AncestryDNA’s new BETA

[canadianbeth]

My laptop has a numeric keypad but it is on the right-hand side. If I ever get another I will look for one with the keypad on the left. It took me some time to get used to it since I also grew up with typewriters. I am left-handed so my mouse is (usually) on the left side. I say usually because I had left shoulder surgery in March and had to move the mouse to the right side temporarily.

 

[peter]

My laptop has a numeric keypad but it is on the right-hand side. If I ever get another I will look for one with the keypad on the left. It took me some time to get used to it since I also grew up with typewriters. I am left-handed so my mouse is (usually) on the left side. I say usually because I had left shoulder surgery in March and had to move the mouse to the right side temporarily.

I'm left-handed too, but I've always used my right-hand to control the mouse, leaving my left-hand free for the keyboard. In the mid 1980s the mouse port was on the right-hand side of the computers I used and I'm not sure the cable would have reached around to the left-hand side anyway.

I've never seen a laptop with the numeric pad on the left, but you can get free-standing keyboards that are configured for left-handers, as well as separate numeric keypads. If use a keyboard with a numeric keypad I tend to switch between the two sets of number keys freely - I'd like to think that I do this because it's more efficient, but it's probably more about enlivening an otherwise boring task.

 

[canadianbeth]

I do not like the mousepad that is part of the laptop so have a separate wireless one. I also have a separate keyboard on a pull-out shelf below the actual laptop. I find myself using them interchangeably, although to do any typing I use the separate one since I like the layout of the keys better.

 

[PhilGee]

Ancestry already has a "mechanism" for identifying direct ancestors, but they only apply it to DNA linked trees. All that's needed is to apply it to any tree where a "root person" is defined.

Phil

 

[peter]

I do not like the mousepad that is part of the laptop so have a separate wireless one. I also have a separate keyboard on a pull-out shelf below the actual laptop. I find myself using them interchangeably, although to do any typing I use the separate one since I like the layout of the keys better.

I never use a mousepad if I can possibly avoid it - even when I'm on a plane I have a wireless mouse with me. I sometimes use a separate keyboard - it depends where I'm working. If I'm at a computer desk I put the laptop up on the monitor shelf, as this is better for my posture, and this means using an external keyboard. (My laptop is a convertible, so I can twist the keyboard upside down and use it as a stand for the screen.)

 

[peter]

Ancestry already has a "mechanism" for identifying direct ancestors, but they only apply it to DNA linked trees. All that's needed is to apply it to any tree where a "root person" is defined.

How do they identify them? I've looked at hundreds of DNA linked trees but haven't noticed anything.

 

[jorghes]

I think a symbol system would be a good idea - except if it was hardwired into the "home" person system.

Ancestry/FTM (one of the two) keeps randomly changing my home person without warning. I only discover they've done it again when I want to get back to myself on the tree and hit the "Home" button!

 

[Helen7]

Ancestry/FTM (one of the two) keeps randomly changing my home person without warning.

The other day, I found Ancestry had bizarrely changed my home person to my 2x g-grandmother! It was definitely Ancestry not FTM as I hadn't synced for a few days. I've also noticed recently when looking at a few other people's DNA-linked trees that their home person is some random 19th century ancestor, maybe due to the same problem.

 

[Pauline]

How do they identify them? I've looked at hundreds of DNA linked trees but haven't noticed anything.

Isn't it just a case of how you are viewing the tree? If I look at the preview tree attached to a DNA match, then I only see their ancestors anyway, so no further identification is needed. Likewise, if I click the link to view the full tree then I also see a tree showing only actual ancestors, with the DNA match shown in the "home" position.

If I click "family view" for the tree, or select to view an individual in the tree, then I agree there is normally nothing to show who is an ancestor and who is not.

 

[Helen7]

if I click the link to view the full tree then I also see a tree showing only actual ancestors, with the DNA match shown in the "home" position.

On clicking through from the preview tree to 'view full tree' I have occasionally found a 19th century ancestor as the 'home person' rather than the DNA match. I originally thought this was deliberate by the tree owner to focus on a particular area of their ancestry, but having experienced (like jorghes) Ancestry changing my home person to a random ancestor, now I'm not so sure.

 

[Helen7]

Does anyone find the MyTreeTags beta useful? I enabled this but then noticed a weird effect when navigating other trees which I have found quite offputting so I have disabled it.

