I wanted to evaluate the accuracy of Ancestry’s ThruLines suggested Potential Ancestors when compared with a tree I know is accurate. I conducted an experiment where I created a small tree on Ancestry for a DNA tester that included only the first two generations, meaning grandparents and great-grandparents.
Click to enlarge any image.
This gave Ancestry enough data to work with and means that for the upstream ancestors, Ancestry’s ThruLines suggested specific people as ancestors.
How well did Ancestry do? Are the Potential Ancestors suggested by Ancestry accurate? How do they make those suggestions anyway? Are they useful?
I do have a second, completely separate, full tree connected to my other DNA test, and I do know who those ancestors are, or, in some cases, I know who they aren’t. I’ve had the privilege of working intensively on my genealogy for decades, so I can easily compare what is known and proven, or what has been disproven, to Ancestry’s suggested Potential Ancestors.
We’ll start with the great-grandparents’ generation, but first, let’s talk about how ThruLines works. I’ve previously written about ThruLines here and here.
How ThruLines Works
ThruLines is a tool for people who have taken an AncestryDNA test and who link themselves to their position on their tree. Linking is a critical step. If you don’t link the DNA test to the proper profile, the tester won’t have ThruLines. I provided step-by-step instructions, here.
I want to emphasize this again, ThruLines is a TOOL, not an answer. It may or may not be accurate and it’s entirely UP TO YOU to take that hint, run with it, and verify or disprove. Ancestry is providing you with a hint.
Essentially, the more ancestors that you provide to Ancestry, generally, the better they can do when suggesting additional Potential Ancestors. They do need something to work with. I wrote about that in the article Optimizing Your Tree at Ancestry for More Hints and DNA ThruLines.
If you don’t provide at least your parents and at least your grandparents in a tree, it’s unlikely that Ancestry will be able to provide Potential Ancestors for you.
I added two generations above the parents in this experiment in order to provide Ancestry with a significant “hook” to latch onto to connect with:
- Other DNA testers who match the tester AND
- Other people’s trees, whether the tree-owners have tested their DNA or not
So yes, to be clear, Ancestry DOES:
- Use the trees of other people whose DNA you match AND have the same ancestors in their tree
- Along with the trees of people you don’t match (or who haven’t DNA tested,) to propose ancestors for you
ThruLines only reaches back to ancestors within 7 generations, meaning the ancestor is the tester’s 5th great-grandparent or closer.
Most suggested Potential Ancestors in ThruLines have descendants who have tested and are DNA matches to you, but not necessarily all.
On your tree itself, the ThruLines “3 people” icon shows on the ancestors that have Thrulines.
Click to enlarge
Looking at this graphic of my tree, you can see that ThruLines ends at the 7th generation, but Potential Ancestors continue to be suggested beyond 7 generations. Note generation 9, below, which is beyond ThruLines but has Potential Ancestors suggested based entirely on other people’s trees.
ThruLines stops at 7 generations, but Potential Ancestor suggestions do not.
In the above example, in generation 7, Michael McDowell (1720-1755) is a known ancestor and has a ThruLine, but his wife is unknown. Ancestry has suggested a Potential Mother for Michael McDowell (1747-1840) who is also the spouse of Michael McDowell (1720-1755).
Here’s the ThruLines suggestion for Michael McDowell’s wife.
Ironically, there are no DNA matches for either Michael or Eleanor. However, there are DNA matches for their child who clearly descends from Michael. This may be an example of a situation where the other testers are beyond the 7th generation, so they don’t show as matches for our tester in Michael’s generation. The other possibility, of course, is a glitch in ThruLines.
(For those familiar with the Michael McDowell (1720-1755) lineage, Eleanor is his mother, not his wife. His wife is unknown, so this Potential Ancestor is incorrect.)
Potential Ancestors Without DNA Matches
A person may still be suggested as a Potential Ancestor even without any DNA matches.
I have seen situations where a parent has DNA matches to several ThruLine ancestors, but their child has the same suggested ancestor with zero DNA matches listed because the child and the match are one generation too far removed to be listed as a DNA match on ThruLines.
Yet, if you search the child’s match list for the individual listed as a DNA match to their parent through that ancestor, that match is also on the child’s match list.
In the chart that follows, you can see that ancestors in the midrange of generations have many DNA matches, but as you approach the 7th generation, the number of matches drops significantly, and some even have zero. That’s because both people of a match pair have to be within the generational boundary for ThruLines to list them as matches.
In some cases, the ancestor is not suggested for the child in ThruLines because the ancestor is the 6th great-grandparent of the child. If you look directly at the child’s tree, the Potential Ancestor may be suggested there.
Points to Remember
- The difference between ThruLines and Potential Ancestors is that Potential Ancestors are still suggested beyond the hard 7 generation or 5 GG boundary for ThruLines.
- ThruLines may suggest Potential Ancestors with or without DNA matches.
- Potential Ancestors, either within or beyond ThruLines must connect to someone in your tree, or another Potential Ancestor or ancestors who connect to someone in your tree.
Incorrect Ancestors and Discrepancies
An incorrect ancestor can be listed in multiple people’s trees, and Ancestry will suggest that incorrect ancestor for you based on the associated trees. At one point, I did a survey of the number of people who had the incorrect Virginia wife listed for my ancestor, Abraham Estes, and the first 150 trees I viewed had the wrong wife. We have church record proof of her death in England before his children were born by his colonial Virginia wife. Garbage in, garbage out.
That doesn’t mean those trees aren’t useful. In some cases, the information “saved” to that person in those incorrect trees shows you exactly what is out there and can’t be correct. For example, if there is a death record and burial for someone, they can’t also be alive 50 years later in another location. Or someone born in 1780 can’t have been a Revolutionary War veteran. Sometimes you’ll discover same name confusion, or multiple people who have been conflated into one. Other times, you may actually find valid hints for your own ancestor misplaced in someone else’s tree. Always evaluate.
You “should” have the same number of matches to the man and woman of a couple if neither of them had descendants with another partner, but sometimes that doesn’t happen. I would presume that’s due to tree discrepancies among your matches or other trees on Ancestry.
If the same ancestor is listed with multiple name spellings or similar differences, I have no idea how Ancestry determines which version to present to you as a Potential Ancestor. That’s why ThruLines are hints. Ancestry does show you the various trees they utilized and allows you to peruse them for hints for that suggested ancestor.
Just click on the Evaluate button. Unfortunately, neither of these trees have any records for this ancestor.
If you click on the tree, you are then given the opportunity to add Eleanor (meaning the potential ancestor) to your tree from their tree.
