I'm getting fed up with the Thruline suggestions - you know, the "You
may be related to <other username> through <common ancestor>", which
then shows the common ancestor in a box at the top, with two streams of
boxes, going down to me on the left, and <other username> on the right.
The part of the chain - usually, up from me to the common ancestor, and
part way down on the right-hand side - that's already in my tree, is
shown as solid boxes, and at some point they switch to dotted boxes with
an "evaluate" button: when you click that, it shows a few possible
trees, each with a collection of records that support the suggestion
they're making.

For example, one recent case, I'd verified all the links from myself up
to the common ancestor and then down three generations, to Robert
Davidson. The next suggested person was George Jobling. When I clicked
Evaluate, it gave me two trees to support that - one with 10 records,
one with 0 records. Of the 10, the ones that showed anything to do with
George's birth or parents showed his parents as Robert Jobling and Ann
Rennison - no mention of Davison. (So there'd be no point in contacting
the owner of that tree to ask her.)

Tonight's one looks at first more promising: I've verified all the way
to Henry Patterson, and the next person suggested is Rachel Patterson.
That does indeed seem plausible. But: Henry was born, baptised, resided,
died, and was buried, all in Embleton, Northumberland; and Rachel,
according to the "supporting" records, was born and died in Tennessee.
(One of those records, an 1880 US census, shows her father was born
there too.)

I'd accept the odd error, but in cases this just - well, plain silly,
it's very frustrating.

What's more: in a normal profile, where Ancestry create a "hint",
there's the option to reject it (and even say why - e. g. names, places,
dates, and/or relationships are wrong, or even just that I already had
the information) - and when you do, the hint disappears. But for
Thrulines, the only option is "Add to tree" - or of course don't; but if
you don't, the suggestion remains there, however wrong it is, blocking
you (and presumably the Thrulines system itself) from making another
suggestion.

I've sent Ancestry a screenshot, and got a thank you. Little suggestion
they're going to do anything about it, *or even investigate it*.

Sorry, </rant>. (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Quantum particles: the dreams that stuff is made of - David Moser

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 22:45:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>I'm getting fed up with the Thruline suggestions - you know, the "You
>may be related to <other username> through <common ancestor>", which
>then shows the common ancestor in a box at the top, with two streams of
>boxes, going down to me on the left, and <other username> on the right.
>The part of the chain - usually, up from me to the common ancestor, and
>part way down on the right-hand side - that's already in my tree, is
>shown as solid boxes, and at some point they switch to dotted boxes with
>an "evaluate" button: when you click that, it shows a few possible
>trees, each with a collection of records that support the suggestion
>they're making.
>
>For example, one recent case, I'd verified all the links from myself up
>to the common ancestor and then down three generations, to Robert
>Davidson. The next suggested person was George Jobling. When I clicked
>Evaluate, it gave me two trees to support that - one with 10 records,
>one with 0 records. Of the 10, the ones that showed anything to do with
>George's birth or parents showed his parents as Robert Jobling and Ann
>Rennison - no mention of Davison. (So there'd be no point in contacting
>the owner of that tree to ask her.)
>
>Tonight's one looks at first more promising: I've verified all the way
>to Henry Patterson, and the next person suggested is Rachel Patterson.
>That does indeed seem plausible. But: Henry was born, baptised, resided,
>died, and was buried, all in Embleton, Northumberland; and Rachel,
>according to the "supporting" records, was born and died in Tennessee.
>(One of those records, an 1880 US census, shows her father was born
>there too.)
>
>I'd accept the odd error, but in cases this just - well, plain silly,
>it's very frustrating.
>
>What's more: in a normal profile, where Ancestry create a "hint",
>there's the option to reject it (and even say why - e. g. names, places,
>dates, and/or relationships are wrong, or even just that I already had
>the information) - and when you do, the hint disappears. But for
>Thrulines, the only option is "Add to tree" - or of course don't; but if
>you don't, the suggestion remains there, however wrong it is, blocking
>you (and presumably the Thrulines system itself) from making another
>suggestion.
>
>I've sent Ancestry a screenshot, and got a thank you. Little suggestion
>they're going to do anything about it, *or even investigate it*.
>
>Sorry, </rant>. (-:
>
I have one which keeps getting offered as a suggestion but has been
positively excluded. They often turn out not to be siblings/children
but cousins, the DNA match possibly being somewhat stronger than usual
thus likely to be a sibling match on a statistical basis.
The ones I am having fun with at the moment are a whole group of
people in the USA who with one exception are maternal matches. They
all trace back to one English immigrant in the 17th century who is a
match on my father's side; so far I have found no match on my mother's
side although reputed Stewart ancestry in my grandparents' parish
would land up in the same place around three centuries earlier.

