noticed about ThruLines, and found useful is the following: Obviously it uses my ancestors from my linked public 'direct ancestors+spouses' tree where possible. But where a person is descended from a sibling of my ancestor (the sibling not being in my linked tree), ThruLines fills in this information from my (much more extensive) private tree to make the connection to my cousins. I can also see relatives from other private trees where the tree owner has given me access.

I don't know if anyone else has a similar experience, but it works for me. If I changed my linked tree back to my fuller private tree, I can't see how I would get any more information from ThruLines (and don't fancy the annoying 3-4 day wait before I could see ThruLines again!).

At present, my missing pair of 2x great grandparents is the most frustrating, as they are from one of the most developed branches of my tree from which I have identified quite a few DNA matches. I have checked this couple are in my linked tree (along with all their ancestors), that there is nothing wrong with the entries and I haven't changed them recently, so, like Pauline, I've no idea why they have suddenly been omitted.

 

[Pauline]

But what about the ancestors who haven't been replaced, and aren't missing?

I can use ThruLines for them as is intended, though not all will show links to DNA matches.