How to Group Your DNA Matches to Help Break Down Brick Walls

How do you break down a brick wall with DNA? It's what everyone wants to know - after all, what is the point of getting a DNA test if the ethnicity report is unreliable? Everyone says the true value of the test is in your DNA matches, but how do you utilize them to actually be useful in your research? To break down brick walls? To do what paper research couldn't?

This sort of ties in with my instructions on how to find unknown biological ancestors with DNA, though that was targeted more at NPE or adoption situations. However, the same basic process and workflow can be applied to breaking down brick walls. In the past, I've detailed specific cases where I've used DNA to break down a brick wall, but some of them are a little unique - every situation might be a little different, and therefore might require a bit of a different process. But here's the basics. 

In my post about finding unknown biological ancestors, in Step 1, it says, "Look for your closest DNA match that you can't identify as being from another known branch of your tree."

But wait - how do we even get to the point of finding a match you can't identify? You do that by identifying and grouping as many matches as you can. This is how my workflow goes, it works best for me, your mileage may vary, but in my experience, this is how most people do it in some way or form. Some maybe use a spreadsheet and the "Leeds Method", but ultimately, it's just a matter of grouping your matches by what branch of your tree they belong to, and since AncestryDNA have a built in grouping tool, I find that works best for me.

Grouping your matches.

Step 1: Create a group for each "branch" of your tree. Which branches? I recommend a group for each of your sixteen 2nd great grandparents, unless any of those 2nd great grandparents were from the same specific location, or endogamous population, because they will be difficult to tell apart. For example, my 2nd great grandparents who both came from the same tiny town in Italy called Monteroduni got grouped together because I have no other branches from there, and since the town is so endogamous, it would be difficult to always tell them apart. So I just have one group for "Monteroduni". Don't group by broader locations, like country. I did that by grouping my other 2nd great grandparents together because they were both from Norway, but now I regret that because they came from totally different parts of Norway, so there's no endogamy between them. So although I recommend a group for each 2nd great grandparent, depending on your ancestry, you may want to sometimes group them differently. 

16 groups does mean that it will fill up a lot of your available groups, AncestryDNA only allows you a maximum of 24, so you will only have 8 groups left to do with whatever you want. So like I say, you may want to group them differently, but this is what worked best for me.

Step 2: Start at the top of your match list and work your way down. Do you recognize your top match? Or can you see from their tree (if they have one) what ancestor you share? Is there a ThruLines/common ancestor hint for them that you can verify? If you already know the match or can identify how you're related to them, mark the branch you share by adding them to a group you've created for that branch. Do not assume a shared surname alone is the source of your shared DNA, it must be an actual common ancestor.

You may also want to add a note of your common ancestors, so you can see who they are more easily, and also so you know there's identified common ancestors (though I also have a group for MRCA - matches that have identified a most recent common ancestor).

My top matches are all my Italian cousins, you can see how
I've grouped them and added our MRCA to notes

Step 3: Do the same for the next match, and the next - keep going until you can't identify a match. When that happens, look at your Shared Matches with that person. Are any of them the people you've already identified with a common ancestor? If so, they are likely also from the same branch (especially if there's more than one match they share from the same ancestor/branch), so add them to that same group. 

I don't know my MRCA with Bettye because she hasn't added a tree,
but I can tell she's from my Smith branch because she matches
several people who are confirmed Smith descendants

If they have a tree, even a tiny one, build on it until you can find the connection to the branch you know they are likely from (focus on lines that come from the same/nearby location). If you can't find a common ancestor, that's okay, leave them in that group and you can come back to them another time.

Step 4: Keep doing this, ideally for all your estimated 4th cousins and closer (20+ cM). That's a lot, I know (I currently have 1,048 matches that share 20+ cM with me). It takes time, it's a lot of work, but in the end you'll wind up with 3 types of matches: those with identified common ancestors, those who likely come from an identified branch, and those you have no clue how you're related, not even a potential branch.

What to do with these groups? 

This is where there will be some overlap in my instructions on finding an unknown biological ancestor. Look at the closest match that you haven't even been able to group into a certain likely branch (or a common ancestor). Even if they don't have a tree, that's okay - look at your Shared Matches with them and open any match that has a viable tree. Compare the trees - do any of them share an ancestor with each other that you don't recognize? If so, research that ancestor and build a tree for them, you may find it links up with yours somehow, maybe even by breaking down a brick wall, or that it leads to an NPE - when someone's parent(s) is/are not their biological parent(s).

Additionally, you can look at your closest match that you haven't identified a common ancestor with, but you have grouped them into a likely branch. If they have a tree, again, build on it, and keep researching until you can find a connection. See my case example of Emma Elizabeth Sherwood.

This method of grouping your matches to single out the ones you can't identify at all can help lead you to some enlightening revelations, but they tend to be rather random. You don't know what you're going to find, you don't know which brick wall it might break down. Even the matches you can group into a likely branch but you're still searching for the common ancestor might surprise you - in my example of Emma Elizabeth Sherwood (above), I knew the match was related to my Mills branch (Emma's husband), but I had no idea it would finally break down the Sherwood brick wall that had been blocking me for 12 years.

Other methods.

