Cool new tools for DNA analysis
As the massive RootsTech conference gets underway in Salt Lake City this morning, Ancestry went public with major advances in its DNA product to make it easier to see, sort and analyze DNA matches — plus a bonus change to add more detail on family trees.
And most, if not all, users are going to end up falling down rabbit holes of new research possibilities as a result.
First, the simple changes that are going to make things much easier for DNA testers at Ancestry — the way DNA matches are presented is changing so we’ll have a lot more control over what matches we see and how we organize them. It’ll be easier to see maternal and paternal matches, to see whether a match has any tree at all including an unlinked tree, and to filter matches by how closely they’re related or whether we’ve looked at this match or whether we have a note attached to this match. It’s easier using the new presentation to switch between accounts if we administer a test for a family member.
Here, for example, it’s easy to see that these cousins have small trees or — in one case — an unlinked tree, and to see the notes added to those matches.
Even better — by far — is the ability to create custom groups and add a color-coded dot to matches we place into those groups. It’ll be possible here, for example, to group everyone descended from a common set of great grandparents and both see that group easily (because of the color-coded dots) and to view only the people in that group (because of the new sorting features).
So clicking on the link for a match for Add/edit groups, the choices we’re presented with are to name a custom group and choose a color:
And adding that to — for example — a sibling then gives us a result that looks like this when we hover the mouse over the colored dot:
Note the filter boxes at the top. There we can choose between sorting by group with these options:
And/or sorting by adding a filter such as one of these:
And if that’s not enough, the best of all as far as The Legal Genealogist can see is the addition of ThruLines to see possible lines we share with our DNA matches — to confirm our own theories about who our ancestors were and to see what new theories may be presented because of a combination of DNA data and the Ancestry family trees.
In my own research, we’ve been stymied by a second great grandfather with a common name — Mathew Johnson — and only Virginia as a possible place of origin. Not even a county to start looking in. No idea of where to get started. Except for what ThruLines now suggests (click to see a larger version):
A potential parent for Mathew Johnson… with lots of DNA matches to that parent to look into.
Definitely cool.
And for tree research, another cool advance: MyTreeTags to add custom tags to family trees to note, for example, that research hasn’t been validated or where you left off in working on a particular entry — and these will be searchable as well. There are pre-defined tags to use and the ability to create custom tags as well.
Now… a couple of warnings.
First, all of these features are in beta. That means there are still going to be rough edges. Don’t get excited if things change — they should change and hopefully for the better as more and more people give feedback on what works and what doesn’t.
Second, for ThruLines, it’ll only be free for a while and you won’t get it at all unless: (1) your AncestryDNA results are linked to a public or private searchable family tree; (2) you have DNA matches who have also linked their results to a public or private indexed family tree; and (3) your linked family tree is well built out. It should be 3-4 generations deep. And even then it won’t always work — my own test has all of those features and no ThruLines (a glitch since my sister, linked to the same tree, has lots of ThruLines to examine).
Third, you have to opt in to the beta for the DNA matching system and the MyTreeTags by going to www.ancestry.com/BETA. ThruLines is now an open beta for anybody whose test meets the criteria above.
New tools — and for most of us lots of chances to head off on new research paths.
And RootsTech has just gotten started… Can’t wait to see what the rest of the week brings…
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Ancestry advances at RootsTech,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 27 Feb 2019).
Fantastic! Thanks for keeping those of us unable to attend updated. I’d been very curious about these upcoming changes to Ancestry and am eager to try out the Beta.
Cool! I’m in; can’t wait to try it!
Did they address how the tree tags interact w/Family Tree Maker syncing??
Nope, not yet. You might want to ask about that in the FTM and/or Ancestry user and support groups on Facebook.
Judy I have to disagree about the Thru Lines. I am going nuts looking at it because this will just further the trees with bad information. I have spent years researching a couple of my dads lines that had not been researched and connecting each generation by documentation. There are trees on ancestry that are so wrong and not even plausable (such as the ancestor placed was born in the wrong century) but ancestry has now suggested to me that these are my ancestors and have put them that way back several generations. People who don’t actually research will just blindly accept this, since ancestry is suggesting it to them and tie into these false trees. It turns my stomach and it negates all of the work I have done to get this right and to share my information, in order to correct these false genealogies, While my tree is well sourced and full of REAL documentation, ancestry is telling everyone that these unsourced and impossible trees are likely their line. I can see some value in it but the negative is going to outweigh that.
It’s no worse and no better than any of the other hints-type tools. It requires that we individually verify and validate the information.