I STRONGLY, STRONGLY suggest that you DO NOT do this. By adding information directly from other people’s trees, you’re introducing any errors from their tree into your tree as well.
If you click through to their tree, you’ll often find that they used someone else’s tree as their “source,” so misinformation propagates easily. Seeing “Ancestry Family Trees” as a source, especially in multiple records, provides you with an idea of the research style of that tree owner. This also conveys the message to less-experienced researchers that copy/pasting from other trees is a valid source.
Use this information provided as hints and do your own research and evaluation.
Where Do Potential Ancestors Come From?
Let’s view an example of an incorrect Potential Ancestor suggestion and proof-steps you can utilize to help validate or potentially disprove the suggestion.
We know that George Middleton Clarkston/Clarkson is NOT the father of James Lee Clarkson based on Y-DNA testing where the descendants of the two men not only don’t match, they have a completely different haplogroup. They do not share a common paternal ancestor. Furthermore, proven descendant groups of both men do not have autosomal DNA matches.
However, George Middleton Clarkson is suggested as a Potential Ancestor in ThruLines as the father of James Lee Clarkson.
Mousing over the ThruLines placard shows 98 DNA matches to other people who claim descent from George Middleton Clarkson. How is it possible to have 98 matches with descendants of George Middleton Clarkson, yet he’s not my ancestor?
Many people just see that “98,” which is a high number and think, “well, of course he’s my ancestor, otherwise, I wouldn’t match all those descendants.” It’s not that simple or straightforward though. It’s certainly possible to all be wrong together, especially if you’re dealing with long-held assumptions in the genealogy community and trees copies from other people’s trees for decades.
To view the ThruLine detail for George Middleton Clarkson, just click on the placard.
The ThruLine for George Middleton Clarkson has three attributed children with DNA matches. Let’s evaluate.
- ThruLines Child 1 is my own James Lee Clarkson that has been erroneously attached to George Middleton Clarkson. However, the Y-DNA of the three various lines, above, does not match. That erroneous connection alone counts for 80 of those 98 matches. If all of those people who match me do descend from our common ancestor, James, those matches all make sense.
According to early histories, James Lee Clarkson was believed to be George’s son based on geographic proximity between the state of Franklin in eastern Tennessee and Russell County, Virginia, but then came DNA testing which said otherwise.
This DNA grouping from the Clarkson/Claxton DNA Project at FamilyTreeDNA shows that the men, above, which includes descendants of James Lee Claxton/Clarkson, all match each other.
- ThruLines Child 2 is Thomas Clarkston who has 17 DNA matches through 7 of his children.
By clicking on the green evaluate button for Thomas, we see that two of the DNA related trees have records, but three do not.
The first tree is quite interesting for a number of reasons.
- Thomas Clarkson is found in Lee County, VA, in relatively close proximity to where James Lee Clarkson is first found in Russell County, VA as an adult in 1795.
- There is no actual documentation to connect Thomas Clarkson with George Middleton Clarkson who was hung in 1787 in the lost State of Franklin, Tennessee, now Washington and Greene Counties in Tennessee. It has been “accepted” for years that Thomas descends from George Middleton based on information reportedly passed down within that family long before the internet.
The Claxton/Clarkson DNA Project at FamilyTreeDNA shows the Thomas lineage. This lineage reaches back into England based on Y-DNA matches – a huge and important hint for the Thomas descendants that they won’t be able to obtain anyplace else.
Note that Thomas’s Y-DNA does not match that of James Lee Clarkson/Claxton which means these people must match me through a different line. That’s not surprising given that many of the families of this region intermarried for generations.
- ThruLines Child 3 is David Claxton, who has one DNA match, so let’s look at that by clicking on the green evaluate button.
You’ll see that this ancestor through David Claxton was recommended based on:
- One DNA match with a tree with 0 source records, and
- Zero Ancestry member trees of people whose DNA I don’t match, or that haven’t DNA tested
Checking this tree shows no sources for the following generations either, so I have no way to evaluate the accurace of the tree.
However, I did track his descendants for a generation or so and found them in Wilson County, TN, which allowed me to find them in the Clarkson/Claxton Y DNA Project at FamilyTreeDNA.
In the Clarkson/Claxton DNA project, we see that this David Claxton of Wilson County, TN is in a third DNA group that does not match either the James Lee Claxton or the Thomas Claxton line.
Furthermore, look at the hints for the descendants of David Claxton based on the Y-DNA matches. This link appears to reach back to a Clayton in Kirkington, Yorkshire.
ThruLines Conflation
In this case, three men of similar or the same surnames were cobbled together as sons of George Middleton Clarkson where clearly, based on Y-DNA testing, those three men are not related to each other paternally and do not share a common paternal ancestor. They cannot all three be descendants of George Middleton Clarkson.
It’s amazing how much is missed and erroneously inferred by NOT testing Y-DNA. In very short order, we just proved that the ThruLine that connected all three of these men to George Middleton Clarkson as their ancestor is inaccurate.
In defense of Ancestry, they simply used user-submitted erroneous trees – but you have it within YOUR power to search further, and to utilize Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA testing for additional clarification. This Clarkson/Claxton information was freely available, publicly, by just checking.
You can find surname or other projects at FamilyTreeDNA, by scrolling down, here, or simply google “<surname you seek> DNA Project.”
How Can These People All Match the Tester?
If we know that the male Claxton/Clarkson line is not the link between these matches, then why and how do these people all DNA match the tester? That’s a great question.
It’s possible that:
- They match the tester through a different ancestor
- There has been a genetic disconnect in the Claxton/Clarkson line and the match is through the mother, not the Claxton/Clarkson male
- Some of the other testers’ genealogy is in error by including George Middleton Clarkson in their trees
- People accept the George Middleton Clarkson suggestion, adding him to their tree, propagating erroneous information
- The descendants of James Lee Clarkson/Claxton match because he is their common ancestor, but connecting him to George Middleton Clarkson is erroneous
- The 15 cM match (and potentially others) is identical by chance
- The Y-DNA disproved this possibility in this case. In other cases, the matches could have been from the same biological Clarkson/Claxton line, but the testers have their ancestor incorrectly attached to George Middleton Clarkson/Claxton. In this case, we can’t say which of David Claxton, James Lee Claxton and/or Thomas Claxton are or are not individually erroneously connected to George Middleton Clarkson, but we know for a fact that David’s, James’ and Thomas’s descendant’s Y-DNA does not match each other, so they can’t all three be descendants of George Middleton Clarkston. Furthermore, there is no solid evidence that ANY of these three men are his descendant. We know that these three men do not share a common direct paternal ancestor.
