RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: Eric Hatfield on Monday 24 February 25 21:31 GMT (UK)
-
Like most people I guess, I have a love-hate relationship with Ancestry. The largest DNA database but the least useful tools.
I'm finding Thrulines is no exception. I have found some very useful matches via Thrulines, but it is also frustrating in not giving what it is supposed to.
Thrulines shows ancestors back several generations, and then shows whether there are any DNA matches through each ancestor, or none. I am helping a relative resolve some uncertain paternity back 3 generations and the one ancestor (my relative's great grandfather) who I really want to look at is totally missing from Thrulines while the other great grandparents are all there.
I have contacted Ancestry support and an AI bot tried to answer my questions (or maybe it tried not to??). I was told that maybe my tree wasn't public, or I'd spelt the person's name wrong, or maybe there were no matches yet through that relative (which is irrelevant since many others who have no matches appear) and a bunch of other possibilities that didn't apply. In the end the bot admitted that there was nothing it could offer to resolve why one ancestor simply didn't appear on Thrulines.
Does anyone here have any information on what may be the problem please, and if there is any way to "force" Thrulines to include this relative? Is there some way to somehow re-start Thrulines like re-booting a computer?
Thanks.
-
I’m not sure if my answer is too simplistic as I am not a user Ancestry DNA these days, only having dabbled in thrulines briefly some time ago.
I am sure you will get the answer you are looking for here, but in the meantime, my thought….
Don’t “thrulines” use information from other’s trees to offer suggestions to fill in blanks on your tree? Wouldn’t the absence of this person on thrulines simply mean that no one else has this person on their tree? (Or has no more information about him than you do?)
I know when I last looked at my “Thrulines” there were many many people “missing”. :)
-
That is what I thought too Ruskie. Mine have missing people plus they have repeated attempts at giving me wrong links that I know come from fantasy trees
-
Today I looked at one of the Thrulines and it was completely wrong.
I looked at the tree of the DNA match and there was enough visible to correct the errors.
Thrulines is a guesstimate anyway, sometimes you are lucky, others not so much.
Remember each Thruline is cobbled together via multiple family trees with each one having the potential to be incorrect.
-
I agree with the others about Thrulines. Many of the more distant 'ancestors' have been taken from others' trees that I've previously rejected but in they go!!
I don't bother with it now.
Gadget
-
I very rare look at Thrulines for similar to mentioned above.
I use my DNA page search facility. Surname & area, narrow as much as possible. All may not be connected to family I am seeking, but all that comes up are DNA matches.
Cas
-
Wouldn’t the absence of this person on thrulines simply mean that no one else has this person on their tree?
It seems possible, but I don't know if it's true. There 3 others with no matches who appear in Thrulines, but they may appear in other people's trees. If this is the reason, then it means I wouldn't get a result even if he appeared.
I agree with the others about Thrulines. Many of the more distant 'ancestors' have been taken from others' trees that I've previously rejected but in they go!!
I don't bother with it now.
I know it is inaccurate, but it finds possibilities that I might otherwise miss.
-
Well a quick check shows that isn't the reason. There are 55 trees (at least) that show this person.
It must be a Thrulines bug. So my question remains: is there a way to overcome it? It seems not (so far)!
-
Hi,
Is the information identical for this person? The Thru lines algorithm is “AI” and if there are any differences it will not match or match in the wrong place. I had a Thru lines match with my cousin, 5 generations earlier, because of small differences in our tree information, it does not take much to throw it off.
-
Well a quick check shows that isn't the reason. There are 55 trees (at least) that show this person.
It must be a Thrulines bug. So my question remains: is there a way to overcome it? It seems not (so far)!
Why not amend your person so that the details in your tree exactly match the details in another person's tree - albeit they may be incorrect. Then wait a few days and see if there is a thrulines match. You can revert to your original details again later.
May be wrong here, but doesn't the other person have to have taken a dna test in order that thrulines picks up the connection - after all that is the idea of Thrulines I think. It seems unlikely that none of those other 55 people you mention as having this person in their trees have dna attached to themselves in their trees but ...........
Pheno
-
If there are 55 other people with the person in question in their trees, could you not just look at those trees and extract what you want rather than hoping thrulines will find it and offer it to you as a suggestion?
Maybe you could contact tree owners and ask if any have taken DNA tests? From what I remember, not all Ancestry tree owners have taken DNA tests.
