XPost: soc.genealogy   
   From: charlesellson@btinternet.com   
      
   On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 22:45:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"    
   wrote:   
      
   >I'm getting fed up with the Thruline suggestions - you know, the "You   
   >may be related to  through ", which   
   >then shows the common ancestor in a box at the top, with two streams of   
   >boxes, going down to me on the left, and  on the right.   
   >The part of the chain - usually, up from me to the common ancestor, and   
   >part way down on the right-hand side - that's already in my tree, is   
   >shown as solid boxes, and at some point they switch to dotted boxes with   
   >an "evaluate" button: when you click that, it shows a few possible   
   >trees, each with a collection of records that support the suggestion   
   >they're making.   
   >   
   >For example, one recent case, I'd verified all the links from myself up   
   >to the common ancestor and then down three generations, to Robert   
   >Davidson. The next suggested person was George Jobling. When I clicked   
   >Evaluate, it gave me two trees to support that - one with 10 records,   
   >one with 0 records. Of the 10, the ones that showed anything to do with   
   >George's birth or parents showed his parents as Robert Jobling and Ann   
   >Rennison - no mention of Davison. (So there'd be no point in contacting   
   >the owner of that tree to ask her.)   
   >   
   >Tonight's one looks at first more promising: I've verified all the way   
   >to Henry Patterson, and the next person suggested is Rachel Patterson.   
   >That does indeed seem plausible. But: Henry was born, baptised, resided,   
   >died, and was buried, all in Embleton, Northumberland; and Rachel,   
   >according to the "supporting" records, was born and died in Tennessee.   
   >(One of those records, an 1880 US census, shows her father was born   
   >there too.)   
   >   
   >I'd accept the odd error, but in cases this just - well, plain silly,   
   >it's very frustrating.   
   >   
   >What's more: in a normal profile, where Ancestry create a "hint",   
   >there's the option to reject it (and even say why - e. g. names, places,   
   >dates, and/or relationships are wrong, or even just that I already had   
   >the information) - and when you do, the hint disappears. But for   
   >Thrulines, the only option is "Add to tree" - or of course don't; but if   
   >you don't, the suggestion remains there, however wrong it is, blocking   
   >you (and presumably the Thrulines system itself) from making another   
   >suggestion.   
   >   
   >I've sent Ancestry a screenshot, and got a thank you. Little suggestion   
   >they're going to do anything about it, *or even investigate it*.   
   >   
   >Sorry, . (-:   
   >   
   I have one which keeps getting offered as a suggestion but has been   
   positively excluded. They often turn out not to be siblings/children   
   but cousins, the DNA match possibly being somewhat stronger than usual   
   thus likely to be a sibling match on a statistical basis.   
   The ones I am having fun with at the moment are a whole group of   
   people in the USA who with one exception are maternal matches. They   
   all trace back to one English immigrant in the 17th century who is a   
   match on my father's side; so far I have found no match on my mother's   
   side although reputed Stewart ancestry in my grandparents' parish   
   would land up in the same place around three centuries earlier.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)