My issue lies with the 'Home Person' link in the new 'Tree Search' menu (which replaces the 'Find Person' menu). This link appears the same with MyTreeTags disabled (left, below) or enabled (right, below), but has very different effects when clicked when viewing other people's trees.


Looking at a (public) tree of a DNA contact, if I use the 'tree search' to find a person, that works fine, but if I then press the Home Person button, it does not return to the home person but goes to a screen 'Select a Home Person for this family tree' (bizarre, as it's not my tree!) and on going back or cancelling, the tree stays on the previously selected relative (though I can return to the home person by clicking the home icon on the left side of the screen). This does not happen with MyTreeTags disabled - nor when viewing my own trees - where the navigation behaviour is normal.

I have tried this several times over the past few weeks (and on different browsers) and get the same effect, so it's not a 'one-off'. I wonder if anyone else has found the same problem?

EDIT: It just occurred to me, I wonder if that is why my home person changed in my DNA-linked tree, if someone else viewing it changed my home person by mistake? I wouldn't change anyone else's home person, but it certainly seems possible - on the 'Select a Home Person for this family tree' screen, you get offered a list of the people in their tree with selection buttons!

 

[peter]

Isn't it just a case of how you are viewing the tree? If I look at the preview tree attached to a DNA match, then I only see their ancestors anyway, so no further identification is needed.

But the preview tree now only shows 5 generations, and in most cases the surname of interest doesn't appear in those 5 generations.

And it's not just about DNA matches - when I'm trying to knock down 'brick walls' I'm looking at the trees of people who aren't DNA matches. I don't know whether they're not matches because they haven't tested, because the relationship is too distant. because they're not related, or simply because the home person isn't descended from the person I suspect is my ancestor. It would save me a lot of time if I could eliminate that last possibility.

 

[Pauline]

But the preview tree now only shows 5 generations, and in most cases the surname of interest doesn't appear in those 5 generations.

You get to see all generations of ancestors when you click to view the full tree.

 

[PhilGee]

How do they identify them? I've looked at hundreds of DNA linked trees but haven't noticed anything.

Bit rushed last night - should have included "your" before DNA but the basics are there already and the tree being viewed is either public or you have been given access so should not be a privacy issue. If necessary, it could be a "tick box" with the public option or additional to the public/private/private searchable tree selection.

It would have little effect on DNA test usage as I think most would welcome it as an addition alongside "thrulines" (which already can show these relatives) and the "ethnicity" participants usually have a very small number of "living" people with no data

I consider the root person to be the logical choice as the base - it is (normally) the starting point for the research by the tree owner. The question then arises that who should be the root of a tree which does not contain the owner?

I have a tree for the Allen family of my 3gt-gm, Harriett Allen (1809-1861), and to my mind she should be the "root" as she is my closest "Allen" relation in that tree. However, that tree is private/searchable.

 

[peter]

You get to see all generations of ancestors when you click to view the full tree.

But you don't! Ancestry still only show 5 generations - you have to tediously click the arrows one by one to see earlier generations.

 

[peter]

PhilGee, I think we're talking at cross purposes - when you said that Ancestry already identify direct ancestors I assumed you meant that they added some identifying markers.

It would certainly be easier if Ancestry were to modify their system, but there is no guarantee it will happen during our lifetimes. The neat thing about the 'suffix solution' that my distant cousin employed is that it is totally user-driven. All that's needed is for users to agree the protocol.

 

[PhilGee]

PhilGee, I think we're talking at cross purposes - when you said that Ancestry already identify direct ancestors I assumed you meant that they added some identifying markers.

It would certainly be easier if Ancestry were to modify their system, but there is no guarantee it will happen during our lifetimes. The neat thing about the 'suffix solution' that my distant cousin employed is that it is totally user-driven. All that's needed is for users to agree the protocol.

Does that mean you do not see markers on your DNA associated tree?

 

[peter]

Does that mean you do not see markers on your DNA associated tree?

The image you pasted is rather small, but the blue marker looks to me like the ThruLines icon.

 

[Helen7]

Does that mean you do not see markers on your DNA associated tree?

I believe the blue ThruLines icon only appears when viewing your own DNA-linked tree. I think Peter was referring to a marker that could be seen by other people.

 

[PhilGee]

peter, Helen7 Whilst that is its current function, it actually identifies direct ancestors, whether or not there are any associated "Thrulines" links shown. For my 5gt-grandparents (below) Thrulines is just direct ancestors between them and me. What I need to do is remove another tree of mine which is just the Sargent family (which starts from their son) and see if that has any effect on the display.