View Full Version : Thru lines but no DNA match?
My own tree has no common ancestors whatsoever. This is largely because I have been selective in the lines I have added.
However, several ancestors have blue thru line icons against them.
First it says I have DNA matches, but when I click through, the message is:
ThruLines™ for X Y BETA
ThruLines uses Ancestry® trees to suggest that you may be related to X Y.
IE they have found, not a DNA match, but a tree match.
Anyone else getting this? I don't have the blue icons on my aunt's tree.
NB It looks like the big update is in progress, as all my matches have disappeared.
kiterunner
01-07-19, 10:07
My own tree has no common ancestors whatsoever. This is largely because I have been selective in the lines I have added.
However, several ancestors have blue thru line icons against them.
First it says I have DNA matches, but when I click through, the message is:
ThruLines™ for X Y BETA
ThruLines uses Ancestry® trees to suggest that you may be related to X Y.
IE they have found, not a DNA match, but a tree match.
Anyone else getting this? I don't have the blue icons on my aunt's tree.
Yes, I have the icon on all my direct ancestors but ThruLines for a lot of them only suggests I am related to them because I have them in my tree!
On the three trees I manage, linked to DNA samples:
Me - blue icons, no common ancestors.
Aunt - lots of common ancestors, no blue icons
Best mate - not accepting her for Thru lines at all.
Lots was clearly happening on Ancestry yesterday, so I am hoping for some consistency soon.
Sue from Southend
01-07-19, 16:16
I was led to believe that big things were happening today to Ancestry DNA but apart from it not being "beta" I can't see any change? :(
kiterunner
01-07-19, 16:21
As far as I know, the big change today was just that the "beta" was becoming the default. So for those of us who were already using the beta, it shouldn't be very different.
Sue from Southend
01-07-19, 16:30
How disappointing - I seem to have got stuck in a rut with my "matches" I was hoping for some minor breakthrough!
Mary from Italy
01-07-19, 16:47
No change here: it still says "beta off" at the top of the page.
It does seem to have dislodged a few glitches.
I now have ONE ancestor in common with a DNA match
Best Mate now has 70 zillion common ancestors
(Aunt's list remains identical!)
Sue from Southend
01-07-19, 18:41
I've found something new! This youtube clip explains best - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSfsmnAbZ6k&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2jLOrs2EE5c3dOj5ozFJojDgcJgYBR5X96UYAfL ukNMpf3fWuhcIssHm4
Basically it tells you all the trees that include the information leading to the ThruLines match even if they're not a DNA match.
I think it could be helpful...
Mary from Italy
01-07-19, 21:16
No change here: it still says "beta off" at the top of the page.
I accidentally clicked on "beta on", and I can't get rid of it now. How annoying!
Is there really no way of viewing the place names in a match's tree any more?
No. Many places - eg Blakeney in Norfolk - are somehow omitted from Ancestry's database.
Doing a place search, therefore, has limited value.
The beta matches are definitely a retrograde step in that respect. I end up trawling through an entire tree.
You can somewhere get the ancestors plotted on a map, but that only works if Ancestry recognises the pace.
I don't have a lot of faith in ancestry staff after the last week of communications about issues where I lost common ancestors but I'll pass on the pearls of wisdom and let you decide if you want to follow any of the advice. Please keep in mind not one of the people I have spoken with has been able to work out the difference between an unsearchable private tree and a public tree with DNA matches attached.
1. all accounts must have access to each others trees and matches, even when one account is manager of all.
2. you must have full and correct information on your tree, particularly you and your parents, to get thrulines
3. you must have ancestry records attached to people to get thrulines
4. you have attached the match incorrectly to your tree (but ancestry can't tell you how it is wrong nor how to fix it).
Now I dispute all of these but it is clearly what ancestry tell their staff. What has worked for me is to unlink the dna from the tree, log out of ancestry and then back in and reattach it and wait a few days.
Full and correct info?!!!
I call myself Jonah Wale, and have no names until I reach great grandparents. Ancestry has picked up thrulines.
Full and correct info?
Ancestry is trying to force me down the wrong maternal line because someone else has made an error.
Ancestry wants to make use of us to do the work. I've lost genuine common ancestors because Ancestry are insisting my tree is wrong. Which has full and correct information for the bit I'm interested in.
I used the "Was this useful? Provide feedback" in the bottom righthand to point out the loss of known direct ancestors or the fictitious ones. I got back the missing correct ones eventually though still have a couple of red herrings.
The new hints system may prove useful in the future, and I wonder whether we will be able to evaluate potential ancestors in the same way - explaining why we are rejecting the child who died aged 4 as an ancestor.
Full and correct info?!!!
I call myself Jonah Wale, and have no names until I reach great grandparents. Ancestry has picked up thrulines.
I have Tom, Dick and Harriet in my tree. No further details and not the real names and there are thrulines.
Something had gone wrong. Unlinking, then relinking worked.
Unless you want us all to find your tree you might want to change your name.
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.