I recommend for every male line that you check the relevant Y-DNA project at FamilyTreeDNA and see if the information there confirms or conflicts with a suggested ancestor, or if a descendant hasn’t yet tested. I also STRONGLY recommend that a male in the relevant surname line that carries that surname be asked to test in order to verify the lineage.
ThruLine Ranking
I’m going to rank Ancestry’s suggested Potential Ancestors by awarding points for accuracy on their Potential Ancestor ThruLines suggestions and subtracting points for incorrect Potential Ancestor suggestions. This chart is at the end with links to my 52 Ancestor’s articles for those ancestors.
OK, let’s take a look, beginning with the great-grandparent generation.
Great-Grandparents
I entered all of these ancestors and they are connected to their children, the tester’s grandparents. They are not connected to their parents for purposes of this article, although I do know who the parents are, so let’s see how Ancestry does making Potential Ancestor suggestions through ThruLines.
Ancestors (above example) that are NOT framed by a dotted line and who are NOT labeled as a “Potential Ancestor” have been connected in their tree by the DNA tester, meaning you.
The next generations, below, are all framed by dotted lines, meaning they are Potential Ancestor suggestions provided by Ancestry. Potential Ancestors are always clearly marked with the green bar.
Eight 2nd Great Grandparents
In this generation, because I have not connected them, Ancestry has suggested Potential Ancestors for all sixteen 2X Great-Grandparents.
I’ve provided gold stars for the correct ancestor information meaning both the name and the birth and death date within a year or a decade when they died between census years.
Of these 16, three are completely accurate and the rest were at least partially accurate.
I repeated this process for each one of the suggested Potential Ancestors in the 3rd, 4th and 5th great grandparent categories as well, completing a ranking chart as I went.
Ranking Chart
I’ve ranked Ancestry’s accuracy in their Potential Ancestor recommendations.
- +2 points means the name AND birth and death years are accurate within a year or decade if they died within a census boundary
- +1 point means that EITHER the name OR the birth and death dates are (mostly) accurate, but not both
- 0 means uncertain, so neither positive or negative
- -1 point means that NEITHER the name NOR birth and death dates are accurate but it’s clear that this is meant to be the correct person. In other words, with some work, this hint could point you in the right direction, but in and of itself, it is inaccurate.
- -2 means that the person suggested is the wrong person
I’ve been generous where there was some question. I’ve linked these ancestors where I’ve written their 52 Ancestors stories. [LNU] means last name unknown. It’s worth noting that one of the trees Ancestry has available to utilize for Potential Ancestors is my own accurate tree with many source documents for my ancestors.
| # | Generation | Ancestry Name & Birth/Death Years | Correct Name & Birth/Death Years | # Matches | Points Awarded | Y or mtDNA Confirmed |
| 1 | 2nd GGP | John R. Estes 1788-1885 | John. R. Estes 1787-1885 | 110 | 2 | Yes |
| 2 | 2nd GGP | Nancy Ann Moore 1789-1865 | Ann Moore or Nancy Ann Moore c1785-1860/1870 | 112 | 1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 3 | 2nd GGP | Lazarus Dotson 1785-1861 | Lazarus Dodson 1795-1861 | 46 | -1 | Yes |
| 4 | 2nd GGP | Elizabeth Campbell 1802-1842 | Elizabeth Campbell c 1802-1827/1830 | 46 | 1 | Yes |
| 5 | 2nd GGP | Elijah R. Vannoy 1782-1850 | Elijah Vannoy 1784-1850s | 82 | -1 | Yes |
| 6 | 2nd GGP | Rebecca Lois McNeil 1781-1839 | Lois McNiel c1786-c1830s | 81 | -1 | Yes |
| 7 | 2nd GGP | William Crumley ?-1859 | William Crumley 1788-1859 | 97 | 1 | Yes |
| 8 | 2nd GGP | Lydia Brown Crumley 1796-1847 | Lydia Brown c1781-1830/1840 | 112 | -1 | Yes |
| 9 | 2nd GGP | Henry Bolton 1741-1846 | Henry Frederick Bolton 1762-1846 | 152 | -1 | Yes |
| 10 | 2nd GGP | Nancy Mann 1777-1841 | Nancy Mann c1780-1841 | 134 | 1 | Yes |
| 11 | 2nd GGP | William Herrel 1803-1859 | William Harrell/Herrell c1790-1859 | 31 | 1 | Yes |
| 12 | 2nd GGP | Mary McDowell 1785-1871 | Mary McDowell 1785-after 1872 | 45 | 2 | Yes |
| 13 | 2nd GGP | Fairwick Clarkson 1800-1874 | Fairwix/Fairwick Clarkson/Claxton 1799/1800-1874 | 82 | 2 | Yes |
| 14 | 2nd GGP | Agnes Sander Muncy 1803-1880 | Agnes Muncy 1803-after 1880 | 106 | 1 | Yes |
| 15 | 2nd GGP | Thomas Charles Speak 1805-1843 | Charles Speak 1804/1805-1840/1850 | 60 | 1 | Yes |
| 16 | 2nd GGP | Ann McKee 1805-1860 | Ann McKee 1804/1805-1840/1850 | 60 | 1 | Yes |
| 17 | 3rd GGP | George M. Estes 1763-1859 | George Estes 1763-1859 | 76 | 1 | Yes |
| 18 | 3rd GGP | Mary C. Younger 1766-1850 | Mary Younger c1766-1820/1830 | 75 | -1 | Yes |
| 19 | 3rd GGP | William Moore 1756-1810 | William Moore 1750-1826 | 72 | 1 | Yes |
| 20 | 3rd GGP | Susannah Harwell 1748-1795 | Lucy [LNU] 1754-1832 | 69 | -2 | Need Lucy’s mtDNA through all females |
| 21 | 3rd GGP | Lazarous Dotson 1760-1826 | Lazarus Dodson 1760-1826 | 42 | 1 | Yes |
