Thruline - Common Ancestor serious malfunctions!?

[Craclyn]

Kim, Pleased to hear about your light bulb moment. Let us know whether it solves your problems 

[ggrocott]

I have no Thrulines and no common ancestors in the new Beta, despite having common ancestors in the old version, who I have successfully matched up.

The whole think seems to be a bit of a mess and a load of my historic messages have also disappeared.

[Craclyn]

Ggrocott, Have you checked all the conditions that are listed on the ThruLines help page? If you have done all that is required and are still not seeing any ThruLines then you should contact Ancestry to find out why.
https://support.ancestry.co.uk/s/article/AncestryDNA-ThruLines

[melba_schmelba]

Melba, The re-indexing was a good thing. This past week many people have been reporting significant improvements in their ThruLines.

The improvements for me included removal of an ancestor that I disconnected from my tree the week that ThruLines were introduced and removal of 4 ancestors who had been disconnected from my pedigree line a couple of years ago. This shows that they are now using more up to date trees in the production of the ThruLines.

If it takes a while for the synching of ThruLines and Common Ancestors to catch up then I can live with that. At least I now have got rid of the wrong ancestors from the ThruLines so it has a chance to give some useful information.

Thanks for the explanation - how did you find out about the reindexing, or is it insider knowledge ? Unfortunately I am still getting these 'phantom' common ancestors.

[Craclyn]

Melba,
No insider knowledge. I keep up to date with what is going on in several DNA oriented facebook groups. The first reports of people seeing significant changes to their ThruLines appeared midweek. I checked mine to see if anything was happening and found that a lot of the errors I had reported previously had been corrected.

[ggrocott]

I did contact Ancestry, this was their reply on 7 March 2019

'It typically takes one to two days for thru lines to find common ancestors you share with your DNA matches after linked to a public or private searchable tree that is at least 3-4 generations deep. However this is a BETA feature (test)  therefor I would like to advise you of that you are most likely doing everything correctly. As the algorithm is still learning occasional ''glitches'' might occur. Our website constantly improves based on feedbacks as such. We thank you for your patience and suggestions while we improve to suit your future needs. '

My tree is a private searchable tree far more than 4 generations deep, and still no Thrulines. or shared ancestors, unless I switch off the Beta when the shared ancestors magically reappear.

[Craclyn]

ggrocott, Since that is much more that a couple of days I would contact them again if I were you.

[ggrocott]

I have contacted them again, I wait with interest to see if they are any more helpful!

[Janethepain]

Hi melba, I have te same thing you mentioned, people appearing on my match list, with the wee leaf to indicate possession of common ancestors, but when you go 'into' the match, it says you do not actually share any common ancestors.

This is in fact obvious, at least with the first one I found, on my matches page, because right above the 'common ancestors' leaf, is the note of a tree with 2  people, so it is unlikely to contain a matching ancestor to mine.

By the way this is especially funny to me, as 'he' is actually right to have the leaf, we do have a common ancestor, it is just that his tree doesn't have any evidence for it!  My tree does show a link to the match, but I was sure you needed to both show the link, for Ancestry to indicate it as a 'common ancestor'!!

On top of that, but perhaps linked to this problem, I note that my dna summary page indicates that I have 11 'shared' ancestors (wee leaf).   If I count up the 'common' ancestor leafed matches, there are 16 down to the 20 cM/Distant cousin borderline.  Do these indicate the same thing, I only just noticed the difference in terminology, is it significant??