Of course all of the 55 might be fantasy trees copied from other fantasy trees, so you would need to check for accuracy.
-
I think that is true. The person in question, John Jones, is generally referred to as John Griffith Jones, but some people have John Griffeth Jones because the handwriting in some documents isn't clear. I have used both in my tree and given the algorithm time to take notice, but neither worked. Also, some trees have one and some the other.
Perhaps I should try simply John Jones and see if it makes a difference. I will try that and report back in a few days (Ancestry says it can take up to 48 hours to take effect.)
-
I assume that you've read this article on the limitations:
https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/AncestryDNA-ThruLines?language=en_US
If your tree is private and not searchable, you won't see ThruLines, and your matches' private, non-searchable trees also won't be visible to you. Your DNA matches might appear in more than one of your ThruLines.
ThruLines uses information from family trees; they don't change the information in trees. If there's inaccurate information in your tree, you may receive inaccurate ThruLines. Only you and those you invite to see your DNA results can see your ThruLines.
ThruLines are available for ancestors up to 5th great-grandparents. ThruLines don't appear for 6th great-grandparents and beyond.
Also, it might be worth subscribing to Pro Tools so that you may access the enhanced version of shared matches, etc.
https://support.ancestry.co.uk/s/global-search/Pro%20tools
Some features are more useful than others.
Gadget
-
Also - link on previous message also includes:
Accuracy
ThruLines rely on family trees from you and other Ancestry members, so their accuracy depends on the quality of those trees. Mistakes in family trees can cause inaccurate ThruLines.
Because ThruLines are tree-based, they don't prove your relationship to a DNA match. For example, even if your tree lists someone as your second cousin and appears as a DNA match and in a ThruLine as your second cousin, they could still be a first cousin once removed, a half-first cousin, or another relationship.
To see how you might be related, click on the amount of shared DNA with a match. This chart also shows how often a likely relationship happens based on the amount of shared DNA.
-
Thanks. Yes, I have read that. And I am using Pro Tools.
I'm aware of Thrulines' limitations, but this is the first time I have researched in Wales, and the surname Jones is very common, making it difficult to make definite identifications. And the relative I am helping has way more good DNA matches than I do. So it is hard to wade through all the matches. I was hoping Thrulines would help me by identifying the best matches to investigate first. So it is frustrating that John is the one great grandparent missing.
-
Yes, researching Welsh ancestors can be difficult :)
The large majority of mine were!
-
I had a problem with discovering my great grandfather as my grandfather was illegitimate.
My sister and I started searching when I was 8.I finally discovered who he was 4-5 years ago so it took about 65 years!
I found that I had a small group of shared matches all about 90 - 180 cMs with me. I contacted one of them who showed Welsh ancestry. She mentioned the village that I and my mother's line had lived. There were 5 brothers from whom the shared group descended from. I had to work out which one of them was 'mine! I spent 3 months working through records and constructing trees until it was obvious who it was. Unfortunately, all except one of his legitimate offspring had died early. Eventually, I found that one daughter had married and moved to South Africa.I traced her descendants in SA. I was then able to confirm the lineage.
I didn't use Thrulines or Protools (Ptools weren't available then) I used just detailed research using tried and tested genealogical techniques.
Gadget
-
Thrulines shows ancestors back several generations, and then shows whether there are any DNA matches through each ancestor, or none. I am helping a relative resolve some uncertain paternity back 3 generations and the one ancestor (my relative's great grandfather) who I really want to look at is totally missing from Thrulines while the other great grandparents are all there.
Hi Eric,
Just double checking, are you saying the person is not showing, or that the person is there with just no matches ? Most of the people have responded on the second option, but i have a few cases where a person in my tree is not appearing on the thurlines screen at all. In most cases they are at the end of a branch, and also happen to be dummy names i used to see if anything could shake out from them. I did mange to get one person to appear after unlinking and relinking them to the spouse, but doing the same actions didn't work on the other 2.
Richard
-
I had a problem with discovering my great grandfather as my grandfather was illegitimate.
My sister and I started searching when I was 8.I finally discovered who he was 4-5 years ago so it took about 65 years!
That's amazing! Thanks for sharing that. I think there are ways forward for us too, but it will be difficult.
(1) Civil registration records aren't very helpful, but I notice that there are generally more civil registration birth records than there are baptism records on Ancestry. Some people didn't have their child baptised, some church records have been lost, and of course there were many different churches. Most Welsh records on Ancestry seem to be Anglican, but when John married in Australia it was in a "Primitive Methodist" church. So was that his religion in Wales, and are those records in Ancestry? I will have to check that out. But it may be that the records are simply no longer in existence.