There's other methods of breaking down a brick wall with DNA, ones that are more targeted for a specific brick wall, but they heavily rely on the surname you're looking for not being a very common one. You basically just search your matches trees for the surname you're looking for, and then compare the trees of the matches in the results, looking for a common ancestor among them. It can work well when the name isn't common, because it's likely most of the matches in the results will be the ones you're looking for. But the more common the name is, the more matches there will be in the results that aren't related to the branch you're looking for. That's why this never worked with Emma Elizabeth Sherwood (in my above example), because Sherwood was too common of a surname, I only found her family by using the more random grouping method and not knowing where an unknown match would lead me.

The surname search method would be much more effective if AncestryDNA would offer a very simple feature: the option to search for a surname within a specific location. At the moment, you can search for a surname or location, but not a surname in a location. So you can search for Smith OR Christian County, Kentucky, and you can search for them both at the same time, but it will include results for match's trees that have either the surname Smith, OR the location Christian County, Kentucky. And even if the tree includes both, it's not necessarily for the same branch or ancestor, it might be their Jones branch that's from Christian County, Kentucky, while their Smith branch is from Pennsylvania. For common surnames, we need a way to narrow it down, and the best way to do that is by looking for surnames within a specific location. At the moment, we can only do that manually by searching for a surname, and going through each match in the results to see for ourselves if that branch is from the right location. If so, then we can look for a specific common ancestor. It's very time consuming, and the more common the surname is, the less realistic it is to go through all those matches manually, yet there's a very simple way to make it easier, if AncestryDNA would just listen to their customers.

The surname search works a lot better if it's not a common surname. I successfully used this method with the surname Deaves, and also a suspected maiden name of Brannin.

You can also search by just location, but this only really works if your ancestors are from a very small, unique town, especially where there's endogamy. In my above example about my 2nd great grandparents who came from a tiny Italian town called Monteroduni, it's safe to say that the town is so small and endogamous that anyone who has ancestry from Monteroduni is probably related. Certainly, any DNA match of mine that has ancestry from Monteroduni, it's safe to say that's very probably how we are related. So I can very easily search my matches trees for the location of Monteroduni and even if I can't find a common ancestor between us, most likely that's probably where our common ancestors were from. Brick walls are difficult with endogamy though, so that might be the most I'll ever be able to determine. Searching by location may not break down any brick walls in your tree, but it does help you identify and sort your matches into groups/branches, which can help you find other unknown matches that may lead to a brick wall.

Like I say, sometimes breaking down a brick wall with DNA can be unique to the situation. Sometimes you have to think about what you're looking for, and consider the best way to come at the problem. But this should give you the basics to get you started. Feel free to share your success stories!

Finding Unknown Biological Ancestors with DNA

This is a topic that comes up regularly in genealogy circles, because DNA testing often reveals cases of unknown adoptions, or what we call "non-paternity events" (NPE), when someone's father is not their biological father. Once there's enough suggestion that something like this has happened, the question then becomes, how do I identify this unknown biological ancestor? It can be done, although the further back on your tree it occurred, the more difficult it will be (far enough back and it might not be possible). Whenever possible, it's best to have someone from the oldest generation descended from this event to test. Like if you're looking for Grandma's unknown biological father, have Grandma take the test, or if she is unable or unwilling, have your relevant parent take the test. At the same time, if the person you're looking for is actually still living (like if you're adopted and looking for living biological parents), it will be difficult to research since lots of records on living people are private (that's a whole different ballgame and you often have to rely more on information and communication from your DNA matches). Additionally, if you're working with an endogamous population, you may be out of luck. With all that in mind, here's how it works.

Step 1: Look for your closest DNA match that you can't identify as being from another known branch of your tree. If they don't have a family tree added, that's okay because first you want to look at their Shared Matches, and open any matches that do have family trees (the bigger, the better).

Step 2: Compare the family trees of those Shared Matches, looking for ancestors any two or more (the more, the better) of them have in common with each other (especially if those matches also match each other) - ancestors who are not found in your tree. Yes, this may take some time because you have to manually compare the trees - I find it best to start with the surname list on the match review page and find surnames they have in common with each other, then see if those surnames actually lead to a common ancestor among them. If the ancestor is found in your tree, then you know this group isn't from the branch you're looking for and you can label them and move on.

Step 3: Build a descendant tree for the ancestor you found. Make a note of any descendants who were in the right place at the right time at the right age, but we're not done yet.

Step 4: Repeat this process with the next closest match you can't identify (who isn't a part of the first group).

Step 5: Look for a descendant who appears in both the trees you've built - so someone who descends from both the ancestors you've identified. This is probably either the person you're looking for, or a close ancestor of theirs, like a parent or grandparent. If you don't find one, keep repeating this process until you do.

Chart showing the two different DNA matches groups and their shared ancestors.
Click to enlarge.

For example (shown above - these names are made up but the situation is real and came from my tree): I was looking for my grandfather's unknown biological father, so I had my grandfather take the test before he died. I first found a group of his matches (who mostly all matched each other) who were all descended from a colonial ancestor named John Smith (I told you I changed the names, lol), so I built a descendant tree for John Smith. I then found another group of matches who all descended from another colonial ancestor called Christopher Jones, and built a descendant tree for him. By building those trees, I found a descendant of John Smith - named Isaac Smith - had married a descendant of Christopher Jones - her name was Carrie Jones. This suggested that the man I was looking for was probably a descendant of Isaac Smith and Carrie Jones, and based on the dates, it could only really be one of their sons, specifically one of their four oldest sons. Eventually, a close descendant of one of the four sons tested and confirmed which of the four sons was my grandfather's biological father (below).