In message <97nrfihnth90b5rofnub543uj7g258u84m@4ax.com> at Sun, 10 Sep
2023 16:25:02, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> writes
>On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 22:45:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
[]
>>I've sent Ancestry a screenshot, and got a thank you. Little suggestion
>>they're going to do anything about it, *or even investigate it*.
>>
>>Sorry, </rant>. (-:
>>
>I have one which keeps getting offered as a suggestion but has been
>positively excluded. They often turn out not to be siblings/children
>but cousins, the DNA match possibly being somewhat stronger than usual
>thus likely to be a sibling match on a statistical basis.

It's the inability to dismiss them that's the most irritating - that and
Ancestry's lack of interest, of course.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as Windows crashed into piglet.

On 09/09/2023 5:45 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I'm getting fed up with the Thruline suggestions - you know, the "You
> may be related to <other username> through <common ancestor>", which
> then shows the common ancestor in a box at the top, with two streams of
> boxes, going down to me on the left, and <other username> on the right.
> The part of the chain - usually, up from me to the common ancestor, and
> part way down on the right-hand side - that's already in my tree, is
> shown as solid boxes, and at some point they switch to dotted boxes with
> an "evaluate" button: when you click that, it shows a few possible
> trees, each with a collection of records that support the suggestion
> they're making.
>
> For example, one recent case, I'd verified all the links from myself up
> to the common ancestor and then down three generations, to Robert
> Davidson. The next suggested person was George Jobling. When I clicked
> Evaluate, it gave me two trees to support that - one with 10 records,
> one with 0 records. Of the 10, the ones that showed anything to do with
> George's birth or parents showed his parents as Robert Jobling and Ann
> Rennison - no mention of Davison. (So there'd be no point in contacting
> the owner of that tree to ask her.)
>
> Tonight's one looks at first more promising: I've verified all the way
> to Henry Patterson, and the next person suggested is Rachel Patterson.
> That does indeed seem plausible. But: Henry was born, baptised, resided,
> died, and was buried, all in Embleton, Northumberland; and Rachel,
> according to the "supporting" records, was born and died in Tennessee.
> (One of those records, an 1880 US census, shows her father was born
> there too.)
>
> I'd accept the odd error, but in cases this just - well, plain silly,
> it's very frustrating.
>
> What's more: in a normal profile, where Ancestry create a "hint",
> there's the option to reject it (and even say why - e. g. names, places,
> dates, and/or relationships are wrong, or even just that I already had
> the information) - and when you do, the hint disappears. But for
> Thrulines, the only option is "Add to tree" - or of course don't; but if
> you don't, the suggestion remains there, however wrong it is, blocking
> you (and presumably the Thrulines system itself) from making another
> suggestion.
>
> I've sent Ancestry a screenshot, and got a thank you. Little suggestion
> they're going to do anything about it, *or even investigate it*.
>
> Sorry, </rant>. (-:
I have been frustrated with Ancestry Hints for some time. I look at the
possible matches in Trulines, get excited because this could be the
break I am looking for. However when you review the trees, there is no
documentation or their "documentation" is another unsupported tree.

Shier DNA matches are pathetic. You get hundreds of matches, and 95% of
them will be private, or have 0 to 10 people in their tree. ie 10
people for a 4th to 6th cousin DNA Match is worthless.