(2) Sometimes the only way to make progress is to buy certificates, which may have more information than is available online. But buying dozens of certificates can be costly! (In Australia they are typically $20 or more, while in Scotland they are only a few dollars.) But I need to look at this option.
(3) Finally there is the old way of going to churches and historical societies in Wales to look at actual records. I'm unable to do that myself, but perhaps we can pay someone to do it. (My great grandmother and my grandmother's birth in Australia was found that way. The online records didn't allow searching on the exact date, but looking at the actual record book at the local council allowed my grandmother's birthdate to be examined.)
So I will have to either wait to see if DNA reveals John's parents, or put in a lot more work, as you did.
-
Just double checking, are you saying the person is not showing, or that the person is there with just no matches ? Most of the people have responded on the second option, but i have a few cases where a person in my tree is not appearing on the thurlines screen at all. In most cases they are at the end of a branch, and also happen to be dummy names i used to see if anything could shake out from them. I did mange to get one person to appear after unlinking and relinking them to the spouse, but doing the same actions didn't work on the other 2.
Yes, you are right, it is the first option. He, and his ancestors, simply don't appear, while all the other great grandparents and their ancestors do.
I have tried changing his name, but I will try your suggestion of unlinking and linking and see if it works. That's the sort of possible solution I was looking for. Thanks.
-
I've had some correct Thruline matches where the forenames in the trees are completely different but there's a relative I have that will never show up. Their female ancestor had three forenames but 'allegedly' hated them so picked one she liked. Maiden names are a concept they don't seem to have grasped either so they don't enter them. They often pop up in a facebook group bemoaning a lack of records with the exception of the death and burial record/headstone. Three guesses who registered the death and sorted the funeral and stonemason. ::) I've pointed out the definition and significance of given names but apparently I'm stupid. I was stupid for trying to help someone who won't be helped so they might have a valid point there to be fair.
There is a way to enter a variant spelling or alias that the search engine and (to some extent), Thrulines is able to use but few people do so correctly, the methods generally used don't fit the algorithms so won't produce results.
-
I said I'd try a few ways to "force" ThruLines to include the missing great grandfather, and report back. So far I have tried:
- I checked and verified that there are several relatives in the ThruLines list that don't have any matches, but they are still listed. So that can't be the reason (on its own).
- Most of the people in the ThruLines list are NOT in the tree, but worked out by Ancestry's algorithm. I don't know if they are all correct or not, because I am not interested in those branches of the tree. So that isn't a reason why the person I want is missing.
- I tried removing the relationship between this person and his wife, then re-instating it, as one person here suggested. Nothing changed.
- I tried removing the person completely and re-entering them, again, no difference.
- I tried adding this person's parents (even though this is still speculative), no change.
- I tried changing the spelling of his name, and removing his middle name, again, nothing.
- Finally, I removed spouses of his descendants, so the tree ONLY includes the line I am interested in. Still no effect.
This expremely frustrating. The only option I can think of is to copy the curent tree then remove it completely and then just add the person I am interested in and see what happens.
If anyone has any other ideas, I'm happy to try them thanks.
There is a way to enter a variant spelling or alias that the search engine and (to some extent), Thrulines is able to use but few people do so correctly, the methods generally used don't fit the algorithms so won't produce results.
Can you clarify this please, it may be helpful for me. Thanks.
-
Use the " also known as " option in the e facts list .on the person profile
You can add as many different spellings or different names as you like .
The "also known as " facts will appear at the bottom of the timeline on the profile.
I think thru lines takes this into account.
I sometimes add an alternative name as a middle name too.
But if your matches put punctuation such as brackets the match will not show
For women maiden name in surname box and married names in suffix . Again if your match does not do this their thru lines will not show .
For example name Charlotte Lottie
Surname ROBERTS
Suffix BROWN SMITH
NOT name Charlotte, (Lottie )
Surname BROWN /SMITH
I add comments on profile as matches are more likely to look at that . Such as "used name Tully Goodwin from 1939 before then Israel GOLDSTEIN "
But that doesn't explain why YOUR ancestor does not show .
Thru lines can take several days to readjust ,are you waiting long enough after each change?
Good luck .
Ps I've just had some success by adding someone unknown to a DNA common ancestor who appears in matches trees by just adding surname .