Chart showing the closer matches that eventually showed up and allowed me to figure out
which of the 4 brothers was my grandfather's bio father.

Granted, there could have been another descendant of John Smith who married a different descendant of Christopher Jones, and that could have led me to the wrong family - this is why too much endogamy can throw you off. But as long as there's not too much of it, you can document each case of it and using your DNA matches and how much DNA you share with them, you should be able to figure out which descendants are the ones you're looking for. But a highly endogamous population might be too complex. If I was looking for an unknown bio ancestor on my mom's Mennonite branch, I'm not sure it would be possible. I can sometimes share up to about 5 ancestor couples with matches on my Mennonite branch. And the unknown father of my Italian ancestor who was from a tiny, highly endogamous town in Italy where everyone there is related to everyone else somehow? Forget it.

However, this is the same type of method that professional Genetic Genealogists like CeCe Moore employ to identify individuals from DNA left at crime scenes (either suspects or unidentified victims). It can be done (for the most part), it just takes work, and sometimes some patience for the right matches to come in.

Add Specific Relationship, AncestryDNA's Latest Feature

It sounds like it hasn't been rolled out to everyone yet, but it should be coming soon - AncestryDNA is (finally) adding the ability to change the estimated relationship range with a DNA match to a specific, known relationship instead. They're a few years behind 23andMe and FTDNA (although 23andMe still don't have shareable family trees so 23andMe is no better overall), but better late than never.

In the process of adding the specific relationship, it asks you which side of your tree the match is from, your mother's side, father's side, or both. And for matches you're unsure of the specific relationship, but you know which side of your tree they come from, there's an option to select which side and then instead of choosing a specific relationship, you can click "I'm not sure". It will then display "Mother's Side" or "Father's Side" (or both) without a exact relationship (the original estimated range will remain). 

Unfortunately, it does have some limitations. The main one is that it only goes out to 5th cousins, and any more distant relationships only have an option for lumping them all into a general "Distant Relationship" label. Not only does this rather defeat the purpose of being able to add a specific relationship if it's not actually a specific relationship, but it's also inconsistent with ThruLines, which at least goes out to 6th cousins (though that too is arguably a little limited). So essentially, ThruLines is going to show us our exact relationship with many 5th cousins once removed and 6th cousins, yet the new feature offers no way to add those specific relationships. The least they could do is expand it to the 6th cousins so it's consistent with ThruLines.

The other limitation is that it doesn't let you select more than one relationship, which is a complete oversight when it comes to lots of people who have endogamous branches of their tree, and identifiable endogamy (more than one set of most recent common ancestors) with many matches. Even when you select "Both Sides", it doesn't give you the option for more than one relationship. If it's a close match, assumes you've selected both sides because the person is someone like a niece or nephew, or full sibling, etc. Someone who shares your whole ancestry. If they aren't a close match, it seems to assume that although you may have two different relationships, they must be more distant than 5th cousins and only gives you the option to select "Distant Relationship". I suppose they're trying not to over complicate it for newcomers, but for people who use this for heavy research and breaking down brick walls in their tree, noting multiple relationships is vital.

It should also be noted that if one or more of your parents have tested, the system will automatically assign a match to your mother's side or father side depending on who they match. If for some reason, the system got it wrong, or only selected one when they actually match both, you can edit this by simply clicked the back button in the upper left corner of the side window (highlighted in yellow in the screenshot below).

That pretty much sums it up. In general, it's great they finally added this option, I know lots of people have been asking for it for a while. And I have gone through and selected known relationships for all the matches I've identified. But you may notice I have, for a very long time now, always noted the relationship and shared ancestor(s) in the notes field (along with emojis I used before groups were available). Unfortunately, due to the limitations of the new feature, I will have to continue noting the relationship myself in the notes field instead of relying solely on Ancestry's tool.

Which DNA Company Should I Test With?

I did a guide for this a few years ago, but it's already kind of out of date, so let's look over the options again, especially since all the holiday sales are starting to happen. The main question when asking which DNA test/company to go with, is what are your reasons for testing? Instead of detailing each company, I'm going to answer the four main reasons people want to take a DNA test: 

1. I'm a genealogy hobbyist and want to use DNA as an additional research tool. 

AncestryDNA have the biggest database of testers, and because they are a genealogy website, they are the most likely to have DNA matches with family trees (which is the best way to get the most usage out of your DNA matches). Particularly, if you already subscribe there or have a tree there, it's easiest to have all your work in one place, including DNA. Even if you don't have an Ancestry.com subscription, you'll still benefit from testing at the biggest autosomal DNA database (you will be able to contact your DNA matches even without a subscription, and you can add a tree for free too).

Additionally, because AncestryDNA don't accept raw DNA data from other companies, but other companies (like MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA) do accept raw DNA data from AncestryDNA, it's ideal to test with AncestryDNA and then upload your raw DNA data to sites like MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA (they have free uploads, but there's a small fee to unlock your full results). You'll get the most out of your money this way, and have access to several databases.

