Beware ThruLines

[chris_49]

Ancestry DNA has been very useful to me. I have found matches with people who confirm my relationship with all 13 of my known great-great-grandparents, some many times over, and many other lines further back.

So I was keen to find a supposed link to one of these greatx3 ancestors, a Taylor, via her sibling, to someone who was also a match on another line. However, checking proved that someone had conflated a Gilbert born in North Warwickshire with another born in Cubbington, centre county - whose actual parents are known and different.

No harm done. But then I had another match on ThruLines with someone whose tree said descended through farmer's son John Reece of Bronington Flints who was obviously wrong - on censuses with wife Sarah at the same time as the other with wife Clara in Cefn Mawr, a miner and Welsh speaking (unlikely for a Bronington man) but whose birthplace was not known on censuses (filled in by his stepson 1911),

So having eliminated all the other John Reece  from very near the border, I was ready to assume that this was my John Rees of Cefn -  especially since his marriage as Rees gave his father as Thomas Rees deceased, which would be right - until I went and looked at the 1921 where he clearly gives his PoB as Machynlleth, Mont (there are a lot born there thenabout).   

So this (so far) removes the proof from this well-researched branch, although can there really be more than one Rowland Rees born c1790 Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant?

And how am I related to this match? With the rest of her ancestors Irish or central English, the only one is Edna Winifred Lloyd 1904 West Derby. No such person, but if it's the Winifred born 1903, her father Edward Francis Lloyd born Whittington Salop has a father John Lloyd born Llansantffraed-ym-Mechain who might just be the John found on the 1841 aged 10 in nearby Llanfechain, but not on the 1851 where his siblings are born Llanfechain. It's not enough to go on.

And how do I approach this lady and tell her that her tree is wrong? The above text is longer than Rootschatters like, and the full details (available if anyone's interested) would be much longer, and I don't know how experienced she is. Any advice?

Mods, I put this on the DNA board in error, please don't move it there just yet, I want it to be seen. Chris

[Pheno]

I think this is the kind of thing a lot of us are used to seeing.

I have a particular ancestor living in Kent all her life.  Only someone of the same name emigrated to Australia, married and had a family and had descendants over there.  Almost without fail all those Australian descendants have chosen my lady as the emigre and this scenario proliferates in Thrulines.  It is quite easily proven wrong if they looked at the census details but can I be bothered to tell any more of them - no.

Pheno

[phil57]

Thrulines are hints derived from DNA matches and information in all Ancestry user trees. Each of them needs to be robustly investigated to determine whether they are correct or not.

I don't know exactly how the algorithm works, because it does not seem to be based on weight of numbers.

For several years there have been many Thrulines on my father's side which were correct.

Then a cousin, who has a copy of all my research, put up a tree in which there are a number of errors. This has had the effect of turning all of the Thrulines suggestions for matches on my father's line to half relatives, due to a wrong brother having been entered as our GGF.

I have delicately pointed this out to my cousin. She told me that she is fully aware that the tree is wrong, but it was apparently created for her by a friend in a local family history group, and she doesn't feel that she can alter it without offending her friend. She seems unable to grasp the implications of the effect that single tree has had on Thrulines hints.

Another (2nd) cousin has a tree on Ancestry which is again wrong in a number of ways. It appears to be so because it hides facts such as illegitimacy and other unsavoury circumstances in our history. The owner would seem to prefer to have an incorrect tree that shows his ancestry in a good light, rather than a truthful one.

And another user I contacted on Ancestry, who has a large tree relating to another branch of my (and his wife's) family. It also has several errors. I contacted him to see if we could assist each other with our research, not to point out issues with his tree. Yet the time and circumstances arrived for me to broach the subject and provide evidence. He discounted it all out of hand, because his wife had spent many years compiling her facts from visiting churchyards, so "it must be correct". He stopped engaging with me at that point.

There have been some more serious researchers that I have collaborated with, and we have worked together to further our research, in some instances with quite dramatic results. That is because none of us have been offended or upset when possible errors or inconsistencies are pointed out. It simply spurs us on the research further in an attempt to resolve those issues.

There are many, many trees on Ancestry that I know to be incorrect, a lot of them appear to have simply been bulk copied from other trees, or whole branches accepted from Thrulines without any checking. I am too busy with my own research to start contacting them and discussing the errors. As long as my own tree is researched as thoroughly and carefully as it can be, I am happy. "Caveat emptor" for anyone who doesn't understand the dangers of simply trusting other people's trees and copying from them, or accepting hints and Thrulines without researching them first!

[chris_49]

MODS Please Merge Threads! This was an error on my part. I only ever intended to post here.

Thank you for all your replies. I suppose I've been lucky in that all my ThruLines matches so far seem to have been proved after diligent research - or so obviously wrong that they could easily be dismissed. I don't have any further information on the John Rees of Machynlleth.

In case anyone notices, I'm very aware that John Lloyd is a common name in Montgomeryshire. I have 13 in my tree! It's just that the Llanfechain one is such a good match to a Winifred Lloyd of Liverpool (and yes I know that there are more than one of them. It doesn't help that this one evades censuses. Chris


 



 

[Andrew Tarr]

There are at least two, potentially uncomfortable, truths that one has to grudgingly accept.

- the info needed to confirm or disprove a genealogical connection may (sadly) not be out there !

- quite a few family historians dislike being told they may have got something wrong.  Sometimes it is better to remain smug and assume you haven't 

[chris_49]

In case anyone notices, I'm very aware that John Lloyd is a common name in Montgomeryshire. I have 13 in my tree! It's just that the Llanfechain one is such a good match to a Winifred Lloyd of Liverpool (and yes I know that there are more than one of them. It doesn't help that this one evades censuses. Chris

The John Lloyd of Llanfechain has been found as a shoemaker, including in 1871 in Rhosymedre with 3 daughters. It's much more likely that he is the ancestor of my contact, and hence a match to me, than Winifred Lloyd whose grandfather was in Whittington that year. Back to the drawing board.

[Jebber]

If I had a pound for every tree that has totally incorrect information abut my family, it would pay my annual subscription to Ancestry.

I no longer care about other trees, unless the owner is a close relative, then I offer them the information I have from  documents and images of sources. Then I leave it to them to decide if they want to accept my information or not.

Personally I would much rather know if I had made an error than climb the wrong
Tree.

[ColinBignell]

I think this is the kind of thing a lot of us are used to seeing.

I have a particular ancestor living in Kent all her life.  Only someone of the same name emigrated to Australia, married and had a family and had descendants over there.  Almost without fail all those Australian descendants have chosen my lady as the emigre and this scenario proliferates in Thrulines.  It is quite easily proven wrong if they looked at the census details but can I be bothered to tell any more of them - no.

Pheno

My grandfather, b1885, married my grandmother in 1915 and he died in 1927. Both are shown in the 1911 census at their addresses in Highgate and Islington respectively. Also in the 1911 census, living in Islington, are another couple with exactly the same names (including maiden name). He was born 1883, they married in 1909 and he died in 1924. It took me a long time to sort the two couples out, but there are lots of other trees mixing the two up. Then again, a first cousin has the wrong maiden name for my mother, along with an entirely false family tree for her and is sure that she is right.

[coombs]

I helped someone on Facebook research their tree and they say their already knew their ancestor flitted between Norwich and London in the 1760s, but my further research shows it is a different couple with the same forenames and surname. I was umming and aaring about whether to break it to them, but decided perhaps for them, ignorance is bliss.

Such as I helped a work colleague do his family tree and found out his maternal grandmother was born before her parents got married. Finding out how long a couple courted before marrying can be hard, that is if the man she married was the biological father.