I don't know if the persons parent was a male or a single mother but 1 thru line showed up on same day
*Apologies reading back I realised you'd already answered some of my questions
-
Hi brigidmac, thanks for your thoughts. I find several things you say interesting - I'll need to think about adding "also known as" and suffixes. I presume the comments you suggest also appear on the timeline?
But your post was helpful in another way. Prompted by what you said, I went into the tree again and found I had stuffed up how I showed John's parents. So I corrected that and now John's dad appears in ThruLines where he didn't before! I presume his parents will appear in time.
I don't know how long this error was there. Perhaps it happened when I was testing different things as outlined above.
But for now, I think the matter may be resolved, and I'll humbly apologise to Ancestry and admit at least a major part of the problem was me!!
-
Glad that was resolved
Q
Do you have management to the DNA & tree &thru lines of the person who you are helping.or is it only YOUR thru lines that you are looking at ?
I've been prompted to check my 3rd cousins thru lines and how they differ. Her's mostly show as green .
-
I have been given temporary control of the account, so I have a subscription and we have Pro Tools.
Just to reiterate, the matter we are researching, John Jones married Elfreda Milthorpe, had 9 children and then died. Elfreda then married Edwin Holloway and had 3 more children. DNA testing has shown that the last of the 9 "Jones" children, Kate, was actually fathered by Edwin (a descendant of Kate matches a descendant of Edwin's sister, which couldn't happen except if he was the father).
So my task is to see if any other of the 9 were also fathered by Edwin rather than John. I have found many matches with descendants of 6 of the 12 children and I'm trying to make sense of the DNA matches I have. My hope was to use ThruLines to identify possible matches to John's family, so that anyone who matched with them came from John's line.
So I have lots of information, but have been missing the most important, more info and DNA matches about John's parents and siblings. All made more difficult by the fact that everyone in Wales at that time seemd to have the same few names in their trees!
-
The algorithms won't search for an 'also known as' entry, it has to be an alternate fact in the name category.
See from about the 5:55 mark on this youtube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw4cl6bavRI
-
That is a helpful video. Thanks.
-
If I don't recognise a match but can build their tree backwards I'll create a floating branch based on that match. I add the shared cM in the suffix box for easy reference in tree view and give them a custom profile picture so they stand out. I also link them to the tree from the dna match list page.
I work back down their pedigree line generation by generation and push each generation as wide as I can. If I find 10 children in a generation then I'll add them and try to add the spouse(s) for them too and when possible bring those branches forwards to the present day as best as I can.
I'll then go to the shared matches and find the closest relative to my match using protools, I then build the tree of that closest relative they have and do the suffix/linking/profile picture as above, the goal is to get to the point where the two trees merge, in many cases they attach to one of those wide branches I've already built. I repeat the process for as many of the shared matches as I can aiming to have a tree showing how they all link to each other. Final step is to add a custom profile picture to the ancestors of each match, this is done so that in tree view I can easily see branches that have dna descendants and those that don't.
Yes it's a lot of work and I won't pretend it is always easy to do but I've had new matches that pop up who are already in my tree or maybe their parent is, I've already done the hard part building the tree so it's quick and easy to do the linking/suffix/profile picture. I've managed to link as many as 40 matches to each other, identify the common ancestors and identify if it's a link via their maternal or paternal side, that saves a lot of wasted effort researching the 'wrong' parent which is a bonus too. It's independent of Thrulines so avoids the no tree/wrong tree/private tree issues. Another plus is if I create a WATO tree (What are the Odds tree), I already have the cM figures in plain sight as the suffix to the name, there's no need to flick from one site to another and switch between matches for each of them.
It's hard to explain and I can imagine it's hard to follow when reading so I'll add a screengrab to try and illustrate it in next reply
-
DNA matches have the large coloured dna coil profile image and are lower part of the image, gold for non Ancestry matches, blue for male Ancestry matches, Pink for female Ancestry matches (none shown in this example).
Their ancestors have a small gold dna coil in the top left of their profile picture, I simply click anyone with that gold symbol and can trace them down to a dna match. I could open up more lines (descendants of the people in the blue squares in the image),and in this case it would reveal almost 30 dna matches but for clarity I've just shown a couple of lines.
It's not perfect but it's a way to beat the 'add dna matches of' thing that Ancestry offer but that only works with Thrulines and needs a worldwide sub .