| 22 | 3rd GGP | Janet Jane Campbell 1762-1826 | Jane [LNU] c1760-1830/1840 | 38 | -2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 23 | 3rd GGP | John Campbell 1772-1836 | John Campbell c1772-1838 | 65 | 1 | Yes |
| 24 | 3rd GGP | Jane Dobkins 1780-1860 | Jane Dobkins c1780-c1860 | 22 | 2 | Yes |
| 25 | 3rd GGP | Francis Vanoy/Vannoy 1746-1822 | Daniel Vannoy 1752-after 1794 | 76 | -2 | Yes |
| 26 | 3rd GGP | Millicent “Millie” Henderson 1755-1822 | Sarah Hickerson 1752/1760-before 1820 | 76 | -2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 27 | 3rd GGP | William McNeil/McNeal 1760-1830 | William McNiel c1760-c1817 | 116 | 1 | Yes |
| 28 | 3rd GGP | Elizabeth Shepherd McNeil 1766-1820 | Elizabeth Shepherd 1766-1830/1840 | 115 | -1 | Yes |
| 29 | 3rd GGP | William Crumley 1767-1837 | William Crumley c1767-c1839 | 59 | 1 | Yes |
| 30 | 3rd GGP | Hannah Hanner “Hammer” 1770-1814 | unknown | 60 | -2 | Have her mtDNA |
| 31 | 3rd GGP | Jotham Sylvanis Brown 1765-1859 | Jotham Brown c1740-c1799 | 100 | -2 | Yes |
| 32 | 3rd GGP | Ruth Johnston Brown | Phoebe Cole 1747-1802 | 97 | -2 | Incorrect person but have correct mtDNA |
| 33 | 3rd GGP | Henry Bolton 1720-1757 | Henry Bolton 1729-1765 | 88 | 1 | Yes |
| 34 | 3rd GGP | Sarah Corry 1729-1797 | Sarah Corry 1729-1797 | 80 | 2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 35 | 3rd GGP | Robert James Mann 1753-1801 | James Mann 1745-? | 77 | -1 | Need Y-DNA |
| 36 | 3rd GGP | Mary Jane Wilson 1760-1801 | Mary Brittain Cantrell c1755-? | 80 | -2 | Incorrect but have correct mtDNA |
| 37 | 3rd GGP | John Herrell 1761-1829 | John Harrold c1750-1825 | 19 | -1 | Yes |
| 38 | 3rd GGP | Hallie | Mary [LNU] c1750-1826 | 18 | -2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 39 | 3rd GGP | Michael McDowell-McDaniel 1737-1834 | Michael McDowell c1747–1840 | 25 | -2 | Yes |
| 40 | 3rd GGP | Sarah Isabel “Liza” Hall | Isabel [LNU] c1753-1840/1850 | 27 | -2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 41 | 3rd GGP | James Lee Clarkson 1775-1815 | James Lee Clarkson c1775-1815 | 170 | 2 | Yes |
| 42 | 3rd GGP | Sarah Helloms Cook 1775-1863 | Sarah Cook 1775-1863 | 188 | 1 | Yes |
| 43 | 3rd GGP | Samuel Munsey-Muncy 1767-1830 | Samuel Muncy after 1755-before 1820 | 108 | 1 | Yes |
| 44 | 3rd GGP | Anne W. Workman 1768-1830 | Anne Nancy Workman 1760/1761-after 1860 | 107 | -1 | Yes |
| 45 | 3rd GGP | Rev. Nicholas Speak 1782-1852 | Nicholas Speak/Speaks 1782-1852 | 93 | 2 | Yes |
| 46 | 3rd GGP | Sarah Faires Speak 1782-1865 | Sarah Faires 1786-1865 | 93 | -1 | Yes |
| 47 | 3rd GGP | Andrew McKee 1760-1814 | Andrew McKee c1760-1814 | 86 | 2 | Yes |
| 48 | 3rd GGP | Elizabeth 1765-1839 | Elizabeth [LNU] c1767-1838 | 88 | 2 | Yes |
| 49 | 4th GGP | Moses Estes 1742-1815 | Moses Estes c1742-1813 | 27 | 1 | Yes |
| 50 | 4th GGP | Luremia Susannah Combes 1747-1815 | Luremia Combs c1740-c1820 | 33 | -1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 51 | 4th GGP | Marcus Younger 1735-1816 | Marcus Younger 1730/1740-1816 | 30 | 2 | Yes |
| 52 | 4th GGP | Susanna Hart* 1725-1806 | Susanna [possibly] Hart c1740-before 1805 | 26 | -1 | Yes |
| 53 | 4th GGP | William Moore 1725-1757 | James Moore c1718-c1798 | 25 | -2 | Yes |
| 54 | 4th GGP | Margaret Hudspeth 1725-1808 | Mary Rice c1723-c1778/1781 | 26 | -2 | Need Mary Rice mtDNA through all females |
| 55 | 4th GGP | Samuel “Little Sam” Harwell 1716-1793 | Incorrect | 36 | -2 | |
| 56 | 4th GGP | Abigail Anne Jackson 1712-1793 | Incorrect | 33 | -2 | |
| 57 | 4th GGP | Rawleigh “Rolly” Dodson 1730-1793 | Raleigh Dodson 1730-c1794 | 19 | 2 | Yes |
| 58 | 4th GGP | Elizabeth Mary Booth 1728-1793 | Mary [LNU] c1730-1807/1808 | 27 | -2 | Need Mary’s mtDNA through all females |
| 59 | 4th GGP | Nancy Ann Steele 1728-1836 | Unknown mother of Jane [LNU], wife of Lazarus Dodson | 16 | -2 | Need Jane’s mtDNA through all females |
| 60 | 4th GGP | James Campbell 1742-1931 | Charles Campbell c1750-c1825 | 28 | -2 | Y DNA confirmed NOT this line |
| 61 | 4th GGP | Letitia Allison 1759-1844 | Incorrect | 31 | -2 | |
| 62 | 4th GGP | Jacob Dobkins 1750-1833 | Jacob Dobkins 1751-1835 | 91 | 1 | Yes |
| 63 | 4th GGP | Dorcas (Darcas) Johnson 1750-1831 | Darcus Johnson c1750-c1835 | 92 | 2 | Yes |
| 64 | 4th GGP | John Francis Vannoy 1719-1778 | John Francis Vannoy 1719-1778 | 47 | 2 | Yes |
| 65 | 4th GGP | Susannah Baker Anderson 1720-1816 | Susannah Anderson c1721-c1816 | 59 | 2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 66 | 4th GGP | Thomas Hildreth Henderson 1736-1806 | Charles Hickerson c1725-before 1793 | 37 | -2 | Have Hickerson Y-DNA |
| 67 | 4th GGP | Mary Frances “Frankie” McIntire 1735-1811 | Mary Lytle c1730-before 1794 | 37 | -2 | Need mtDNA from all females |
| 68 | 4th GGP | Rev. George W. McNeil 1720-1805 | George McNiel c1720-1805 | 143 | 1 | Yes |
| 69 | 4th GGP | Mary Sarah Coates 1732-1782 | Sarah/Sallie or Mary [maybe] Coates c1740-1782/1787 | 139 | 1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 70 | 4th GGP | John James Sheppard Shepherd 1734-1810 | Robert Shepherd 1739-1817 | 136 | -2 | Have Shepherd Y-DNA |
| 71 | 4th GGP | Sarah Ann Rash 1732-1810 | Sarah Rash 1748-1829 | 178 | -1 | Yes |
