Common ancestor match at 4xGGP on Ancestry

[HelenMW]

Hi I have only recently tested my DNA with Ancestry. I had received the test as a Christmas present last year, but had wanted to follow Peter's DNA masterclass, and had been busy researching and recording all descendants of my 3 x GGP to my GP level so that when I did come to test my DNA I would have a lot more information to work with. I mostly got there, but still have a couple of families to research, but was itching to finally test, so went ahead and did so.
So I'm very new to looking at DNA so please forgive me if this is a silly question.
I have a potential 4 x GGF that is recorded on other trees but as yet I haven't found definitive proof with evidence that he is correct, and so hadn't recorded him.
However when I look at Thrulines on Ancestry and this particular person in my (some as potential) 4 x GGP list, and have a DNA match with someone who apparently is only linked at this level (I of course have several others that are linked with more recent relatives down that branch), does this confirm that he is in fact my 4 x GGF and I can use that as evidence, or do I need to do more research and not accept this as fact?
I've attached a screenshot if that helps explain what I'm saying.
And how much research would you then do back down this line to the potential DNA match, as it could be relying on incorrect trees to get there?
Thanks in advance, Helen

 

[Susan48]

Welcome to the forum, Helen.
I would certainly investigate the direct ancestors of the match with your potential 4 x GGF to see if it can be proved that her ancestor JL b. 1775 is the brother of your 3 x GGF TSL b. 1790. The surnames are different but close enough to be possible variants.
If you add this potential 4 x GGF to your Ancestry tree that's linked to your DNA results and then wait a few days for Thrulines to catch up, you might find some other DNA matches with the same common ancestor which could help confirm whether he is the right candidate.

 

[Helen7]

Yes, welcome to the forum, Helen, and your question is not a silly one. Basically ThruLines are just hints based on other people's trees, so I agree with Susan, you would need to check through the ancestors of the match (via BMD records etc.) to see if the link is borne out by the evidence.

 

[Tim]

Hi Helen,
Unfortunately Thrulines are based on trees and Ancestry's algorithms. I have many instances in my tree where they show a similar relationship and when you press the evaluate button and/or research that branch, they are not even remotely connected. I even have one where they say the match is on my paternal side but Thrulines is showing me a path through my mother's ancestors.

All that you do know is that you are a DNA match, but it could be any of your ancestors. Do you share any matches with this connection? Any shared family names?

 

[HelenMW]

Thanks all for your helpful replies, lots to think about and to follow up. Sounds like I should definitely follow it as a good lead, but not trust it completely.

 

[peter]

Sounds like I should definitely follow it as a good lead, but not trust it completely.

Always follow-up a hint that might enable you to knock down a 'brick wall' but only trust the evidence, and even then only after critically evaluating it. For example, the fact that there is a baptism doesn't mean it's the right baptism.

Having tested your DNA you are in a better position to verify hypotheses, but without that verification this hint is no more meaningful than it as before you tested. All Ancestry have done is pull together information from other people's trees in order to save you the trouble of doing it yourself, but it doesn't make the trees more credible.

 

[John Dancy]

the fact that there is a baptism doesn't mean it's the right baptism.

Always a good idea to check the parish burials for the next few years - Have just had to inform a lady with a large tree that one of her relatives had died in the same parish as their baptism aged 4, rather than get married 15 miles away twenty years later (there is a matching baptism in the marriage parish for the right person) All the related Ancestry trees seem to have used/copied the information.

 

[peter]

Always a good idea to check the parish burials for the next few years - Have just had to inform a lady with a large tree that one of her relatives had died in the same parish as their baptism aged 4, rather than get married 15 miles away twenty years later (there is a matching baptism in the marriage parish for the right person).

Whilst you could check the parish burials as a separate exercise, I prefer a more comprehensive approach, which is to find all of the children baptised to the same couple, whether or not they were baptised in the same parish, and search for their marriages and burials.

All the related Ancestry trees seem to have used/copied the information.

As you would expect. Just another reason why the number of sources attached to a record is not a reliable guide to its accuracy.

Hopefully you have added helpful comments to the other trees.

 

[John Dancy]

I prefer a more comprehensive approach, which is to find all of the children baptised to the same couple, whether or not they were baptised in the same parish, and search for their marriages and burials."

"Hopefully you have added helpful comments to the other trees".

Peter, absolutely, the comprehensive approach is painstaking but the only way. My comment was only a snapshot of what I actually do to verify the offspring. If the individual has an entry in the Geneanet Community Trees index I will add a comment with the correct source information. Here I contacted the lady who had the most research on the family (no response as yet) but I have a long list of unanswered, and some answered, Ancestry messages where subsequent visits to their trees has shown they have completely ignored the information I have passed on.