-
Great video link
I've been using * also known as
So really pleased to know how to add alternative names correctly and will share with someone I'm helping
-
It's hard to explain and I can imagine it's hard to follow when reading
No actually, it was really helpful thanks. I am about to have a go at it.
-
I'd like to continue this discussion with an uodate and another question.
ThruLines now shows the second x Great Grandfather Hugh Jones who was missing before, plus his father. Trouble is, my tree shows Hugh Jones b1812 in Nefyn, and his father Hugh Jones, whereas ThruLines has Hugh Jones b1810 in Anglesey and his father Edward Jones.
I am not certain of my identification, I am just trying it out to see if ThruLines gives me any matches. I think the Anglesey identification is possible but less likely.
So ThruLines has over-ridden the tree I have entered and used the trees of other Ancestry users. Last time I criticised Ancestry I found that I was a major part of the fault, so I want to be slow to criticise again.
But shouldn't it take my tree as its starting point?
Any thoughts? Thanks
-
I have built the tree of a match back way beyond the MRCA that we share more than once before now and the two trees may have a different name or date along the way but Thrulines will display the pedigree line of the match using their tree.
Its's probably better that way as I can see there's a difference if I bother to look and can evaluate it if I wish. If Ancestry were to just insert my version of the pedigree it would be identical so why would I ever question it?
-
I have built the tree of a match back way beyond the MRCA that we share more than once before now and the two trees may have a different name or date along the way but Thrulines will display the pedigree line of the match using their tree.
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I am learning all the time.
Just to briefly explain what I am trying. I want to find a family in Wales in the 1800s. I have matches, but can't connect the matches to "my" tree (actually my cousin-in-law's tree). The multiple use of the same few names in Wales makes that task very difficult - there are always many different possibilities of the same names and in the same area. So I am trying different possibilities in ThruLines to see if any matches come up, thus saving me heaps of tedious work.
In my last post here, I described how ThruLines chose a different 3 x Great Grandfather than I had in my tree. So I tried a different Great Grandfather and this time Thrulines adjusted and showed this person. So that's all good (except still no matches so far).
So it seems there must be triggers or criteria that decide whether ThruLines shows my tree or the tree of matches, and I'd like to try to understand that. So I'm wondering if you could explain, please, what you mean by "Thrulines will display the pedigree line of the match using their tree".
Thanks.
-
DNA matches have the large coloured dna coil profile image and are lower part of the image, gold for non Ancestry matches, blue for male Ancestry matches, Pink for female Ancestry matches (none shown in this example).
Their ancestors have a small gold dna coil in the top left of their profile picture, I simply click anyone with that gold symbol and can trace them down to a dna match. I could open up more lines (descendants of the people in the blue squares in the image),and in this case it would reveal almost 30 dna matches but for clarity I've just shown a couple of lines.
It's not perfect but it's a way to beat the 'add dna matches of' thing that Ancestry offer but that only works with Thrulines and needs a worldwide sub .
The “DNA Routing” for want of a better descriptor, that you describe is a great feature to add.
Up until now I only add a DNA Helix image as the matches profile image but I’ll create custom DNA Helix images to add.
Many thanks for posting
-
The “DNA Routing” for want of a better descriptor, that you describe is a great feature to add.
Up until now I only add a DNA Helix image as the matches profile image but I’ll create custom DNA Helix images to add.
Many thanks for posting
This hopefully is still clear enough to illustrate the principle with more branches opened up. I did the usual grouping then looked at protools when it came along but I still couldn't visualise it all. I would never have realised matches are spread over 4 generations just looking at match lists and protools results especially as the big cluster are USA and the two lone female matches on the right are UK. There's obvious gaps in my research and avenues to explore for target tests, given this is a floating branch full of mystery matches to me it has huge potential down the line. Even if I let my subs lapse it's there to see unless/until Ancestry decide viewing our own trees goes behind a paywall
-
The “DNA Routing” for want of a better descriptor, that you describe is a great feature to add.
Up until now I only add a DNA Helix image as the matches profile image but I’ll create custom DNA Helix images to add.
Many thanks for posting
This hopefully is still clear enough to illustrate the principle with more branches opened up. I did the usual grouping then looked at protools when it came along but I still couldn't visualise it all. I would never have realised matches are spread over 4 generations just looking at match lists and protools results especially as the big cluster are USA and the two lone female matches on the right are UK. There's obvious gaps in my research and avenues to explore for target tests, given this is a floating branch full of mystery matches to me it has huge potential down the line. Even if I let my subs lapse it's there to see unless/until Ancestry decide viewing our own trees goes behind a paywall
Glen
I would only include a “DNA Profile” image where there is a DNA test that links me to a specific individual.
