RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: Nova67 on Thursday 20 August 20 03:05 BST (UK)
-
Many of my close family have kindly tested for me on Ancestry DNA. We have a prevelance of the surname LORD on our tree. I know in England this surname is particularly common in the counties of Yorkshire (as was) and Lancashire.
Yet when I type in surname Lane and birth location Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia I get multiple matches to the descendants of Charles Lane and Ann Lord! For those that have public trees LORD is written down the bottom as one of our in-common names.
I could pick before as to specifically Lord’s in Yorkshire or Lancashire for my Tasmanian-UK connection. Now I get none.
I have checked with some Tassie related Lord descendants and they are also getting none, even though the matches still exist!
-
What happens if you just type name without birth location
I usually do separate dna match searches for names and locations
Yesterday when I did a search for a name with location that I thought woulfd have results
nothing came up ...
Could it be something to do with current changes ? I.ll try a few of my known ones and seeher what happens
-
Same result with either separate surname only search :-[ or with additional birth location. I wonder why it be a particular surname? It is not like it is happening generally? I did wonder if the changes overall were the reason? Obviously has had a change in the last 24 hours with longest segment now included.
-
Mine seems to work
Btw for fun I tried Lane and Australia and matches came up .!
I tried Lord name and got a match too .
No idea how I connect to by those names .
-
I searched for a particular surname which I know occurs in trees of 3 of my matches. Only two came up. One of those is a private tree, but both are linked. The one that didn't come up was an unlinked tree. I checked her tree to make sure she hadn't mis-spelt the surname or deleted something, but the name was still there and spelt correctly. I know it used to come up on a search, because that is how I found her in the first place.
-
One possibility is that she's changed relationship of her person
I think if you put foster parent the thru lines no longer come up
Only a guess
-
She never came up on thrulines. Her tree only goes back to her grandparents and she hasn't put birth dates or locations. And mine only goes as far as her grandmother (my father's 1st cousin) - I haven't added her grandfather. The lady is only in one other tree on Ancestry and like mine doesn't have the grandfather's name. I have now added it to see if that is enough for Ancestry to calculate a thru-line. It's a mystery to me how they calculate the thrulines. I have several cases where a common ancestor is shown one generation too far back because my ancestor and my matches' ancestor (with same name, same dob, same location, same parents) are shown as siblings when they are actually the same person.
-
I have just emailed Ancestry to report the problem with the surname not being recognised in matches.
-
I have just emailed Ancestry to report the problem with the surname not being recognised in matches.
Best of luck with that!
I think their responses to problems has been very poor recently. They can't seem to understand the simplest questions and certainly don't answer the specifics. And just give references to the FAQs which I have already read, and didn't answer my question, which is why I contacted them in the first place
I suspect they have replaced people by computers which just recognise keywords in the query and churn out pre-set answers which contain those keywords
-
I felt that is was hopeless, but the problem is still there. I pay $479 a year, after all. Certainly haven’t answered the question about fixing the Ancestry messaging. Currently 54. I know other’s have the same problem. I have never written to them before, that I can remember.
-
I find them more helpful over phone
Good luck
.
-
The problem has suddenly resolved. I hope the matches don't disappear again. Managing multiple DNA accounts so we seem to all be getting Lord surname search results again. It must have only just happened. It was very odd.