 

[peter]

I have a long list of unanswered, and some answered, Ancestry messages where subsequent visits to their trees has shown they have completely ignored the information I have passed on.

That's why I suggest posting comments on the tree rather than messaging the tree owner. The chance of the tree owner responding and/or acting is quite low, judging from the numerous complaints I've read on this forum and elsewhere over the years, so why trust them to make the change?

Hardly anyone posts comments on other people's Ancestry trees even though it's the most powerful tool we have to combat misleading and inaccurate information in public trees. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a comment that I hadn't posted myself. Those who don't post comments when they find errors are helping to perpetuate them.

Of course, we're not restricted to posting comments only when there are errors - we can also add helpful information that's missing.

 

[Pauline]

I regularly add comments to Ancestry trees, and every now and then, someone responds or makes changes. Otherwise the comment remains there for other researchers to see when viewing the tree. Tree owners cannot remove comments from others except by deleting and re-entering the person concerned. Sometimes tree owners get an Ancestry notification if someone adds a comment but mostly, it seems, they don’t.

 

[IanL]

Sometimes tree owners get an Ancestry notification if someone adds a comment but mostly, it seems, they don’t.

While I do add comments to trees, if someone takes issue with my tree then I want to know why, and as quickly as possible, so that I don't waste time researching someone else's family. A comment in a tree might go unnoticed. For that reason I prefer messaging and I try to respond to anything that's sent to me.

This paid dividends for me only recently. About 6 months ago I was contacted by someone asking me to remove one of my wife's 5xGreat Grandfathers from her tree as the name I had included was perpetuating 200 year-old family misinformation. However, the official records I had found seemed to support the name I had used, as far as my schoolboy French allowed me to understand them. The person who contacted me had written a book about the French side of the family and, having bought it, I now have lots of information which even a paid researcher might not have found. The book only arrived yesterday and, having glanced through the relevant chapter, the jury is still out on the identity of my wife's 5xGreat Grandfather.

 

[peter]

While I do add comments to trees, if someone takes issue with my tree then I want to know why, and as quickly as possible, so that I don't waste time researching someone else's family. A comment in a tree might go unnoticed. For that reason I prefer messaging and I try to respond to anything that's sent to me.

The primary reason I post comments in other peoples' trees is not to inform the tree owners, but to warn anyone who might otherwise believe what is shown in the tree. misinformation is not a problem in itself - everyone makes mistakes - it's the way it propagates. Entrants in this year's competition will have an opportunity to attend a seminar on misinformation led by Dave Annal, formerly of The National Archives, now a professional genealogist.

 

[Sue_3]

Oh, this is a very useful discussion - I hadn't realised that I could add comments to other people's Ancestry trees! If there is a comment, does it show up when someone else views the tree, or do they have to specifically look for comments?

 

[Pauline]

Oh, this is a very useful discussion - I hadn't realised that I could add comments to other people's Ancestry trees! If there is a comment, does it show up when someone else views the tree, or do they have to specifically look for comments?

In the horizontal tree view you will see a symbol in a red oval to the top right of any person who has had a comment added, and when you look at the profile page of that person, the same little symbol with a number in it appears under the name and brief details at the top of the page. If you click on that, a side panel opens on the right and you can read the comment. Or you can click on the Tools drop-down in the top right, and then View comments.

So to that extent you have to go and look for the comment, but you can see straight away if there is one.

 

[Sue_3]

Thanks, I'll have to have a play around with some of my own trees (at least one of which is also on another account that I manage) to see what it looks like. I have a lot of useful information that I put as notes into Family Historian, and there the information is clearly displayed next to the person it relates to. When I export my trees to Ancestry, however, it isn't readily apparent that the notes are there. It sounds as though comments might stand out more?

 

[peter]

When I export my trees to Ancestry, however, it isn't readily apparent that the notes are there.

Comments are better than Notes because:

Notes can only be viewed by the owner and by those invited to the tree as an “editor”.

 

[Sue_3]

Comments are better than Notes because:

Notes can only be viewed by the owner and by those invited to the tree as an “editor”.

That explains a great deal! I don't know of a way to put comments into Family Historian and thence a Gedcom though? It's not a big deal because all my trees are private anyway, but I invite relatives to view them and thought they'd be able to find the notes, and now I know why they don't. I guess I'll need to convert important notes into comments manually?

 

[peter]

That explains a great deal! I don't know of a way to put comments into Family Historian and thence a Gedcom though? It's not a big deal because all my trees are private anyway, but I invite relatives to view them and thought they'd be able to find the notes, and now I know why they don't. I guess I'll need to convert important notes into comments manually?

You could make them editors.....

 

[Sue_3]

You could make them editors.....

I could, I suppose? Would Ancestry tell me if they changed anything, though? I can't see anything about this in the Ancestry 'help'.