MyHeritage are best for foreign DNA matches, particularly from certain places where MyHeritage is popular (for example, I have lots of DNA matches living in Germany, but only a few from Italy, despite having more recent ancestry from Italy). They also make it easy to find/sort by foreign matches, whereas other companies don't. You may choose to test with MyHeritage for this reason, especially if you already have a subscription/tree there, but again, be aware that you can upload an AncestryDNA test to MyHeritage, but not vice versa. (Right: a screenshot of my number of matches from various countries at MyHeritage).

23andMe are not ideal for genealogy, since they don't host shareable family trees, and they are not a genealogy website. They also cap your DNA match list at about 1,500 people (in comparison, most people at AncestryDNA get about 20,000+ DNA matches), unless you upgrade to a monthly subscription which still only expands it to 4,000 matches (the subscription also includes some additional health report benefits). Some people might cite 23andMe's inclusion of haplogroups in their reports as a reason to test there, but haplogroups generally aren't useful to recent genealogy. Sharing a haplogroup usually just means sharing a most recent common ancestor (on the patrilineal or matrilineal lines) from thousands of years ago, which long pre-dates recorded genealogy.

FamilyTreeDNA do allow you to upload a gedcom, but their database is small and since you can upload your raw DNA data, it makes more sense to test elsewhere and then upload to FTDNA if desired.

2. I want health reports.

23andMe are best for health results. They have the most useful of health reports, and while other companies like AncestryDNA and MyHeritage have added a few "traits" or health reports, they are very minimal and not as useful or extensive as 23andMe's. (Right: an example of 23andMe's Health Predisposition report - their healh reports also include Carrier Status, Wellness reports, Traits, etc).

Whatever company you test with, uploading to Promethease.org for a small fee will provide the most extensive health reports, though it is not super user friendly (and they do not offer testing, it's strictly an upload site). If you're willing to deal with the learning curve, testing at AncestryDNA and uploading to Promethease is a good option for those who want the test for both genealogy and health reasons. Otherwise, you'll have to prioritize one over the other because there's no testing company that's ideal for both.

Also be aware that if you have a specific health report in mind, you might want to consider a test more specific to it. For example, for reports on your genetic predisposition of cancer, I would recommend a more comprehensive test like Color.

3. I'm looking for an unknown biological parent/relative (like in the case of adoption).

First test with AncestryDNA, since they have the biggest database of testers and host family trees. Then upload your raw DNA data to MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA for small fees to unlock your full results. You can also upload to Gedmatch for free (but Gedmatch isn't a testing company, just a place to upload, so I won't mention them much in this article). 

If your budget allows, also test at 23andMe (because like AncestryDNA, they do not accept uploads, so you have to test with them to be on their database). Although they aren't ideal for genealogy, which may make it difficult to make use of your DNA matches, when looking for unknown biological relatives, you want to maximize your chances of finding the closest DNA relative possible, and that means putting yourself on every database available.

If you are male, and looking for a biological father, or paternal grandfather, you should also consider taking a Y-DNA test at FamilyTreeDNA. Although more expensive than an autosomal DNA test, and there's no assurance that Y-DNA results will be useful because it depends on who else has tested, when it is useful, it can really help, especially in combination with your autosomal DNA matches. Because Y-DNA follows the patrilineal line, it's essentially linked to biological surnames. So excluding other NPEs (non-paternity events) or Y matches whose most recent common ancestor pre-dates the development of surnames, your Y matches surname should theoretically tell you your biological surname. That doesn't always happen, because again, it depends who has tested. But when it does, you can then take that surname and search your autosomal DNA matches trees for it, which should then point you to a most recent common ancestor.

4. I want to learn more about my ethnic ancestry!

I would strongly discourage from taking the test purely for the ethnicity percentages. I know they have great appeal, I know they seem like a quick, easy, and not too expensive way to learn more about your ancestral background, but the fact is, and I can't stress this enough, they are only estimates or interpretations of your DNA and are not particularly reliable. Different companies will likely give you different results, and every company periodically updates their ethnicity reports, which generally changes them, sometimes quite drastically. There is no one company that has the most reliable ethnicity percentages for everyone - which one is more consistent with your personal family tree really depends on the individual, and that could always change with the company's next update.  

That said, there are elements of the ethnicity report that can be more reliable. On a continental level (European vs Sub-Saharan vs East Asian vs Native American, etc), the percentages are generally much more reliable, so if you're of mixed race, the report might be enlightening. But the more specific the regional or sub-continental the percentage breakdown is, the more speculative it becomes, with only some exceptions in populations with high levels of endogamy (like Ashkenazi Jewish, or certain islander populations). So while it may be tempting to go with the company that offers the most percentage breakdown into specific nations, keep in mind that this will likely make it less reliable. 

Ethnicity percentages are fun to explore, but you can't take them very literally. It's better to view them on a broader scale, covering bigger areas, but of course that's not what most people want. 23andMe's percentages have categories like "Broadly Northwest European" which covers a large area, and therefore is more reliable, but then people complain it's not specific enough.