In what was my floating tree there were two brothers and one sister who I would be related to and as it turns out the sister is my half sister and one of the brothers should be my half Brother. But the other brothers son did respond to a message and in the telephone conversation we had he told me that his Dad was adopted and hence had no blood ties with the sister and brother he knew when growing up. Hence I will not assume DNA matching unless directly validated by an actual DNA test.
Off now to Photoshop my options.
BTW, if you do decide to cease subscribing to Ancestry then I suggest you but either Roots Magic or Family Tree Maker. With both of these you can download your full Ancestry Family Tree, not using a Gedcom. The download will include all media and profile images. Plus with Roots Magic the error checking tools are light years better than the rubbish Tree Checker in Pro Tools. As it is Pro Tools duplicates is not fit for purpose.
-
Some of the 'features' Ancestry and MH conjure up make it look like a two horse race to the bottom of the pile at times. It's more 'click and collect' than actual genealogy. If I want a cheap chinese knock off tree I'll look on ebay nearer to christmas ;D
-
DNA matches have the large coloured dna coil profile image and are lower part of the image, gold for non Ancestry matches, blue for male Ancestry matches, Pink for female Ancestry matches (none shown in this example).
Their ancestors have a small gold dna coil in the top left of their profile picture, I simply click anyone with that gold symbol and can trace them down to a dna match. I could open up more lines (descendants of the people in the blue squares in the image),and in this case it would reveal almost 30 dna matches but for clarity I've just shown a couple of lines.
It's not perfect but it's a way to beat the 'add dna matches of' thing that Ancestry offer but that only works with Thrulines and needs a worldwide sub .
Hi Glen, trying to follow this layout as have a lot of Australian dna matches related to one person ( a 1c1r of mine) who went to Australia in 1911, changed his name, married and had 7 known children but also a fair few more scattered around I think. I have added them all as floating matches, with cM value as suffix, but I would like to change the profile image in some way, as you were suggesting with the gold dna coil.
Can you tell me how I amend the profile image please as couldn't find it on Ancestry?
Thanks, Pheno
-
DNA matches have the large coloured dna coil profile image and are lower part of the image, gold for non Ancestry matches, blue for male Ancestry matches, Pink for female Ancestry matches (none shown in this example).
Their ancestors have a small gold dna coil in the top left of their profile picture, I simply click anyone with that gold symbol and can trace them down to a dna match. I could open up more lines (descendants of the people in the blue squares in the image),and in this case it would reveal almost 30 dna matches but for clarity I've just shown a couple of lines.
It's not perfect but it's a way to beat the 'add dna matches of' thing that Ancestry offer but that only works with Thrulines and needs a worldwide sub .
Hi Glen, trying to follow this layout as have a lot of Australian dna matches related to one person ( a 1c1r of mine) who went to Australia in 1911, changed his name, married and had 7 known children but also a fair few more scattered around I think. I have added them all as floating matches, with cM value as suffix, but I would like to change the profile image in some way, as you were suggesting with the gold dna coil.
Can you tell me how I amend the profile image please as couldn't find it on Ancestry?
Thanks, Pheno
I used a simple image editing programme but I'll add the images here on this reply and the next, anyone who wishes to use them is more than welcome to, a simple right click and 'save as' should do the trick.
-
Ancestral icons
-
Thank you very much indeed - will have a go.
Pheno
-
Thanks again Glen.
I made my own Pink and Blue DNA jpg’s and added them to my Tree over the weekend.
Where there is an Image of a person in the tree there is now a small version of the Pink and Blue DNA jpg’s layered into the top right as per below.
It is a very useful function to add and it makes it very easy to navigate from the MRCA to a DNA Match or vica versa.
I did toy with adding the cM value with the shared Match but decided against it.
-
I did toy with adding the cM value with the shared Match but decided against it.
Let me guess; the scale of work needed for individual images hit home? Do not ask how I came to this conclusion ;D
-
Following where I can
Going to send to Livingston descendants in Bahamas
Would love it if we could get a thru line to Dr David Livingstone
Who I've been reading up about .
What an amazing man
He had 6 children.(1 died as baby )
And already have names if some spouses
* Eric what a difference a few years makes