| 72 | 4th GGP | John Crumbley 1737-1794 | William Crumley 1736-1793 | 77 | -2 | Have Crumley Y-DNA |
| 73 | 4th GGP | Hannah Mercer 1742-1774 | Hannah Mercer c1740-c1773 | 73 | 2 | Yes |
| 74 | 4th GGP | John Hanner (Hainer) | Incorrect | 19 | -2 | |
| 75 | 4th GGP | Jotham Brown 1740-1799 | Incorrect | 183 | -2 | Have Brown Y-DNA |
| 76 | 4th GGP | Phoebe Ellen Johnston 1742-1810 | Incorrect | 182 | -2 | |
| 77 | 4th GGP | Moses Johnston 1746-1828 | Incorrect | 45 | -2 | |
| 78 | 4th GGP | Eleanor Havis 1753-1837 | Incorrect | 47 | -2 | |
| 79 | 4th GGP | Henry Boulton 1693-1737 | John Bolton before 1693-after 1729 | 23 | -2 | Have Bolton Y-DNA |
| 80 | 4th GGP | Elizabeth Bryan 1658-1742 | Elizabeth Goaring 1795-1729 | 22 | -2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 81 | 4th GGP | Thomas Curry (Corry) 1705-1729 | Thomas Curry 1705-1729 | 25 | 2 | Need Curry Y-DNA |
| 82 | 4th GGP | Monique “Moniky” Curry 1704-1729 | Monique Demazares 1705-1729 | 25 | 1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 83 | 4th GGP | Robert James Mann 1740-1787 | John Mann 1725-1774 | 26 | -2 | Need Mann Y-DNA |
| 84 | 4th GGP | Sarah Susannah McCloskey 1716-1797 | Frances Carpenter 1728-1833 | 28 | -2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 85 | 4th GGP | Benjamin “Col. Ben” Colonel Wilson 1733-1814 | Incorrect | 28 | -2 | |
| 86 | 4th GGP | Mary Ann Seay 1735-1814 | Incorrect | 29 | -2 | |
| 87 | 4th GGP | John Hugh McDowell 1695-1742 | Michael McDowell c1720-after 1755 | 7 | -2 | Incorrect but have correct Y-DNA McDowell Y-DNA |
| 88 | 4th GGP | Mary Magdalena Woods 1705-1800 | Incorrect | 8 | -2 | |
| 89 | 4th GGP | Ebenezer Hall 1721-1801 | Incorrect | 6 | -2 | |
| 90 | 4th GGP | Dorcas Abbott Hall 1728-1797 | Incorrect | 6 | -2 | |
| 91 | 4th GGP | George Middleton Clarkston/Clarkson 1745-1787 | Incorrect | 98 | -2 | Incorrect but have correct Clarkson Y-DNA |
| 92 | 4th GGP | Catherine Middleton 1764-1855 | Incorrect | 94 | -2 | |
| 93 | 4th GGP | William Henry Cook 1750-1920 | Joel Cook before 1755 – ? | 83 | -2 | Need Cook Y-DNA |
| 94 | 4th GGP | Elizabeth Wall 1747-1826 | Alcy [LNU] c 1755-? | 91 | -2 | Yes |
| 95 | 4th GGP | Obediah Samuel Muncy 1735-1806 | Samuel Muncy 1740-1799 | 33 | -1 | Yes |
| 96 | 4th GGP | UFN Obediah Muncy wife Unknowen (sic) 1728-1843 | Agnes Craven 1745-1811 | 27 | -2 | Need Agnes Craven Need mtDNA through all females |
| 97 | 4th GGP | Joseph Workman 1732-1813 | Joseph Workman c1736-c1813 | 64 | 2 | Yes |
| 98 | 4th GGP | Phoebe McRay McMahon 1745-1826 | Phoebe McMahon c1741-after 1815 | 64 | 1 | Yes |
| 99 | 4th GGP | Charles Beckworth Speake/Speaks 1741-1794 | Charles Speake c1731-1794 | 47 | 1 | Yes |
| 100 | 4th GGP | Jane Connor 1742-1789 | Incorrect, unknown first wife | 40 | -2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 101 | 4th GGP | Gideon Farris 1748-1818 | Gideon Faires before 1749-1821 | 54 | -1 | Yes |
| 102 | 4th GGP | Sarah Elizabeth McSpadden 1745-1821 | Sarah McSpadden c1745-c1820 | 55 | 1 | Yes |
| 103 | 4th GGP | Hugh McKee 1720-1795 | Unknown | 34 | -2 | |
| 104 | 4th GGP | Mary Nesbit 1732-1795 | Unknown | 35 | -2 | |
| 105 | 4th GGP | Private (sic) | Unknown father of Elizabeth, wife of Andrew McKee | 35 | -2 | |
| 106 | 4th GGP | Anna Elizabeth Carney [wife of “private”] | Incorrect | 35 | -2 | |
| 107 | 5th GGP | Moses Estes 1711-1788 | Moses Estes 1711-1787 | 13 | 2 | Yes |
| 108 | 5th GGP | Elizabeth Jones “Betty” Webb 1718-1782 | Elizabeth [LNU] 1715/1720-1772/1782 | 5 | -2 | No known daughters |
| 109 | 5th GGP | George W. Combs 1714-1798 | John Combs 1705-1762 | 6 | -2 | Need Combs Y-DNA |
| 110 | 5th GGP | Phebe Wade ?-1830 | Incorrect | 6 | -2 | Need mtDNA of John Combs first wife through all females |
| 111 | 5th GGP | Sarah Ferguson 1700-1781 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 112 | 5th GGP | Anthony Hart 1700-? | Possibly Anthony Hart but no evidence | 3 | 0 | |
| 113 | 5th GGP | Charles Rev. Moore 1685-1734 | Incorrect | 4 | -2 | |
| 114 | 5th GGP | Mary Margaret Barry Moore 1690-1748 | Incorrect | 4 | -2 | |
| 115 | 5th GGP | Ralph Hudspeth II* 1690-1776 | Incorrect | 9 | -2 | |
| 116 | 5th GGP | Mary Carter 1699-1737 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 117 | 5th GGP | Samuel Harwell 1674-1767 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 118 | 5th GGP | Mary Ann Coleman*8th Ggm (sic) 1678-1723 | incorrect | 6 | -2 | |
| 119 | 5th GGP | Ambrose (Sar) Jackson 1695-1745 | Incorrect | 6 | -2 | |
| 120 | 5th GGP | Anne Amy Wyche 1692-1765 | Incorrect | 6 | -2 | |
| 121 | 5th GGP | George E Dodson (DNA) (sic) 1702-1770 | George Dodson 1702-after 1756 | 23 | -1 | Yes |
| 122 | 5th GGP | Margaret Dogett Dagord 1708-1770 | Margaret Dagord 1708-? | 24 | 1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 123 | 5th GGP | James Booth 1700-1741 | Incorrect | 4 | -2 | |
| 124 | 5th GGP | Frances Dale Booth (15great aunt) (sic) 1688-1777 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 125 | 5th GGP | Samuel Scurlock Steele 1709-1790 | Incorrect | 2 | -2 | |
| 126 | 5th GGP | Robert R. Campbell 1718-1810 | Incorrect | 34 | -2 | |
| 127 | 5th GGP | Lady: Letitia Crockett 1719-1760 | Incorrect | 8 | -2 | |