You may notice I keep specifying ethnicity percentages, or percentage breakdown. That's because some companies offer sub-regional reports that don't include percentages because they are calculated a different way. At AncestryDNA, they are called Genetic Communities, and unlike the percentages, positive results in Genetic Communities tend to be very specific to small areas, and highly accurate. Not getting results in a GC doesn't mean you don't have ancestry there though, you generally need significant ancestry from a specific area to get results in a GC. When you do get GC results, you can be 99% sure you have ancestry from that area, you just won't know how much because there's no percentage. 23andMe have similar sub-regional results with no percentages, but in my experience, they are not as reliable as AncestryDNA's Genetic Communities. 

Conclusion

In short, here's my recommendations:

        For genealogy - AncestryDNA

        For foreign matches - MyHeritage (or test at AncestryDNA and upload to MyHeritage for the best value).

        For health reports - 23andMe

        For unknown biological family - AncestryDNA, plus uploading to other companies, and if budget allows, also testing at 23andMe.

        For ethnicity - if this is your only reason for testing, please reconsider. If you really insist, then I'd recommend either AncestryDNA or 23andMe, for the same reasons I've detailed above: you can upload raw DNA data from AncestryDNA and 23andMe to MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA (for additional ethnicity results), but not vice versa. If your interests lean more towards health, go with 23andMe. If you think you may develop an interest in genealogy or family history at any point in the future, go with AncestryDNA.

23andMe: Worse and Worse

It's never been a secret that I feel 23andMe is the worst DNA option of the 4 main companies when it comes to using it for genealogical purposes. While they do seem to still have the most reliable ethnicity percentages, and they offer the easiest way to get health reports that may actually be useful, when it comes to using our DNA matches for genealogy research, 23andMe are an epic fail, and over the years it has just become worse and worse. Between not hosting family trees/gedcom uploads, and capping our match list more and more, it's hardly surprising I've gotten very little use out of it and now it's only gotten worse. 

Years ago, back when I originally tested, they hosted uploaded gedcoms (family trees). Anyone who has done DNA based tree research knows this is essential to getting use out of your DNA matches. But not long after, 23andMe obviously decided this was a waste of their server space, but they at least attempted to provide an alternative. They did a deal with MyHeritage (long before MyHeritage got involved in DNA themselves), where gedcoms at 23andMe could be moved to MyHeritage, and a link to your MyHeritage tree would automatically appear in your 23andMe profile. Unfortunately, this didn't last long because at MyHeritage, you have to subscribe to view other people's trees, and probably a lot of 23andMe users weren't going to subscribe just for that reason. So it quickly became apparent that this was rather useless for most people. And of course, MyHeritage eventually began to sell their own DNA test, so they didn't want to be associated with any other DNA company at that point. 

For a while, 23andMe simply didn't host any trees at all. They did offer a spot in your profile to paste a link to an off-site tree. But most people didn't bother, and just like at MyHeritage, viewing trees at Ancestry.com also requires a subscription (though they now have a sharing option, they didn't at the time). So unless your tree was available somewhere for free, this was still useless, which is why most people didn't bother. It seemed like 23andMe had abandoned any pretense they ever had at being genealogically useful.

Recently, they did trial an option where you could link your FamilySearch tree to your 23andMe account. This finally seemed like a great solution - it's free, and it's integrated, not just a link to an off-site tree, but something you could view at 23andMe. Sadly, not many people participated in the beta trial, and after months of beta testing, instead of officially adding it as a feature, it disappeared without a word from the company (something that happens a lot). I don't know if it's because not many people tested it out so they thought it wouldn't get used, or if it was something else, but one day it was just gone, so once again we're left with nothing.

Granted, they have recently added a tree feature that let's you add your ancestors and DNA matches to it, which helps visualize how you are related to some of your closest matches. But it only goes back to 2nd great grandparents (3rd cousins), and more importantly, this is for your own private usage only, no one else can see it. If no one else can see it, no one else can make any use of your tree for genealogical purposes. So this is not really what we actually need.

I did also notice they are advertising a "free quote for a genetic genealogy research package offered by Legacy Tree" which I assume includes a family tree. But not only does that cost a lot of money, it's totally unnecessary if you've already build your own tree. And even if you have a tree built at Legacy Tree, it's not integrated into 23andMe.

If that's not disappointing enough, let's talk about our match list, called "DNA Relatives". 23andMe has always capped our match list. At one point, it was capped at 1,000, then they upped it to 2,000, which was great. And more than that, they offered way to search for and find other people you shared DNA with, that you could connect with and add to your match list. But over time, they gradually removed those features, making it harder and harder to expand your match list. Of course, your match list still expanded as more people tested - it's not like people got bumped off the end of the list as new ones came in. Apparently, 23andMe have decided that these essential matches are taking up too much server space and have quietly reduce our match list to just 1,500 people. 

In comparison, I have over 22,000 matches at AncestryDNA, and that's not just because more people have tested there, it's because AncestryDNA's matching threshold is 8 cM. At 23andMe, capping my list at 1,500 people (actually 1,454 for me, whereas previously I had over 1,800) means my most distant matches share 20 cM with me. I regularly point this out, but shared segments of 15+ cM have a 100% chance of being identical by descent. That means 23andMe are excluding thousands and thousands of matches that have a 100% chance of being identical by descent. It's always been a real bummer, and in some ways I'm not sure that losing a mere 400-500 matches is that big of a deal since I never got much use out of 23andMe's matches anyway, thanks to their lack of hosting shareable trees/gedcoms. But here's the worst part about the new changes at 23andMe...

