ancestry groupings

[Kit]

Can we bulk add matches to a group?

Why I'm asking is that ancestry will be changing how matches are displayed and accuracy of matches and we will lose matches under 8cms.

I know they are very distant, if they are real matches, but I don't want to lose them.

If we have them sorted into a group we can keep them.

I just don't want to do it one at a time.

[kiterunner]

I don't know of a way to do it, but would be interested if anyone does know of one.

[Kit]

If I find anything I'll let you know.

[Phoenix]

Not bulk adding, but you could search by surname (say) and then click on a group.

I have looked at every single match (and eliminated 25.9k of them) and it took MONTHS.

But there are some very low matches with useful trees. And I don't appear to have much genetic material in common with my favourite ancestors.

[kiterunner]

I plan to filter by shared data - 6 to 8 cM's, then select those with trees and add them all to a group or put in a comment (since I am currently maxed out on groups so I would have to merge two existing ones to make room for a new one). But I have no idea how long that would take! Maybe it won't be worth it.

[Kit]

there is no way to bulk add to a group. You have to do it one by one

[maggie_4_7]

Will they still be there after Ancestry discount 7cm and lower even if they are put into groups?

[Phoenix]

Anything with a group, a note or a message will remain.

It sounds as if you will lose common ancestors unless you have marked them.

The bummer is those with no trees. I have found a dozen or more that I initially rejected, subsequently putting up trees which demonstrate (at least a potential) relationship.

I have revisited all my 6-8 matches, but this would be an impossible task for anyone starting from scratch now.

[maggie_4_7]

Anything with a group, a note or a message will remain.

It sounds as if you will lose common ancestors unless you have marked them.

The bummer is those with no trees. I have found a dozen or more that I initially rejected, subsequently putting up trees which demonstrate (at least a potential) relationship.

I have revisited all my 6-8 matches, but this would be an impossible task for anyone starting from scratch now.

Do you mean that common ancestors won't show up even if grouped?

[Phoenix]

They'll show if you've colour coded them.

[maggie_4_7]

They'll show if you've colour coded them.

No I meant the actual image at the side of the tree and in the list.

[Phoenix]

Pass. But I'm not taking the risk. Thrulines is completely screwed, anyway. Best Mate has several "common ancestors" which Ancestry then says aren't connected.

Any my great grandfather is apparently Jewish. (Nothing showing on ethnicity)

[Kit]

Anyone you have put into a group or messaged will stay as it is now. Those you haven't sorted or messaged will disappear.

I've gone thrulines and grouped anyone there. I've also grouped common ancestors, people whose trees have births in places I'm interested in and also surnames I'm interested in, assuming the tree has over 100 people.

I feel I will lose a heap of matches but just can't go through them all knowing I wont be able to work out most of them anyway.