Generating Common Ancestors

[John Dancy]

Possibly an anomaly ? but I currently have a "Common Ancestors" link with a person with No Trees. Or has Ancestry started using the information we now get with Pro-Tools.
The link was invalid by the second generation from the CAs when they had assumed a Mary Ann was a Mary who had died aged 10.

 

[Tim]

Ancestry use Public and Private trees to try and match up names as best they can to provide you with a Common Ancestor suggestion.
As with all suggestions and hints, they have to be thoroughly checked before accepting them.
I have many instances of Common Ancestors that fall apart after the 1st generation on the matches side.

What I find the worst is when they say this is a match on your Maternal side, and then show the Common Ancestor going through the Paternal Line! Trust me, that's a big waste of time so I always check that first now.

 

[John Dancy]

But this Common Ancestor is with someone who doesn't have a tree, public or private.

 

[peter]

But this Common Ancestor is with someone who doesn't have a tree, public or private.

This suggests that either they are the sibling of someone who has a tree, or they appear in someone else's tree. Or both.

There is another recent discussion where this was discussed at some length.

 

[Helen7]

This suggests that either they are the sibling of someone who has a tree, or they appear in someone else's tree. Or both.

There is another recent discussion where this was discussed at some length.

I agree. I have a "Common Ancestors' link with someone where Ancestry worked out (correctly) our connection as they appeared in several trees of other people.

See the discussion from https://forums.lc/genealogy/index.php?threads/significance-of-thruline-anomaly.3741/#post-43688

 

[Helen7]

What I find the worst is when they say this is a match on your Maternal side, and then show the Common Ancestor going through the Paternal Line!

Oh yes, I have several instances of this. Very confusing.

 

[peter]

What I find the worst is when they say this is a match on your Maternal side, and then show the Common Ancestor going through the Paternal Line! Trust me, that's a big waste of time so I always check that first now.

I guess it emphasises the fact that one is based on DNA and one on trees. On the other hand I have several DNA matches who have turned out to be related to me on both sides of my tree (they all are if you go back far enough!).

But it's rare that working out how we are related to someone is going to help us knock down a 'brick wall' - arguably it's a distraction from what we ought to be focusing on.

 

[Helen7]

But it's rare that working out how we are related to someone is going to help us knock down a 'brick wall' - arguably it's a distraction from what we ought to be focusing on.

But I'd argue that working out how we are related to someone allows us to identify which brick walls we have in common and thus collaborate on breaking them down. I have a recent example of this in my tree.

 

[peter]

But I'd argue that working out how we are related to someone allows us to identify which brick walls we have in common and thus collaborate on breaking them down. I have a recent example of this in my tree.

It's difficult to knock down a 'brick wall' if the cousin doesn't have a meaningful tree of their own (bearing in mind that most 'brick walls' are going to be at least 4 or 5 generations back).

The only way it's likely to work is if they give you access to their DNA matches, ideally as a Collaborator, so that you can add notes against them - but convincing someone you don't know to do that is difficult given that most people who don't have a tree won't even take our word for it when we tell them how we are related.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make use of such matches, but there are usually better opportunities available amongst our 10,000 plus matches.

 

[Helen7]

It's difficult to knock down a 'brick wall' if the cousin doesn't have a meaningful tree of their own (bearing in mind that most 'brick walls' are going to be at least 4 or 5 generations back).

The only way it's likely to work is if they give you access to their DNA matches, ideally as a Collaborator, so that you can add notes against them - but convincing someone you don't know to do that is difficult given that most people who don't have a tree won't even take our word for it when we tell them how we are related.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make use of such matches, but there are usually better opportunities available amongst our 10,000 plus matches.

I agree - I wasn't really thinking about cousins without trees (though I've been sent separate trees by matches who don't have much of a tree on Ancestry). And in the case of the recent example I mentioned, we have each given the other access to our DNA matches.

 

[peter]

DNA matches who have turned out to be related to me on both sides of my tree

I decided to spend an hour or so on my own tree this afternoon, and took a look at the maternal 2C who is also a paternal 5C1R since I hadn't finished documenting the latter connection on my tree. Would you believe it - it turns out that he is also a 7C1R on my father's side.

Not surprisingly, -given the remoteness of the paternal connections - Ancestry identify the cousin as maternal, rather than both sides. However one of our shared matches is most definitely on my father's side.