They are offering an option to expand your match list to 4,500... great, right?! Except it's going to cost you. Firstly, if you haven't tested on the V5 chip and/or haven't paid to include Health reports, you'll have to upgrade your test. The expanded service only applies to people with an Ancestry+Health V5 test (because it includes extra health reports too, not just the extended match list, and that requires the raw data in the V5 chip). If you tested previously on an old chip, you can upgrade to V5 Ancestry+Health for $99 (normally $199). If you're already on V5 but don't have Health reports, the upgrade to Health will cost $125.

And on top of that, you will have to pay a yearly subscription of $29. While that is not a huge amount of money, no other DNA company requires a subscription to access extra DNA matches. Especially when you consider that even the expanded match list you have to pay extra for is only a small fraction of what you'd get at AncestryDNA for no extra cost, this offer seems of poor value, unless of course you're actually after the extra health options that come with it, that AncestryDNA doesn't even offer. 

What that tells us, is that just like always, 23andMe are really more about the health and ethnicity side of DNA testing, whereas AncestryDNA are geared more towards genealogy. That's not surprising, since Ancestry.com are, after all, a genealogy website, whereas 23andMe are not. But it still means that for us genealogists, 23andMe is not the ideal company to test with. 

For more info, see 23andMe's page on their "23andMe+ Experience".

AncestryDNA's Inconsistent cM Totals

Edit: See bottom of article for update.

For several years now, because both of my parents took the DNA test, I have noticed certain DNA matches who share more DNA with me than with one of my parents (usually my mom) and none with the other. In most cases, it's only a difference of less than about 5 cM, which is usually small enough that I figure it's nominal and doesn't matter. But I also have many matches where the difference is 10 cM or greater, which is harder to ignore. The greatest difference I've come across so far has been 20 cM. And I know I'm not the only one, I've talked to a lot of other people who have noticed the same.

Recently, AncestryDNA added to the very little amount of DNA matching data they provide, the ability to see the longest shared segment with a match. This has been enlightening, because as many people have already noticed, there are some cases where the longest shared segment is greater than the total amount of shared DNA. Naturally, this isn't genetically possible, and it's left many people confused. AncestryDNA tried to provide an explanation for it:

"In some cases, the length of the longest shared segment is greater than the total length of shared DNA. This is because we adjust the length of shared DNA to reflect DNA that is most likely shared from a recent ancestor. Sometimes, DNA can be shared for reasons other than recent ancestry, such as when two people share the same ethnicity or are from the same regions."

They are trying to keep it simple, but unfortunately I think it serves only to confuse most people even more. Here's what this means.

AncestryDNA have a program called Timber that removes shared segments it believes are not identical by descent (ie, the shared DNA is not coming from an ancestor within a genealogical time frame, but rather from a shared ethnic background). What AncestryDNA's explanation is saying is that they are applying Timber to the total shared DNA, but not to the longest segment. This explains the reason for the inconsistency between the totals and the longest segment, but not the logic or reasoning behind the bizarre choice to apply it to one and not the other. If you find this frustrating, you're not the only one.

What does this mean for the inconsistent shared totals with a match between parent and child? Well, I've noticed that often, when the totals are inconsistent, so is the total and the longest segment, and this tells me the same Timber action that's removing segments from the totals but not the longest segment is probably what is causing the inconsistent totals between parents and children.

Take for example, this DNA match "RB":

RB shares 39 cM across 2 segments with me, longest segment 47 cM
RB shared 19 cM across 2 segments with my mom, longest segment 47 cM

So, my mom and I both actually share one 47 cM segment with RB, but Timber has removed a chuck in the middle of that (making 2 smaller segments). Generally, that's not necessarily a bad thing if that chunk isn't identical by descent, but for some inexplicable reason, Timber took a larger chunk from the shared DNA with my mom than with me. That shouldn't be happening, because it's the same segment, it should be removing the same amount from each. Instead, it's taking the same shared 47 cM segment and removing 28 cM from one person but only 8 cM from the other, and that doesn't make sense, and doesn't exactly instill much confidence in Timber and it's reliability.

My theory on why this is happening is that it may have to do with endogamy. Most of the matches I've noticed with this problem on are my mom's side, particularly from endogamous branches. Granted, my dad has some endogamous branches too, but my mom has a fairly recent Mennonite branch, who are highly endogamous, and many of these matches are from that branch. I don't know whether endgamy is maybe messing with Timber, or Timber is trying to remove endogamous segments, but whatever it's doing, it shouldn't be doing it so inconsistently, and frankly, I can't believe this issue has gone on for so long unresolved (except it's Ancestry, so I can believe it).

Edit (24 Sep 2020): Recently, AncestryDNA added to the DNA data they provide the "unweighted shared DNA" total - which is the amount of DNA you share with a match before Timber is applied. You can find it by clicking on either the longest segment data or the shared total for more information. This means the inconsistencies between the total and the longest segment make more sense, and so do the matches where I share more than my parent does, but I fear it's only going to cause more questions about what an unweighted total is, why there are two totals, why they are sometimes so drastically different, and which total do we rely on? Theoretically, we should be able to rely more on the weighted (Timber) total, but since I don't trust Timber, there is no easy answer to the last question.

