J
JoyNor
Guest
By this I do not mean names of common ancestors. I am beginning to find Ancestry is unreliable on this as I often find matches who do have the same names as me in their trees but which do not show up on their outline tree page as being shared by us. So they do not get investigated from this page. I do go to the full list of people in a tree I wish to explore more closely when I feel there is a possibility of identifying our connection.
John & I share 35cM/1 seg. I am a guest on John's private tree & he on mine - he has 73,500 names, I have 7,200. We have ancestors from many of the same small rural communities with lots of common names between us. But none have yet let us establish a paper link. Of the 3 most likely names 2 are very common in the locations whilst the third is much less common & we expected it to be our link. However we may be cousins through various shared names if we can go back far enough. But at the moment I am back to Halifax 1749, whereas John is back to Wakefield 1748 so it may be there is a common ancestor still further back as the surname in question was imported into Yorkshire in the 1600s.
But I have now found a paper link between us via another fairly common surname. John has 160 people in his tree with this & I have 119. And I have traced it back to a common ancestor beyond the scope of Ancestry barrier at 5 x Great G/P. It is identical spelling, is one of those names that is rarely spelt otherwise & we both have the same birth locations.
So why does this not show on the Ancestry page as a name in both our trees even if Ancestry cannot show the MRCA? A question will be forwarded to Ancestry, but meanwhile I wonder if anyone else has had such a discrepancy.
John & I share 35cM/1 seg. I am a guest on John's private tree & he on mine - he has 73,500 names, I have 7,200. We have ancestors from many of the same small rural communities with lots of common names between us. But none have yet let us establish a paper link. Of the 3 most likely names 2 are very common in the locations whilst the third is much less common & we expected it to be our link. However we may be cousins through various shared names if we can go back far enough. But at the moment I am back to Halifax 1749, whereas John is back to Wakefield 1748 so it may be there is a common ancestor still further back as the surname in question was imported into Yorkshire in the 1600s.
But I have now found a paper link between us via another fairly common surname. John has 160 people in his tree with this & I have 119. And I have traced it back to a common ancestor beyond the scope of Ancestry barrier at 5 x Great G/P. It is identical spelling, is one of those names that is rarely spelt otherwise & we both have the same birth locations.
So why does this not show on the Ancestry page as a name in both our trees even if Ancestry cannot show the MRCA? A question will be forwarded to Ancestry, but meanwhile I wonder if anyone else has had such a discrepancy.