View Full Version : How do Thru Lines work?
I've linked my aunt to her tree. Lo and behold, she's on Thru Lines.
It has provided a connection to an Australian whose tree is quite rudimentary, only three or so generations and no common names.
It appears to piggy-back that tree onto another to find connections.
I'm sure it's right, since shared matches all point in the same direction.
(Dodgy genealogy mean there are some incorrect potential ancestors for my aunt, btw!)
ElizabethHerts
22-05-19, 07:36
I have always understood that Thrulines refer to other people's trees and therefore depend on the accuracy of the other person's tree.
In the last couple of days OH has had a couple of Thrulines appear purporting to have a common ancestor. However, the research is rubbish and the "common ancestors" turn out to be the parents of one of the siblings of his ancestor and not the parents of him or his sibling!
The Thruline might well be OK, but you just have to be cautious!
I can see that it can reinforce very poor research, and I'm curious to know what happens if there is a conflict, but it's odd that relationships are appearing without a tree in place that we have entered ourselves.
Yes I've found it is only the quality of other people's trees, so should be sceptical until its proved.
One connection I have has gone further back than me to a Lord - which I think is highly unlikely - I have found nothing to prove the extra generations.
kiterunner
22-05-19, 09:41
They use other trees, not just yours and your match's tree. You probably do the same when trying to figure out how you are related to some of your matches. I know I do!
That's what I figured, Kite. It's just working out where the missing link actually is. Her tree is completely Australian, no names in common. Aunt's completely in England.
kiterunner
22-05-19, 10:05
Doesn't it tell you whose tree it came from if you click through?
Be gentle with me, I'm a complete novice at this!
Yes, I am beginning to spot trees, but I'm disappearing down the rabbit hole again, especially since some of the tree owners are spouses etc, so themselves have no DNA match. I've only just spotted the common ancestor filter.
This would be good fun for best mate's tree - but I'll need her permission before I start.
maggie_4_7
22-05-19, 11:12
That's what I figured, Kite. It's just working out where the missing link actually is. Her tree is completely Australian, no names in common. Aunt's completely in England.
I have that a lot with my 4th cousins and closer with trees from Australia, Canada, USA and New Zealand.
I kid you not one tree has over 95,000 people! I still can't find a name in common :D
The three matches that frustrate me a lot is the Pawnie Indian one and two in New Zealand. One of the New Zealand ones has a shared match with my closest match one of my first cousin's children which is frustrating because when I get a shared match with her it is usually then quite easy to see the connection.
kiterunner
22-05-19, 12:45
I have 10,000 people in my tree and I still have loads of mystery matches, Maggie. Of course, often a tree is based on official records but the biological facts don't fit them.
I find it slightly alarming that I've got a thru lines link with someone whose tree is locked and private, showing the exact relationship.
kiterunner
22-05-19, 14:24
Isn't locked the same as private?
Where matches have a greyed out, locked tree, you can't see any information in the ordinary way. This is showing exactly what the relationship is. In this case it is through female lines. Were it male, you might be able to work out the name of the relation.
kiterunner
22-05-19, 15:36
I guess if the other person wanted to avoid that happening, they just wouldn't link their DNA test to the tree.
It's why my own tree isn't linked. But I think it much more likely that they don't know.
I can see that it can reinforce very poor research, and I'm curious to know what happens if there is a conflict, but it's odd that relationships are appearing without a tree in place that we have entered ourselves.
There is nothing to do with a conflict but ignore it. I was so excited, someone had parents for a brickwall. I looked into it, spent and hour or so working things out only to disprove it then went to write comments on my notes on my tree only to discover I had already disproven that person in the past. I can't get rid of the thruline which is annoying as she has followed this wrong line up for several more generations so I'm not getting any other thruline options at those levels either.
I find it slightly alarming that I've got a thru lines link with someone whose tree is locked and private, showing the exact relationship.
It is private but searchable, in that it would appear in a search marked as private. They have the option to make it private AND unsearchable and you should then not be able to find it.
This would be good fun for best mate's tree - but I'll need her permission before I start.
Just do it. Her tree will already appear in other people's thrulines if there is a match. Selecting it is only if you want to see the thrulines.
There is nothing to do with a conflict but ignore it. I was so excited, someone had parents for a brickwall. I looked into it, spent and hour or so working things out only to disprove it then went to write comments on my notes on my tree only to discover I had already disproven that person in the past. I can't get rid of the thruline which is annoying as she has followed this wrong line up for several more generations so I'm not getting any other thruline options at those levels either.
Oh joy. A rare surname means there is a link between two families - but probably a couple of generations further back. Other trees are comprehensively f**ked, so I presumably cannot steer them back to the straight and narrow.
I have read somewhere on FB that people consistently complained about individual thrulines being incorrect and they were eventually removed. You could try that and see what happens.
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.