I think Angelia dislikes Thrulines almost as much as I do. As I scrolled thru the 20 or so and found a suggested name I did not recognize or data that did not look correct, the first 10 I looked at were suggesting data that could not possibly be correct. I can only imagine that the source of the wrong data was due to a user who is not a good researcher but has a DNA match with me. When Ancestry puts wrong data as a suggestion beginners and users in a hurry often copy this wrong info and then it spreads like wildfire. After each of the 1st 9 ThruLines I checked and 100 per cent had bad errors which I noted in my feedback for each one, I opened #10 and then I realize this ThruLine also had bad errors and in addition my 20 Thrulines had jumped to hundreds. In the feedback for this one I informed Ancestry I refuse to open another Thruline because it is a waste of my time. It is also very unfair to beginners. I was also not happy about DNA circles because Ancestry used data from users that had not been on Ancestry for years. The number of inactive users is huge and Ancestry in recent years has made available much more data that makes possible more accurate trees. If your neighbor decided that they want to use your tree data, Ancestry would include that person in your DNA circle even though they did not take a DNA test but their tree would show that both of you were related to the same people. I have had no less than 8 people claim to be related to me that I proved they are not by helping them find their ancestry. Just because 2 persons share DNA does not keep one of them from making false claims of ancestry. DNA circles need to at least stick to DNA matches and their trees, not using data based on trees who have no supporting DNA match.
Judy, like you, my test contains all of the features Ancestry requires, but no ThruLines – although all of the kits I administer, including 2 siblings and a parent linked to the same public tree and with whom I share matches, all have plenty of ThruLines. Any updates to yours?
I disconnected myself from my tree, waited 12 hours, reconnected myself, then waited another 12 hours — then complained. I now have all the features.
I totally agree with Angelia about Thrulines. DNA is supposed to be about science and there are “potential” ancestors listed for me who are absolutely not biologically related. My mother’s husband WAS NOT my biological father, but Thrulines is full of that entire family even though I have not added them to my pedigree. The same applies to another kit I administer.
Like Angelia, I have spent years searching primary source documents to create a factual lineage complete with trips back to Kentucky, North Carolina, etc to search archives, cemeteries, courthouses and any other available repository. But Thurlines is full of other people’s misinformation taken from garbage trees at Ancestry.
I am completely appalled and after many years of subscribing to Ancestry, I’m not sure I want to continue supporting a company that thinks such things are improvements.
First off, it’s in beta, and anything in beta is going to be rough around the edges. Second, it’s merely providing hints — and a LOT of those hints will be wrong. It’s up to us to verify any hint.
My brother & I still do not have Thru Lines although my cousins do have them. When you complained, did you call Ancestry or contacted them another way?
These discussions have me confused about how ThruLines works —
Does ThruLines merely suggest on a separate screen changes to your family tree that you may or may not choose to add to your personal tree, one by one, after verification?
Or does it actually go ahead and make changes to your actual personal tree that you then need to undo if they’re incorrect?
The first is acceptable; the second is not.
No, it just shows you possibilities for you to verify and validate through your own research.
Whew! Had me scared for a minute…
OK — It appears that a $99 annual subscription to Ancestry.com is required to use any of these new features, which means I won’t be trying out any of them.
I agree completely with what you wrote. ThruLines has done nothing but complicated my tree, suggesting relatives that I ruled out over one year ago, but have to do the research all over again to re-confirm. I used to enjoy Ancestry. Now, I rarely use it, for this reason.
I know your comment sounds reasonable, but if a few users add suggested data without doing the research, that becomes validated data recognized by Ancestry. I dare say that I could show you persons married to themselves, people that show in a particular census but they actually died a few years before or people who show as died in a particular year but they are actually alive for the next census, people who were born after the death of their mother, and Ancestry uses this data as good helpful data. Ancestry users do not need any help if posting wrong info, we do that well without it.
According to Ancestry
ThruLines has found potential ancestors that are not related to me. Can I choose not to see these people?
If a potential ancestor does not support what you know about your family’s history, you may contact the family tree owner associated with that person to correct any errors or make changes. You may also want to review relevant records and family trees to determine if there actually is a relationship.
No Ancestry. My tree has my correct 2nd GGrandmather who is the first wife of my 2nd GGrandfather. It is correct on my tree. Why are you giving me a Thru Line then of the second wife who is NOT related to me? I am not contacting the 25 people who have it incorrect, why did you not connect me with the people who do have it correct?
I hope that the folks who have commented about the faulty “thru-lines” will send this valuable feedback directly to Ancestry using the feedback tab. I did when the previous Family Circle feature was circulating the same erroneous info; unfortunately they got rid of the Circles, but kept the problematic aspect! They need to hear from many of us that this is indeed an unwelcome change.