But at least I can now see the original total with matches, which unsurprisingly is now much more consistent with the original total they share with my parent. There are a couple that still have a discrepancy of 6 cM or less, but that's somewhat nominal, I suppose.

Major Breakthrough with DNA

I think I finally broke through the biggest brick wall on my tree. I had forever been stuck at my 3rd great grandmother, Emma Elizabeth Sherwood (left), who married William Henry Mills. Despite having found her maiden name, I could never find her parents or any record of her before her marriage. Born about 1838 in New York, there were a lot of girls with the same or similar name in New York around that time. I'd tried to research by elimination, but I was still left with too many options that could have been her. And DNA? I made some efforts but it was really difficult with a fairly common surname like Sherwood. I never got anywhere promising.

Until now. I decided to work on some closer DNA matches that I hadn't been able to identify before. I randomly picked one from my mom's side who had several shared matches with people confirmed from my Mills branch. This match, we'll call him 11B, had a small family tree added, enough that I could build on it. Although that is supposed to be ThruLines' job, it doesn't always catch everything. I started digging and before long, I found that 11B's 2nd great grandmother was Orannah Sherwood b. 1841 in New York.

I instantly thought she could be a sister of my Emma Elizabeth Sherwood. Right surname, born only about 3 years apart in the same state. Plus, I know this DNA match 11B is somehow connected to my Mills branch and Emma Sherwood married William Henry Mills. But I tried not to get my hopes up too high, because Sherwood is a common name, and lots of people lived in New York in the late 1830s/early 1840s. 11B could be connected to my Mills branch in some other undiscovered way entirely. More research was needed, so I researched the other branches of 11B's tree and found no other connection to my tree, let alone to my Mills branch.

I then found Orannah, fortunately not a super common given name, in NY in the 1850 census and guess what? She had a sister named Emily E Sherwood b. abt. 1837.

The 1850 census showing the Sherwood family with Emily/Emma

Things are looking much more promising. Granted, Emily was supposedly born in Indiana according to the 1850 census, not New York, but that could be wrong. Or it could be right and she never knew it. Her older sister Louisa also seems to have been born in Indiana in 1835, and then her younger brother Homer was born back in NY in 1839, so the family could have been in Indiana for only a few years and Emily/Emma may not have remembered it and just assumed since she grew up in NY that that's where she was born. It's strange for us today with all our documentation to think that someone didn't actually know where they were truly born, but it happened a lot in history.

Another smaller piece of evidence is the fact that the 1850 census tells us Emily's father, Nathan, was born in New York, which is consistent with later records of Emma saying her father was born in New York too. Unfortunately, it's not as consistent with her mother, which later records say she was born in either New York or New Jersey, while the 1850 census for Annis O, the presumed mother of Emily, says she was born in Vermont.

Here's the craziest bit, though, and is a real testament to why you shouldn't just outright dismiss family stories. Once upon a time, my grandmother was doing genealogy research and left behind a wealth of information, though rarely cited her sources. Much of what she wrote down was word-of-mouth info from cousins she tracked down and wrote to. In her handwritten info, she claimed that William Henry Mills (Emma Sherwood's husband) had a sister named Belinda who married a man with the surname Beals. Turns out, William did have a sister named Blendena, which was obviously misremembered as Belinda, but her only married name was Church, not Beals. None of William's other sisters or relatives married anyone named Beals either, so I was really scratching my head over where this name came from and considering that maybe it was totally fictitious, even though about 90% of my grandmother's info I've proven to be accurate, and the remaining 10% has turned out to hold some kernel of truth, with only some of the details being wrong.

Well, guess who did have a sister whose married name was Beals? Emily Sherwood! Her older sister Louisa married Silvanus Beals in 1855 in Indiana. And note how this is the same sister who was supposedly born in Indiana? The family probably had some kind of connection to Indiana.

I even managed to explain how Emma and Louisa wound up marrying in different states in the same year. Louisa's husband, Silvanus Beals, apparently was living in the same county that Emma married William Henry Mills in, Wyandot County, Ohio. That links Silvanus, and therefore potentially also Louisa, to the same place Emma was married. Additionally, Silvanus' obituary says he worked for a railroad company as a young men, the same industry that William Henry Mills spent his life in. Perhaps they worked together before they met their wives, maybe Louisa introduced Emma to William through her fiance or vice versa. There clearly appears to be a connection there.

The evidence is starting to really pile up, but is it all just a coincidence? How could I know for sure this was the right family, given the slight difference in the given name, Emma vs Emily, and the difference in her birth place as well as her mother's birth place? 

Firstly, I started researching Emily, not Emma, as though she was a different person. If I could find her on later records as having married someone else, not William Henry Mills, or never married at all, that would disprove the theory that they were the same person. I didn't find anything like that, but of course that doesn't confirm they were the same person, it only means that's still a possibility.

