new beta on ancestry dna results

[Gadget]

Thanks, Jane. I thought I'd tried that so will go back and try again.

Going through to colour code, I've managed to find some low cM matches that I'd added notes to but were way down the listings. I've even managed to find a match to my Shropshire Sandlands (must be a 5x grd link), which had somehow got buried!

Added - by clicking on the tree details in a listing, you can get to the old version!

Must admit that I am coming round to it now - not the Thrulines though.

[sugarfizzle]

Found a very odd one on my husband's side.

Ancestry is suggesting that his grandfather was not Joseph A 1881 - 1956, but was John A 1857 - 1932.

Leading back from this, he is supposedly descended from Z family from Lancashire and Derbyshire.  I have his grandfather documented and sourced, originally from Wakefield, Yorkshire. I must have got it wrong, I'll change everything.  I'm getting many suggestions for husband's incorrect line in Thrulines, which is annoying.  I have sent feedback, but don't know if it will get sorted out.

Regards Margaret

Today I notice this has been rectified, and my husband has the correct documented ancestors with some useful hints re matches. Not sure if this is because I sent feedback or because things are settling down a bit.

Still plenty of other mistakes/assumptions, though.

Regards Margaret

[Finley 1]

re- thought


xin

[sugarfizzle]

Ancestry, You are the most irresponsible company.

I have been checking the New and Improved DNA matches daily, with the filter Common Ancestor. I can easily see when new matches appear because I immediately tag them as I review them - coloured star to indicate add to favourites, more research needed, invalid match etc.

Today a new match, sharing 7 cMs, common Ancestor supposedly my 4G grandparents, her 5G grandparents. The match has one person in her tree, herself.

This connection may or may not be valid, but I feel it is utterly wrong of ancestry to assume that her parents are who they think they are, then carry on with these assumptions re parentage for 6 more generations.

It won't stop me trying to confirm this match, who I would not have found any other way,  But genealogy is about so much more than wild assumptions, based on one name.

Regards Margaret

[pharmaT]

I like the way I no longer have to manually divide my matches into my mum's side and Dad's side.  I also like that I can create groups so that I can sort my matches within the results area as I work through them.


I like the layout of through lines but find some of the suggested common ancestors a bit dodgy to say the least.

[melba_schmelba]

Ancestry, You are the most irresponsible company.

I have been checking the New and Improved DNA matches daily, with the filter Common Ancestor. I can easily see when new matches appear because I immediately tag them as I review them - coloured star to indicate add to favourites, more research needed, invalid match etc.

Today a new match, sharing 7 cMs, common Ancestor supposedly my 4G grandparents, her 5G grandparents. The match has one person in her tree, herself.

This connection may or may not be valid, but I feel it is utterly wrong of ancestry to assume that her parents are who they think they are, then carry on with these assumptions re parentage for 6 more generations.

It won't stop me trying to confirm this match, who I would not have found any other way,  But genealogy is about so much more than wild assumptions, based on one name.

Regards Margaret

Margaret I can see the logic of how they might do that i.e. they can tell from a very high centimorgan link to another testee, that they are a full sibling, and that full sibling has a much more substantial tree that either links directly to your 4G grandparents, or partially the way, and Ancestry are using the new Thruline 'intelligence' to join trees up. Of course, we all know the hazards that brings as already detailed.
  I have to say, the common ancestor feature, possibly using this Thruline technology has actually thrown up a revelation for me of linking a large number of American relatives to my own tree, using the data from theirs' and possibly data from my private tree where I traced a migratory line from UK-US and linking it up. So on the one hand I'm happy, on the other hand a bit annoyed this data from my private tree was taken, but no doubt it was my fault for not reading the old or updated terms and conditions .

[DevonCruwys]

In case it's of any interest I've written a blog post about the new AncestryDNA features:

https://cruwys.blogspot.com/2019/03/ancestry-updates-at-rootstech-thrulines.html

[Pheno]

Interesting read thanks.

I have really only had a dabble so far but wondered whether there was a way of deleting a record
card on Thrulines (or ignore if that is Ancestry speak) as there is the option to ignore shaking leaf hints.

One of my record cards is quite obviously rubbish - just trees of the same name attached and I would like to exclude it from the list - is there any option to do that.

Also, new matches indicated by a blue dot, used to be able to be reapplied if one took a look and then wanted this indicator to remain.  I can't see a way to reapply it now either.

Pheno

[DevonCruwys]

Pheno

There isn't currently an option to hide or delete wrong record cards. I will pass on this Feedback along with the suggestion of reverting to unseen matches.