Thrulines query

[Norfolk Nan]

That is a painstaking and methodical way of getting matches into order and under control.  I'm sure it helps if, like most of my tree, the people concerned do everything in the right order and keep things open and above board. But what about the others?

My biggest Ancestry match is a total mystery, her tree (her version nor mine) doesn't match mine in any way and she doesn't answer my dms so I'm reliant on our shared matches.  The next biggest shared match has no tree at all, provides no clues and doesn't respond either.  In all there are around 27 shared matches and those with a tree, however small, generally give a hint at how they share with each other - the same surname in the same towns - but not with me! 

Obviously I'm looking at illegitimate births now but if one parent isn’t ever acknowledged there will always be some matches that won't be explained. And if this is back in the dusty past I'll never prove a thing.  And they all stay in that box marked 'annoying mystery'

[Zaphod99]

Nan, you are going to need a bigger box.

Zaph

[Norfolk Nan]

 

[Josephine]

Thrulines [....]

DNA Grouping [....]

Thank you so much for this, Biggles50. I'm going to print your instructions and give it a go.

[Biggles50]

That is a painstaking and methodical way of getting matches into order and under control.  I'm sure it helps if, like most of my tree, the people concerned do everything in the right order and keep things open and above board. But what about the others?

My biggest Ancestry match is a total mystery, her tree (her version nor mine) doesn't match mine in any way and she doesn't answer my dms so I'm reliant on our shared matches.  The next biggest shared match has no tree at all, provides no clues and doesn't respond either.  In all there are around 27 shared matches and those with a tree, however small, generally give a hint at how they share with each other - the same surname in the same towns - but not with me! 

Obviously I'm looking at illegitimate births now but if one parent isn’t ever acknowledged there will always be some matches that won't be explained. And if this is back in the dusty past I'll never prove a thing.  And they all stay in that box marked 'annoying mystery'

This is one reason why I now always suggest that you try to get siblings and First Cousins on both parental sides to take a DNA test.

With DNA unearthing skeletons we need to make sure close Biological Family is actually Biological Family.

As I found out to my cost, First Cousins were not Biological First Cousins.

[Pheno]

Yes and no.  I do have 'potential ancestors' that certainly aren't so I'll make an effort to place the right person - if you're right that should do the trick.  What is bugging me today is a DNA connection with a tree that suggests we share a common 5xggrandfather because he married in Shropshire and had more children at the same time as mine was having kids in Bedfordshire, all late 1700s.  The only thing in common is the name! Grrr!

You can get rid of potential ancestors that you know are completely wrong, not only by inserting what you know is right (i.e. the correct ancestor) but also by inserting 'unknown' in the add father/mother box.  Cos this doesn't match the potential that Ancestry are showing you it no longer displays their option.

By the way, potential ancestors update immediately if you just refresh your tree once you have filled in a box.

Pheno

[Norfolk Nan]

As one particular fake offering annoyed me so much I did insert my own suggestion but it  wasn't real. That worked but a name's a name and no doubt suggestions will appear eventually - I much prefer the 'unknown' idea, it's to the point.  Thank you