| 128 | 5th GGP | John A. Dobkins 1717-1783 | John Dobkins c1710-c1788 | 20 | 1 | Yes |
| 129 | 5th GGP | Mary Elizabeth Betty Moore 1739-1815 | Elizabeth [LNU] c1711-? | 20 | -2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 130 | 5th GGP | Peter Johnson 1715-1796 | Peter Johnson/Johnston c1720-c1794 | 0 | 1 | Yes |
| 131 | 5th GGP | Mary Polly Phillips 1729-1790 | Mary Polly Phillips c1726-? | 1 | 2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 132 | 5th GGP | Francis Janzen Vannoy Van Noy 1688-1774 | Francis Vannoy 1688-1774 | 8 | 1 | Yes |
| 133 | 5th GGP | Rebecca Anna Catherine Anderson 1698-1785 | Rebecca Annahh Andriesen/ Anderson 1697-1727 | 13 | -1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 134 | 5th GGP | Cornelius Anderson (Andriessen) 1670-1724 | Kornelis Andriesen 1670-1724 | 5 | 2 | Yes |
| 135 | 5th GGP | Annetje Annah Opdyck 1670-1746 | Annetje Opdyck c1675-after 1746 | 5 | 2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 136 | 5th GGP | Thomas Hildret Henderson 1715-1794 | Incorrect
|
3 | -2 | |
| 137 | 5th GGP | Mary Frisby 1709-1794 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 138 | 5th GGP | Alexander (Alex) McEntire 1707-1802 | Incorrect | 12 | -2 | |
| 139 | 5th GGP | Hannah Janet McPherson 1711-1792 | Incorrect | 15 | -2 | |
| 140 | 5th GGP | Thomas James McNeil 1699-1803 | Incorrect | 25 | -2 | |
| 141 | 5th GGP | Mary Hannah Parsons 1697-1784 | Incorrect | 27 | -2 | |
| 142 | 5th GGP | John Coates 1699-1732 | Incorrect | 21 | -2 | |
| 143 | 5th GGP | Sarah Ann Titcombe 1710-1732 | Incorrect | 22 | -2 | |
| 144 | 5th GGP | George Sheppard, Shepherd 1716-1751 | George Shepherd c1700-1751 | 42 | 1 | Have Shepherd Y-DNA |
| 145 | 5th GGP | Elizabeth Mary Angelicke Day (Daye) 1699-? | Elizabeth Mary Angelica Daye 1699-after 1750 | 41 | 1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 146 | 5th GGP | Joseph Rash 1722-1776 | Joseph Rash before 1728-c1767 | 36 | 1 | Yes |
| 147 | 5th GGP | Mary Warren 1726-1792 | Mary Warren 1726-? | 36 | 1 | Yes |
| 148 | 5th GGP | James L Crumley/Cromley 1712-1784 | James Crumley c1711-1764 | 11 | -1 | Yes |
| 149 | 5th GGP | Catherine Bowen Gilkey 1712-1784 | Catherine [LNU] c1712-c1790 | 11 | -1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 150 | 5th GGP | Edward Willis Mercer 1704-1763 | Edward Mercer 1704-1763 | 5 | 1 | Yes |
| 151 | 5th GGP | Ann Lueretias Coats 1710-1763 | Ann [LNU] 1699/1705-c1786/1790 | 5 | -2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 152 | 5th GGP | Daniel Brown 1710-1798 | Incorrect | 39 | -2 | |
| 153 | 5th GGP | Mary Brown 1717-1777 | Incorrect | 40 | -2 | |
| 154 | 5th GGP | Zopher “Elder” Johnson/Johnston* 1700-1804 | Incorrect | 51 | -2 | |
| 155 | 5th GGP | Elizabeth Williamson Cooper 1703-1794 | Incorrect | 49 | -2 | |
| 156 | 5th GGP | Joseph Benjamin Johnson (6th ggf) (sic) 1709-1795 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 157 | 5th GGP | Elizabeth Shepard 1709-1786 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 158 | 5th GGP | John (Boulware) Havis (Rev/war) (sic) 1728-1807 | Incorrect | 4 | -2 | |
| 159 | 5th GGP | Susannah Gentile Boullier (Boulware) 1733-1817 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 160 | 5th GGP | Henry Boulton Jr. 1652-1720 | Incorrect | 22 | -2 | |
| 161 | 5th GGP | Elizabeth Bryan 1658-1742 | Incorrect, linked in two generations | Duplicate not processing | -2 | |
| 162 | 5th GGP | Norton Bryan 1634-1672 | Incorrect | 2 | -2 | |
| 163 | 5th GGP | Elizabeth Middlemore 1640-1658 | Incorrect | 2 | -2 | |
| 164 | 5th GGP | Guillam Demazure 1685-1706 | Guillam Demazares before 1685-after 1705 | 2 | 2 | Need Y-DNA |
| 165 | 5th GGP | Marie Demazure 1686-1705 | Marie [LNU] before 1686-after 1705 | 2 | 1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 166 | 5th GGP | John Robert Mann {Minnis} 1711-1772 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 167 | 5th GGP | Anne Vincent 1711-1747 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 168 | 5th GGP | Joseph David McCluskey 1693-1756 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 169 | 5th GGP | Barbara S Rohlflag 1695-1755 | Incorrect | 3 | -2 | |
| 170 | 5th GGP | Willis Wilson, Jr. 1710-1794 | Incorrect | 4 | -2 | |
| 171 | 5th GGP | Elizabeth Goodrich ?-1789 | Incorrect | 4 | -2 | |
| 172 | 5th GGP | Reverend James Matthew Seay 1696-1757 | Incorrect | 7 | -2 | |
| 173 | 5th GGP | Elizabeth (James M Seay) Wilson or Lewis 1696-1752 | Incorrect | 6 | -2 | |
| 174 | 5th GGP | Ephriam Samuel McDowell 1673-1774 | Murtough McDowell before 1700-1752 | 0 | -2 | Yes |
| 175 | 5th GGP | Margaret Elizabeth Irvine 1674-1728 | Eleanor [LNU] before 1700-after 1730 | 1 | -2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 176 | 5th GGP | Michael Marion Woods 1684-1782 | Incorrect | 9 | -2 | |
| 177 | 5th GGP | Mary Catherine Woods 1690-1742 | Incorrect | 9 | -2 | |
| 178 | 5th GGP | Joseph Hall 1680-1750 | Incorrect | 0 | -2 | |
| 179 | 5th GGP | Sarah Kimball Hall Haley 1686-1752 | Incorrect | 0 | -2 | |
| 180 | 5th GGP | Edward Abbott 1702-759 | Incorrect | 0 | -2 | |
| 181 | 5th GGP | Dorcas Mehitable Chandler 1704-1748 | Incorrect | 0 | -2 | |
