Author Topic: Unlinked Tree or No Tree  (Read 2213 times)

Offline davidft

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,209
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Unlinked Tree or No Tree
« Reply #9 on: Tuesday 07 May 19 22:07 BST (UK) »
Hi all

So So So So frustrating when you go to Ancestry DNA find links and they haven't linked their test to a tree, you get Unlinked Trees or No Trees........

Aaarrrghh!!!!!!! why did you bother doing the test in the first place uploading it to Ancestry if you're not going to link it to any information Aaarrrghh!!!!!!!

Sorry for the rant but it's just so frustrating.

BourneGooner


just to say have you checked the profiles of those matches who do not have trees as sometimes there is genealogical information there. OK it may be a longshot but worth a look.
James Stott c1775-1850. James was born in Yorkshire but where? He was a stonemason and married Elizabeth Archer (nee Nicholson) in 1794 at Ripon. They lived thereafter in Masham. If anyone has any suggestions or leads as to his birthplace I would be interested to know. I have searched for it for years without success. Thank you.

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,517
    • View Profile
Re: Unlinked Tree or No Tree
« Reply #10 on: Wednesday 08 May 19 05:44 BST (UK) »
I think we just have to accept that people have different reasons for DNA testing - their goal is not necessarily the same as your goal.

Some may have been given a test for Christmas or birthday, but have no real interest in the results. Some may be interested in the ethnicity reports, though they may be disappointed when their results come in. Others may be interested but have no knowledge of their family, as in the case of adoptees.

Whatever the reason for testing, the more people who do test, the more matches for everyone else, tree or no tree. Whether it is by looking at shared matches, by messaging matches, or by a bit of general sleuthing, you can sometimes find a connectIon.

So, frustrating - yes. But we just have to accept the nuggets, in whatever form, that come our way. If I found genuine connections with all of my many thousands of matches I would be overwhelmed with information.

Regards Margaret
STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go

Offline brigidmac

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,486
  • Computer incompetent but stiil trying
    • View Profile
Re: Unlinked Tree or No Tree
« Reply #11 on: Wednesday 08 May 19 05:53 BST (UK) »
 I think no linked trees still  come up with common ancestor links which you can see

Ive just spent hours colour coding matches ..There are a lot of dna matches from USA with no  name matches and no shared locations
Im.begininning to think that my mysterious maternal great grandma must have had another baby while she was in New York with her  legitimate son during WW 1
Roberts,Fellman.Macdermid smith jones,Bloch,Irvine,Hallis Stevenson