ancestryDNA​ new (at least, to me) features

[sugarfizzle]

Two new features I have noticed in the past few days.

1) Matches with 'Unlinked trees' are now shown as such on your match pages, without clicking on them. Potentially very useful/time saving.

2) Map view, also on match pages. I am not sure exactly what this is supposed to do, I have only 24 people shown on my map view. I would have thought at least all of my 4th to 6th cousins would be entered there. Possibly has potential.

Regards Margaret

Modified: I have looked at map view again, it appears to show only 4 to 6 cousins who have entered full details or county details of where they live currently.
Margaret

[Gadget]

I noticed the unconnected trees label yesterday. However, they don't then go on  to analyse  said trees for surname matches.  I'm annoyed with this because I had a new 4-6 match which has about 36000 people in her tree. I discovered that there where about 10 pages  of  EOL (?end of list?)and many many  ancient noblemen/women. I gave up in the end and decided that 34 cM/1seg would have to wait since none of the shared matches had a tree!

(rant over!)

Gadget

PS. It was always possible to look at the unconnected trees  by clicking on their details.

[sugarfizzle]

Gadget, I know it was always possible to look at unconnected trees, but sometimes taking just a quick look at new matches page showed no tree - on more distant matches I couldn't always be bothered to click to see if they had an unconnected tree or not, just skimmed them by (fault mine, I fully accept, but when you have several thousand matches, you have to use your time wisely!).

As for ancestry not providing surnames from these unconnected trees - they cannot find ancestral surnames in common unless the match attached themselves to a tree. This can be either public or private tree, surnames and places theoretically show up in both, though it is 'flaky' to say the least. 

EOL I think is meant to be End of Line.

Your best bet, if you want to follow it through, may be to ask your match if they will connect the tree to themselves or identify to you where they are in the tree, if they are not the home person.

Regards Margaret

[Romilly]

I've finally got round to taking an Ancestry DNA Test... fingers crossed that it's not a total waste of time.

Having gone round and round in circles after my Wilson Grandfather for the last 40+ years, and got nowhere, - it seemed the only way to go(!) I suspect a name change though, - and so I'm not sure that the 'Search by Name' facility would help me at all.

Romilly.

[sugarfizzle]

I've finally got round to taking an Ancestry DNA Test... fingers crossed that it's not a total waste of time.

Having gone round and round in circles after my Wilson Grandfather for the last 40+ years, and got nowhere, - it seemed the only way to go(!) I suspect a name change though, - and so I'm not sure that the 'Search by Name' facility would help me at all.

Romilly.

If what you suspect is true, the surname search won't help you find anything about your grandfather's origins.  But, depending entirely upon who else has been tested, you are likely to find 3rd cousins and will denitely find 4th to 6th cousins from his line, so it may be able to work out possibilities.

Wish you luck, let us know in a couple of months how you get on!

Regards Margaret

[Gadget]

Yes, Margaret, I know. It's just that I'm getting annoyed by the dubious trees that are put up.

Romilly, having tried to find your Wilsons in the olden days, I do hope you get some matches.  I did find my missing great grandfather but it took a lot of searching and matching and redoing their trees! etc.

I now have 2 more lines to push back further, both stuck in the late 1700s.  My matches tend to mostly come from 2 lines that I had gone further back with than they had.

Gadget

[Romilly]

I've finally got round to taking an Ancestry DNA Test... fingers crossed that it's not a total waste of time.
Having gone round and round in circles after my Wilson Grandfather for the last 40+ years, and got nowhere, - it seemed the only way to go(!) I suspect a name change though, - and so I'm not sure that the 'Search by Name' facility would help me at all.
Romilly.

If what you suspect is true, the surname search won't help you find anything about your grandfather's origins.  But, depending entirely upon who else has been tested, you are likely to find 3rd cousins and will denitely find 4th to 6th cousins from his line, so it may be able to work out possibilities.
Wish you luck, let us know in a couple of months how you get on!
Regards Margaret

Many thanks Margaret, - will do!

Romilly.

[Ayashi]

I just looked. The map seems pretty useless for the moment but I like the distinction between "no tree" and "unlinked tree". As someone else said, when you've got so many matches you focus your time and effort on the ones most likely to give you a result. If you've got pages of "no tree" it's easier to ignore them unless you've got a specific interest, such as a closer family match.

Most of my matches are so far in the past that their trees don't go back enough. Then there are others who have everyone and his wife on them, regardless of accuracy. I even got told by a cousin of one match that he was dubious of the information and to take it with a pinch of salt. I do think I've got a "whoops" in the tree somewhere though, we've got some matches to one branch of my family where nobody can work out the connection. I'm hoping in time more people will test and we can narrow down the guilty party.

As for trees with sprawling nobility in them, while I accept that some people do connect to nobility I admit that the further back someone gets the more scepticism I have, although the first time I found a tree that went back through nobility, through Biblical and right back to Adam and Eve the first Man and Woman I had to admire the amount of effort that went into it.

[frankie-d]

I'd stay well clear of anyone who's got 36,000 names in their tree.

To paraphrase Star Trek, "It's genealogy Jim, but not as we know it"