| 182 | 5th GGP | James Anderson Clarkston 1717-1816 | Incorrect | 17 | -2 | |
| 183 | 5th GGP | Thomasina Elizabeth Middleton 1720-1796 | Incorrect | 17 | -2 | |
| 184 | 5th GGP | Harlace Middleton | Incorrect | 5 | -2 | |
| 185 | 5th GGP | Capt. Vallentine Felty Kuke Cook 1730-1797 | Incorrect | 25 | -2 | |
| 186 | 5th GGP | Michael Wall 1728-1749 | Incorrect | 11 | -2 | |
| 187 | 5th GGP | Rebecca Chapman 1725-1791 | Incorrect | 11 | -2 | |
| 188 | 5th GGP | Samuel Scott Muncy 1712-1786 | Samuel Muncy 1712-after 1798 | 50 | -1 | Yes |
| 189 | 5th GGP | Mary Daughtery Skidmore 1710-1797 | Mary Skidmore c1710-1811 | 51 | -1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 190 | 5th GGP | Abraham Woertman Workman 1709-1749 | Abraham Workman 1709-1813 | 26 | 1 | Yes |
| 191 | 5th GGP | Hannah Annetje (Smith) Workman 1706-1747 | Annetie Smith 1714-? | 26 | 1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 192 | 5th GGP | Hugh McMahon 1699-1749 | Hugh McMahon 1699-1749 | 17 | 2 | Need Y-DNA |
| 193 | 5th GGP | Agnas Norton 1699-1747 | Agnas Norton after 1700-? | 17 | 2 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 194 | 5th GGP | Thomas Bowling Speake V 1698-1765 | Thomas Speak c1634-1681 | 11 | -2 | Yes |
| 195 | 5th GGP | Jane Barton/Brisco Smoote 1714-1760 | Elizabeth Bowling 1641-before 1692 | 12 | -2 | No known daughters |
| 196 | 5th GGP | William Farris 1714-1776 | William Faires/Farris before 1728-1776 | 11 | 1 | Yes |
| 197 | 5th GGP | Deborah Johnson Faries 1734-1812 | Deborah [LNU] 1734-1812 | 11 | 1 | Need mtDNA through all females |
| 198 | 5th GGP | Thomas of Borden’s Grant McSpadden 1720-1765 | Thomas McSpadden c1721-1785 | 19 | 1 | Yes |
| 199 | 5th GGP | Mary Dorothy Edmondson (Edmundson, Edmiston, Edmisten) 1721-1786 | Dorothy [possibly Edmiston] 1721-? | 28 | 1 | Yes |
| 200 | 5th GGP | Thomas Alexander McKee, Sr 1693-1769 | Incorrect | 7 | -2 | |
| 201 | 5th GGP | Tecumseh Margaret Opessa Pekowi 1695-1780 | Incorrect | 6 | -2 | |
| 202 | 5th GGP | Thomas F Nesbit 1707-1783 | Incorrect | 7 | -2 | |
| 203 | 5th GGP | Jean McKee 1707-1790 | Incorrect | 7 | -2 | |
| Total | -163 |
Please note that I will provide a free Y-DNA testing scholarship at FamilyTreeDNA for any male descending through all men from the male ancestor where it’s noted that Y-DNA is needed. Y-DNA is typically the surname line in most western countries.
I will also provide a mitochondrial DNA testing scholarship at FamilyTreeDNA for anyone who descends from the women where it’s noted that mitochondrial DNA is needed. Mitochondrial DNA passes through all females to the current generation, which can be male or female.
If this is you or a family member, please reach out to me.
The Scores
Of the 203 ancestors for which Ancestry provided a Potential Ancestor, they could have amassed a total of 406 points if each one provided an accurate name and accurate birth and death dates within a reasonable margin. If they were completely wrong on every one, they could have earned a negative score of -406.
Ancestry’s ThruLine accuracy score was -163, meaning they were wrong more than right. Zero was the break-even point where there was equally as much accurate information as inaccurate.
In fairness though, the older ancestors are more likely to be wrong than the more recent ones, and there are more older ancestors given that ancestors double in each generation. Once Ancestry provided a wrong ancestor, they continued down that wrong path on up the tree, so once the path was incorrect, it never recovered.
Regardless of why, Ancestry suggested incorrect information, and as we know, many people take that information to heart as gospel. In fact, many people even call these *TrueLines* instead of *ThruLines*.
Ok, how did Ancestry do?
| Category | Total | Percent |
| +2 – Both Name and Date Accurate or Within Range | 24 | 11.82% |
| +1 – Name and/or Date Partly Accurate | 41 | 20.2% |
| 0 – Uncertain | 1 | 0.49% |
| -1 – Neither Name nor Date Accurate, but Enough Context to Figure Out With Research | 22 | 10.84% |
| -2 – Inaccurate, the wrong person | 115 | 56.65% |
Take Aways – Lessons Learned
This leads us to the lessons learned portion.
- Never, ever, take ThruLines or Potential Ancestors at face value. They are hints and nothing more. Ancestry states that “ThruLines uses Ancestry trees to suggest how you may be related to your DNA matches through common ancestors.” (Bolding is mine.)
- Verify everything.
- Never simply copy something from another tree or accept a hint of any kind without a thorough evaluation. No, your ancestor probably did not zigzag back and forth across the country every other year in the 1800s. If you think they did, then you’ll need lots of information to prove that unusual circumstance. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary proof.
- Never add extraneous “things” to names like “DNA match” or name someone “Private,” unless, of course, that was actually their name. Extraneous “pieces” in names confuses Ancestry’s search routines too, so you’re hurting your own chances of finding relevant information about your ancestor, not to mention ThruLines for others.
