PDA

View Full Version : Thru Lines - new feature on ancestry


kiterunner
27-02-19, 20:18
In Beta, and it looks as though it is going to replace DNA Circles. Seems to be closely related to the new shared ancestor hints that is part of the "Ancestry Lab" DNA upgrade which is also in beta. I have to go and eat now, so will try it out later.

kiterunner
27-02-19, 23:18
Initially it seemed there was just a load of my direct ancestors on the page, and I had to click on each one to see whether it had found any connections from that ancestor (which would take forever!) But then I found out that was only true if I filter by "All ancestors" or "Ancestors from your linked tree". If I choose "potential ancestors" instead, I get a lot of "private" and a few possible ancestors. But in all the cases which I've looked at so far, the DNA matches shown share a known ancestor with me, and then the "potential ancestor" is someone who they have in their tree as a parent of that known ancestor, which may or may not be correct.

So not much use in my opinion, but then DNA Circles weren't much use either, except that they could sometimes tell you that certain people who didn't come up as matches to you had actually had their DNA tested, whereas normally Ancestry doesn't let you know whether non-matches have tested or not.

marquette
28-02-19, 07:09
I found this when I looked at Ancestry this morning. Actually I found it quite useful.

We have some matches which we could not place within the family tree. The Thru lines show that one of them is the granddaughter of my 2nd cousin. He is linked to a family tree which I can see, but i noted that she is linked to a tree of 5 private people - today this has been upgraded to 25 people, although many are still private. So the Thru Lines are matching private (living people) if they share DNA.

Some go down to matches as small as 7cm and one appears to be a descendant of a presumed (on my part) brother of my 3x great grandfather. Another one is descendant of my great grandfathers half sister, I am looking forward to having a further look at her tree!

Until now, I have not looked at any matches below 25cms, unless they have an attached tree (and even then its rare to find a common name), so I have missed these very small matches.

At this point, I am happy to think that I have reached a point where I am happy to say my mysterious 3xg grandfather Charles Tupper is a brother of James and William, with two descendants with whom we share DNA.

For what I have been able to look at briefly, I cant see any one who might share DNA through my Brighton ancestors.

Di

maggie_4_7
28-02-19, 08:02
I have found it useful for the same reasons as marquette but like everything on Ancestry you have to be cautious but what it does do is give you a clue and at least a starting point so you can check the connection.

Kit
28-02-19, 08:40
It's not working for me. :(:(:(

kiterunner
28-02-19, 10:38
I really don't see the point of it including all the ancestors where there are no connections so I have to click each one to find out. Or am I missing something?

ElizabethHerts
28-02-19, 14:49
It's proving a waste of time so far. I keep getting suggestions for ancestors, then I click on the tree suggested and the tree owner has made a mistake in their research. This has happened three times so far.

ElizabethHerts
28-02-19, 16:17
Someone has got my Quaker 5x-great-grandmother, born to Quaker parents, born in Whittlebury, Northants in 1754 (correct), then baptised in Chelmsford in 1736 and again in Derby in 1754. Her mother supposedly died in 1757 in Wellington, Salop, and she was baptised again in 1770 in Cheshire!!

I feel a headache coming on.

maggie_4_7
01-03-19, 09:16
I found it useful because I have now confirmed my Northamptonshire families which was always a niggle for me because of the lack of a marriage certificate of my gg grandfather but using the thrulines I went through the ancestors one by one and up popped a couple of matches it is only small 10cM but when I crosschecked through both trees and sources on mine they are descended from my Mears family in Northamptonshire they are much further down the tree than me but I was pleased about the connection, they are in the USA. I did the same for my Norfolk connection which is the gg grandmother perhaps I have just been lucky with the quality of those two trees.

I would have missed them because they are way down my list it is going up by about 5 a week and I still am missing a lot.

marquette
01-03-19, 11:08
I have problems with my Northamptonshire families too, lack of baptisms because they were non-conformist so finding a couple of DNA links looks very helpful.

I have been able to track down some of those many US DNA matches about whom I had no clues - too many female lines and name changes, but the ThruLines show the pathway. And they were very mobile some of them - Cambridgeshire to Yorkshire to Liverpool, some to Canada, some to Kansas and very mobile within the US. Without DNA they would be difficult to track across the US states.

Kit
01-03-19, 12:44
I've been rather upset I don't have any thrulines since I heard about them. However having had a look at a few online trees today I'm never going to get any. The ancestry trees are just so wrong but also so easily checkable. People don't care if they have the right tree or not and are happy to blindly follow what is already online. I've spent the last hour or so rechecking some of my own work as all the wrong trees had me doubting myself.

