Ancestry Common ancestors

[Janethepain]

I am a bit confused.

I always thought these represented matches, within whose tree you find an individual, or often a couple, who are also in your tree. The postulation is that these jount common ancestors are where our trees intersect, and from whom our 'matched' DNA has descended to us both.

I have found a few recent, low level common ancestors (green leaves), where the proposed common ancestors are not found in the matches tree, but a postulated descent is suggested using other 'third party' trees.  It's a bit like a cross between a common ancestor and 'Thrulines'.

Has it been like this for long?? I must have missed that discussion!

[davidft]

Ancestry does not give you anything for "absolute", what they give you is suggestions be they common ancestors or thrulines which it is for you to verify or reject.

[Gadget]

I have found a few recent, low level common ancestors (green leaves), where the proposed common ancestors are not found in the matches tree, but a postulated descent is suggested using other 'third party' trees.  It's a bit like a cross between a common ancestor and 'Thrulines'.

Has it been like this for long?? I must have missed that discussion!

I think they've always been like that. I make a note when the lines don't connect where they say.


Gadget

[Galium]

I think that 'common ancestors' and Thrulines are different ways of showing you the same information, and (at least since earlier this year when I got my first results), they always were created from any relevant trees that Ancestry has.  (I find myself impressed that one or two of my matches can be traced by Thrulines to a common ancestor, even though their own trees are minimal.)

[Craclyn]

It has not changed. It looks first at your tree and the tree of your match. If it cannot find any clues there as to how you might connect it then goes off and looks at the other millions of trees on Ancestry. If you click on the evaluate button on each link in the chain it will tell you where it pulled the suggestion from.

[Janethepain]

So it may simply have been that previous common ancestors have all been people who had trees and who had the ancestors in their trees, and who I could absolutly verify that the connection was correct, from either already knowing the family connection, and/or using a quick check at Scotland's People to tie down certificates etc., made easy by having large families who lived in stable areas, for 3-4 generations - so family names were well known to me.  The 2 new ones I found today were ithink, from side branches where a child moved to the USA about 100 years ago - time enough for 3-4 generations to marry people who have surnames from all over the world and I dont know!!

[brigidmac]

The little leaves show up even when a matched DNA tree is not visible to public . I find the suggestions very useful and pretty accurate.

[sugarfizzle]

Common Ancestors and Thrulines appear to be the same information, presented very differently.

I don't like Thrulines at all, so much effort and so many clicks to reach the information you want. With Common Ancestors you can just click once if you see a potential match.  Like others, I am surprised that they can produce a likely CA where the other person has perhaps just 3 people in their tree, like one of mine.

I find even at the lower levels the connection seems very likely, but without cooperation from the match, not easy to verify.

Out of all my CA matches only two are definitely incorrect, others are plausible though unproven, most of them the connection appears to be the right one, though without a chromosome browser it is difficult to be certain.

But I don't think there has been any change that I can see.

I colour code each CA, easy to see if there are any new ones, also identify false ones.

Regards Margaret

[Janethepain]

Thanks Margaret really good info there!