- Naming someone “Private” isn’t useful if they are attached to other non-private people as ancestors, siblings and descendants. Just sayin…
- Once the first incorrect ancestor is suggested, ThruLines continues to go up the incorrect tree.
- In the the older or oldest generations, a small number of DNA matches for a particular ancestor may simply mean that lots of people are beyond the ThruLines match reporting thresholds. Unfortunately, Ancestry does NOT have a function where you can hunt for matches by ancestor.
- In the the older or oldest generations, a small number of DNA matches may also mean it’s either the wrong ancestor, or they have few descendants, or few have tested.
- The number of matches, in either direction, is not directly predictive of the accuracy of the suggested ancestor.
- One of the best ways to validate ancestor accuracy is to match other descendants through multiple children of the ancestor, assuming that the children have been assigned to that ancestor properly. Recall George Middleton Clarkson where the three male children assigned to him do not have the same Y-DNA.
- Another validation technique is to also match descendants of both parents of the ancestor(s) in question, through multiple children.
- Remember that paper trail documentation is an extremely important aspect of genealogy.
- Do not rely on trees without sources, or on trees with sources without verifying that every source is actually referencing this specific person.
- Same name confusion is a very real issue.
- For male ancestors, always check the Y-DNA projects at FamilyTreeDNA to verify that males attached as children have descendants with matching Y-DNA.
- Always test males for their surname line. You never know when you’ll either prove or disprove a long-held belief, or discover that someplace, there has been a biological break in that line.
- Y-DNA matches can provide extremely valuable information on earlier ancestral lines which may lead to breaking through your brick wall.
- Mitochondrial DNA testing and matching of descendants is sometimes the only way of proving maternity or discovering matches to earlier ancestors.
- Both Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA, via haplogroups, can provide origins information for that one specific line, meaning you don’t have to try to figure out which ancestor contributed some percentage of ethnicity or population-based DNA.
- Everyone can test their mitochondrial DNA, inherited from their direct matrilineal line, and men can test their Y-DNA, which is their surname line.
- Remember that ThruLines can only be as good as the trees upon which it relies.
- Review the source trees for each Potential Ancestor provided, evaluating each source carefully, including notes, images and web links. You just never know where that diamond is hiding.
How Can Ancestry Improve ThruLines, Potential Ancestors and Provide Customers with Better Tools?
To improve ThruLines and/or Potential Ancestors, Ancestry could:
- My #1 request would be to implement a “search by ancestor” feature for DNA matches. This would be especially beneficial for situations where matches are beyond the 5GG threshold, or if someone is testing a hypothesis to see if they match descendants of a particular person.
- Provide a “dismiss” function, or even a function where a customer could provide a reason why they don’t believe a connection or suggestion is accurate. This could travel with that link for other users as well so people can benefit from commentary from and collaboration with others.
- Provide all DNA matches to people who share a specific ancestor, even if one person is beyond the 5 GG level. Currently, if both people are beyond that threshold, the match won’t show for either, so that’s no problem. The hybrid way it works today is both confusing and misleading and the hard cutoff obfuscates matches that have the potential to be extremely useful. Often this is further exacerbated by the 20 cM thresold limit on shared matches.
- Add a feature similar to the now defunct NADs (New Ancestor Discoveries) where Ancestry shows you a group of your matches that descend from common ancestors, but those ancestors are NOT connected to anyone in your tree. However, DO NOT name the tool New Ancestor Discoveries because these people may not be, and often are not, your ancestors. If you’re related to a group of people who all have these people in THEIR tree as ancestors, that alone is a powerful hint. You might be descended from their ancestors, from the spouse of one of their children – something. But it’s information to work with when you have brick walls where Ancestry cannot connect someone as a potential ancestor directly to someone in your tree. Even locations of those brick-wall-breaker possible ancestors would be a clue. In fact, it’s not terribly different than the Potential Ancestors today, except today’s Potential Ancestors are entirely tree based (beyond ThruLines) and dependent upon connecting with someone in your tree. These new Brick-Wall-Breaker Potential Ancestors are (1.) NOT connected to your tree, and (2.) are all a result of DNA matches with people who have these ancestors in their tree.
- If you already map your segment information at DNAPainter, the Brick-Wall-Breaker ancestral lineage connection would be immediately evident if Ancestry provided DNA segment location information. In other words, there are answers and significant hints that could be available to Ancestry’s customers.
- Extend ThruLines for (at least) another two generations. Today ThruLines ends at the point that many people begin running into brick walls about the time the US census began. Using a 25-year generation, the current algorithm gives you 175 years (about 1825 starting with the year 2000), and a 30-year generation gives you 210 years (about 1790). Extending that two additional generations would give testers two more generations, several more Potential Ancestors, and 50-60 more years, approaching or reaching across the US colonial threshold.
- Extending ThruLines and adding that Brick-Wall-Breaker functionality wouldn’t be nearly as important if customers could search by ancestor and download their match with direct ancestor information, similar to the other vendors, but since we can’t, we’re completely reliant on ThruLines and Potential Ancestors for automated connections by ancestor. Downloading your match list including a list of each person’s direct ancestors and matching segments would provide resources for many of these customer needs, without Ancestry having to do significant major development. If nothing else, it could be an interim stepping-stone.
_____________________________________________________________
Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here or follow me on Twitter, here.
Share the Love!
You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.
If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.
You Can Help Keep This Blog Free
I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.
Thank you so much.
DNA Purchases and Free Uploads
- FamilyTreeDNA – Y, mitochondrial and autosomal DNA testing
- MyHeritage DNA – Autosomal DNA test
- MyHeritage FREE DNA file upload – Upload your DNA file from other vendors free
- AncestryDNA – Autosomal DNA test
- 23andMe Ancestry – Autosomal DNA only, no Health
- 23andMe Ancestry Plus Health
Genealogy Products and Services
- MyHeritage FREE Tree Builder – Genealogy software for your computer
- MyHeritage Subscription with Free Trial
- Legacy Family Tree Webinars – Genealogy and DNA classes, subscription-based, some free
- Legacy Family Tree Software – Genealogy software for your computer
- Newspapers.com – Search newspapers for your ancestors
- NewspaperArchive – Search different newspapers for your ancestors
My Book
- DNA for Native American Genealogy – by Roberta Estes, for those ordering the e-book from anyplace, or paperback within the United States
- DNA for Native American Genealogy – for those ordering the paperback outside the US
Genealogy Books
- Genealogical.com – Lots of wonderful genealogy research books
Genealogy Research
- Legacy Tree Genealogists – Professional genealogy research