It would be nice if Dad's first cousin once removed showed up in the thrulines though. I know his tree is correct.

Phoenix
01-03-19, 20:18
BM has a well-contructed tree, and no Thru Lines.
The only reason I can see for this is that I refuse to name her parents on her tree. It is, after all, not MY tree, and she has living decendants who may have qualms.
Those of you for whom Thru lines are working, have you named every ancestor?

I can see that where twenty researchers have all made the same mistake, and all other descent has died out, Thru lines might not be true lines.

marquette
01-03-19, 20:30
Hi Toni

Yes, if there is a mistake in a tree, there will not be any ThruLines.

Can you ask your Dads cousin to do a DNA test? At least then you could if there are any who ARE related but just a have the tree a bit wrong?

OH's has no DNA matches with a lady who insists that HER Bennett is the same as HIS, and for a long while I went along with her. Now I have proved that the fathers were different on a marriage certificate. That family has asked about DNA results, but I know there won't be any matches, at least not at the level they expect. May be she will get the message via DNA.

Another of OH's matches has stepson linked to the family as the primary ancestor, but its actually his wife, who was a niece of his stepfather - the DNA link is true but the tree is back-to-front.

OH's DNA matches seem to have the most problems with their family trees - does this mean my family is more straightforward, or just better researchers?

Di

ElizabethHerts
01-03-19, 21:08
Since the new features have been added on Ancestry I can't seem to order my results by location. For example, I click on South-East England, but just seem to get all my matches. It's really annoying because I have relatively few matches for southern England, where most of my ancestral lines were from.

marquette
01-03-19, 21:41
BM has a well-contructed tree, and no Thru Lines.
The only reason I can see for this is that I refuse to name her parents on her tree. It is, after all, not MY tree, and she has living decendants who may have qualms.
Those of you for whom Thru lines are working, have you named every ancestor?

I can see that where twenty researchers have all made the same mistake, and all other descent has died out, Thru lines might not be true lines.

For my daughter, I created a specific DNA tree - just her direct ancestors, including her living grandparents The only ones who show up in her ThruLines are those who are linked to her grandfathers public tree. But none of the living show up except as a "Private" person, male or female. Anyone in a private tree only shows up as a private person.

If you click on a private individual who is deceased, you will be able to see their name and date of birth, but not for anyone living. Depends on how keen a researcher you are if you want to investigate the deceased further.

My daughter shows up just as RC in anyone else's ThruLines, as she has done a DNA test, but no details will be available. As I haven't, I just show up as private no details.

This also happens with my second cousin and his grand-daughter (who have had DNA tests) who are listed on ThruLines but only by their "nickname", but her mother does not. No other details are available for them.

If there is a mistake in the family trees, then no ThruLines will be indicated, because they will only match a DNA test with a family tree.

If the DNA tested has no link to a tree, there is no ThruLine. To make a ThruLine to someone that a tree believes has no descendants, I think at least one tree (probably the DNA subject) needs to make the link.

My dad and daughter have dozens of DNA matches who dont show up in ThruLines as they have no family trees, public or private, attached or unattached.

Kit
02-03-19, 02:36
Hi Toni

Yes, if there is a mistake in a tree, there will not be any ThruLines.

Can you ask your Dads cousin to do a DNA test? At least then you could if there are any who ARE related but just a have the tree a bit wrong?

...

OH's DNA matches seem to have the most problems with their family trees - does this mean my family is more straightforward, or just better researchers?

Di

The first cousin once removed has done a DNA test and shows up in the matches. His tree is accurate as far as I have looked and we have the same details for Dad's great grandfather so I feel we should be a ThruLines match. There is also a second cousin, unknown to me, but his tree matches mine so he should also show up on ThruLines.

Just be grateful your side is easier to research or your relatives research better. I made a comment to OH that his mum must have gotten her brains from her maternal side as the researchers on the paternal side weren't very bright. Although there is no DNA testing there, there is always hope they aren't actually related. ;)

BM has a well-contructed tree, and no Thru Lines.
The only reason I can see for this is that I refuse to name her parents on her tree. It is, after all, not MY tree, and she has living decendants who may have qualms.
Those of you for whom Thru lines are working, have you named every ancestor?

I can see that where twenty researchers have all made the same mistake, and all other descent has died out, Thru lines might not be true lines.

I don't have any details for Dad or his parents as I didn't feel comfortable. I only named the great grandparents to see if things would work then. I know there are issues with thrulines and DNA circles before that from reading an FB group's comments. I have sent in a query to ancestry but I'm beginning to think that the trees I can see are wrong and many of the close DNA matches don't have trees to really determine how we are related.

Phoenix
02-03-19, 08:51
I don't have any details for Dad or his parents as I didn't feel comfortable.


I bet that is the reason. Ancestry say " a well-constructed tree for three or four generations" - ie the bit that is the most difficult for them.

Because some people are naive enough to use their real names or include their year of birth in their user names, I've been able to work out some relationships without any online tree at all.

Kit
03-03-19, 02:51
I have 3-4 generations just not the closest 3-4 generations to Dad. It may not be as well constructed as they like as I have year of births, not exact dates but it is enough to get matches as tree hints for my online tree with others who have that person in their tree.

I'll wait until Tuesday to see if ancestry get back to me about my lack of matches and then I might add year of birth to my grandparents and see what happens. Anyone who wanted to work it out could anyway as their names appear in the BMD indexes.

Kit
07-03-19, 11:53
BM has a well-contructed tree, and no Thru Lines.
The only reason I can see for this is that I refuse to name her parents on her tree. It is, after all, not MY tree, and she has living decendants who may have qualms.

I emailed ancestry the other day and finally got a rather rude reply basically saying "It might be the case that, since you have chosen not to disclose your details and the details of some members in your family, the system would not be able to recognize any information on your tree and provide you with ThruLines." It then goes on to tell me to read the ? mark on the website for more details.

I did read the more details section again and it says it needs 3-4 generations of information which my tree has. It does not have my Dad nor grandparents and only one tree names my grandma but without any other information.

Those of you for whom Thru lines are working, have you named every ancestor?

Could someone please answer this question? Saves me wondering.

kiterunner
07-03-19, 12:21
I have named all as far back as I have the info and I have some Thru Lines.

Kit
07-03-19, 12:23
Are you named though? Sorry just being sure here.

I've gone back as far as I'm certain I've just not given Dad and his parents names and dates on the tree.

kiterunner
07-03-19, 13:07
Yes, I'm named too.

Kit
08-03-19, 12:23
thanks.

I'll wait another day and see if giving partial details for my grandparents work. If not I'll delete all cookies and see.

I'm not going to be forced to put details of people online if I don't want to. Dad is still alive and while he wont care, I do.

Have to go. FMP have sent an email about new records and India and I need to read.

JayG
08-03-19, 17:43
Toni I don't have this either.

I did think it was because my tree was private & none searchable/indexed so I changed a smallish tree going back several generations to searchable but still private. The Thru Lines still haven't appeared but reading comments on here it must be because I have myself and parents names as . . rather than actual names.

Kit
09-03-19, 04:55
I find it odd though, the chances of being able to match a living person are a lot smaller than a few generations up the tree. Dad's mother appears in 1 other tree, his father in none but his maternal grandparents appear in more, even if there is not a direct relationship to them. It is just a way to make people put all details online.

Kit
10-03-19, 04:14
So I caved and put in Dad's name and now have thrulines. I have a few things to investigate but have noticed something weird.

Thrulines lists all ancestors and if you click on them it shows if there are any matches who also have them as an ancestor however it has missed out one of Dad's great grandfathers and one 3g grandfather and I know there is at least one descendant of the 3g grandfather who had done a DNA test. I had expected to be told there were no matches for the great grandfather but I didn't get that, he just doesn't exist. I did get told there were no matches for Unknown, his 2g grandmother, so I'm finding it a bit odd and clearly the matching isn't exact yet. It also uses trees where there are no DNA matches for anyone who hasn't tried it yet.

However, I think one of my brickwalls may have the wrong wife so I am off to investigate. Hard to deny I'm wrong when there are DNA matches to a 5g grandfather I'm don't think exists. :rolleyes:

For those who are like me and don't want to put names of living people try using a fake name. I think they just need a name to get it started.

Merry
10-03-19, 19:14
I haven't looked at my DNA matches stuff for over a month because I got dispirited with either not understanding things, others not having an online tree and not finding anything of any interest to me.

So, now I've looked at Thru Lines for the first time. I clicked on probably 20 of my direct ancestors and every single one I looked at told me there are two possible DNA matches and they are my two children. Hoorah! I already know I'm related to them!!

So, what am I doing wrong?

kiterunner
10-03-19, 19:43
Nothing, Merry. Half of those that I click on show me that I'm related to my Dad. I do have a few with other relatives on but I haven't found it much use so far.

Merry
10-03-19, 19:54
OK, thanks. I will try and be more systematic about going through them!

Kit
11-03-19, 07:25
It depends if others have trees that overlap or are similar to yours. It shows those who share the same ancestors as you and can predict, using online trees, ancestors you don't have online. Some of my predictions are correct, or at least match what I have offline and haven't yet got around to putting online. One is totally incorrect but is based on the only 2 online trees available.

It is nice to have confirmation of my distant lines.

The only issue is that ancestry is having trouble working out relationships. My 2g grandfather has a brother and sister. It says the brother is my 3g uncle but the sister is only a half 3g aunt.

JayG
11-03-19, 12:57
So I changed mine and my parents names from . . to actual names and a day later the Thru lines has appeared .... off to explore.

Kit
12-03-19, 05:40
Did you use their real names or fake names?

JayG
12-03-19, 13:08
Our real names Toni.

Guinevere
13-03-19, 09:29
I have 3 trees on Ancestry but only have thrulines for OH's. Which is annoying.

kiterunner
11-04-19, 14:00
There is now an option on your ancestry tree (if linked to a DNA test) "DNA discoveries" which you can turn on to add ThruLines icons to those of your ancestors who have ThruLines related to them. But as far as I can see, you have to be viewing your tree in pedigree view to see the icons, unless anyone knows another way?

Kit
12-04-19, 02:35
Thanks for this Kate. As far as I can see you are right, we need to be in pedigree view. I tried selecting a person but there was nothing to suggest she had thrulines once I was in her records.

Note that while I had a person with the ThruLines symbol I got the message :ThruLines suggests that X may not be related to any DNA matches through E. So it is not a guarantee you have a match.

kiterunner
13-05-19, 17:25
My tree (pedigree view) now seems to be showing little ThruLines icons next to all my direct ancestors, and when I click on one it says "ThruLines suggests you may be related to one or more DNA matches through (ancestor's name)". I was getting excited about this since they were showing for ancestors who I haven't managed to confirm by DNA matches yet, but when I click on those, I just get "ThruLines™ for [ancestor's name] BETA ThruLines uses Ancestry trees to suggest that you may be related to [ancestor's name]"

and it shows me that section of my own tree, showing my descent from, say, my 2xg-grandfather. What's the use of that?

Mary from Italy
13-05-19, 18:19
None at all.

Kit
14-05-19, 00:53
None. I'm not sure if that facility is working yet ie from your tree but I also get that as well going into thrulines the original way.

kr236rk
02-06-19, 16:18
Someone has got my Quaker 5x-great-grandmother, born to Quaker parents, born in Whittlebury, Northants in 1754 (correct), then baptised in Chelmsford in 1736 and again in Derby in 1754. Her mother supposedly died in 1757 in Wellington, Salop, and she was baptised again in 1770 in Cheshire!!

I feel a headache coming on.

It sounds like Ancestry is relying on people's personal tree research - as opposed to professional researchers' results - if so, they are often going to contain errors. And if so, that's not very professional of Ancestry - they should clearly state the nature of these trees, where they came from & so forth. Also, the various research sites do not always come up with identical results on searches, so if Ancestry is just taking privately uploaded trees and presenting them as fact - there are going to be inconsistencies galore, it seems to me?

Do hope Ancestry is not doing this, and that I am wrong. Otherwise we may be looking at a virtual mountain of misinformation being generated, which is not going to help anyone at all, casual or professional researchers alike, I fear.

Merry
02-06-19, 16:37
Trees uploaded or created through ancestry may or may not be accurate. Don't get me started on whether a 'professionally' created tree might or might not be more accurate than one worked on by a so-called amateur!!

I'm not sure what you mean by ancestry "relying" on people's tree research? Ancestry do not vet the trees they hold on their site and wouldn't know if a tree was 'professional' or otherwise. Individuals can choose to copy someone else's tree at their peril!

kr236rk
02-06-19, 18:09
Ancestry do not vet the trees they hold on their site and wouldn't know if a tree was 'professional' or otherwise.

Wow - then this means 'proceed with extreme caution' then :eek:

Merry
02-06-19, 19:11
I almost never look at Ancestry to view the trees uploaded there (and I've had a sub for almost 20 years and use the site most days!) - I use Ancestry to look at records. I have really only looked at a lot of trees since I did a DNA test.

If you want to produce an accurate tree of your own family then looking at other people's trees isn't really the way to go - much more satisfying to research it yourself and only look at trees if you are really stuck and then check every so-called fact!

kr236rk
02-06-19, 22:03
I almost never look at Ancestry to view the trees...

Haven't looked at any other trees yet, I have library access to FMP census returns but didn't dive in for a full FMP or Ancestry membership because what I was researching was so slight. It's taken me 10 years to find my gt gt grandfather's place of birth, and I may have tracked down his father, but things get very vague after that in the heart of Victorian London, if you are chasing a comparatively popular surname. Add to that, I believe there may be a Traveller element in this branch of the family which makes things even more difficult - Travellers do not really like to have themselves documented ~ as Travellers.