I also found Emily in the FamilySearch tree as Emma, which is apparently coming from a book "Descendants to the eight generation of Thomas Sherwood (1586-1655) of Fairfield, Connecticut Vol 2" which was published in 1985, so it's obviously very much a secondary source (and really doesn't contain much info), but it certainly suggests Emily's name could have actually been Emma. It's not a stretch.

But what I really wanted was to find more DNA matches descended from this family. I was hesitant to put this family into my tree because it meant putting a lot of speculative data in my tree, but I did it because I wanted to see if ThruLines would find more descendants. And after a few days, the matches came rolling in! 7 so far, and they will only continue to grow as my tree grows. Unfortunately, this family has been a little difficult to research, so it's been a struggle, but worth it. 

ThruLines showing 5 out of 7 DNA matches from the Sherwood family so far

It appears that Nathan probably died sometime in between 1853 and 1855, and Annis in either 1854 or 1855, because their last child was born 27 Mar 1854. As a result, the children were split up and scattered, sent to live with other families. In 1855, we know that Lousia got married in Indiana, and Emily/Emma, assuming they are the same person, was married in Wyandot County, Ohio. They may have been living with family in those areas. Also in 1855, Oreannah was sent to live with the family of her future husband, Charles C Baxter. Their brother, Homer, was an apprentice living with a seemingly unrelated family in a different part of NY on the 1855 NY State census. Another brother, Dwight, was adopted by another member of the Baxter family, who was fortunately neighbors with the ones who took Oreannah in, so at least these siblings got to be near one another. The youngest brother, Frank, was actually born in March 1854 and adopted as an infant by Franics Postel and Sarah Baxter (Sarah being the sister of Oreanna's husband, yet another connection to the Baxter family) before the 1855 NY census, supporting the theory that Nathan and Annis died around that time. 

I am still working on researching the other children, but I'm having difficulty and I think it's because they were all split up after their parent's deaths. If I'm having difficulty researching them, others probably are as well, and indeed, when I look for these people in other trees, there are usually dead ends. If no one has these people well researched in their trees, ThruLines doesn't have much to follow. So it's not necessarily because I'm on the wrong path, there's just no established path yet for ThruLines to pick up on, which is kind of exciting to be working on something no one else has done much work on yet. Of course, the downside to that is how difficult it is.

Additionally, when I look at my Shared Matches with the confirmed matches descended from Nathan and Annis, I find most of them don't have any tree added at all, and among those that do, most of them are tiny. Another hindrance of ThruLines. All I can do is build my own tree as much as possible down descendant lines and see if they eventually link up with more trees. For now, this is an excellent start, and I'm thrilled to finally have found Emma's family!

How Copying Errors Can Really Screw Up ThruLines

I want to illustrate how ThruLines is only as reliable as the family trees it's using, and how even if you appear to have a few DNA matches linking you both to the same ancestor, that doesn't make it accurate. As we know, it's common for the inexperienced genealogist (of which there are many) to blindly copy data from other trees without verifying it. All it takes is a handful of people copying the same error for ThruLines to make a wrong connection that might seem accurate because there's more than one DNA match.

My dad (JB, shown above) is a DNA match with two people, RJ and RH (you can ignore MM in the screenshot above, that's a legitimate connection I've verified). ThruLines suggests that they are both connected to my dad via his ancestor, Giovanni Biello. It does not include Giovanni's wife, so these are allegedly half cousins, but to my knowledge, Giovanni was only married once. I was open minded to the idea I might have missed another marriage, but then I noticed something else.

RJ and RH both descend from someone named Denizi Biello, b. Feb 1862 (according to the 1900 US Census), supposedly the son of my ancestor Giovanni Biello, b. 13 Jul 1847. This would mean Giovanni was only 14 when Denizi was born, which might be biologically possible but it's extremely unlikely. Men didn't marry until they were old enough to support a family, which they would not be at 14, and if they had children out of wedlock, the child was often left at the church as a foundling (meaning the father not identified). So something about this just didn't sound right to me.

Yet, 4 people had added Denizi as the son of this Giovanni to their tree. And in their defense, Denizi's death certificate does indeed say his father was Giovanni Biello and his mother Domenica Scioli.

Denizi's, or Dionisio Biello's civil birth record

Digging through the civil records of Monteroduni, Italy where both men were born, I found Denizi's birth records which finally held the answer. For starters, his original name was Dionisio Biello, and he was actually born several years before 1862, on February 2, 1856. But his parents names were correct: Giovanni Biello and Domenica Scioli. Only, Giovanni was not born anywhere near 1847. He was recorded as aged 38, which would make him born about 1818. It also said Giovanni was the son of the late Dionisio, whereas "my" Giovanni Biello was the son of Lorenzo.

So, two completely different men, as I suspected. I do not know who originally made the wrong assumption that Denizi was the son of "my" Giovanni but then 3 other people copied the error, ThruLines picked up on it and then found two people descended from Denizi. Since there were only 4 tree with the same error, I contacted all of them to let them know - hopefully they'll make the change and the incorrect ThruLines will disappear, but imagine if this error had been copied by more than 3 people! It probably wouldn't have been worth sending a message to each one since many likely wouldn't get the message or make the correction.

Granted, I have to admit that Monteroduni is a small town in rural Italy where there is a ton of endogamy and cousin marriages. I'm pretty sure everyone with ancestry in Monteroduni is related to everyone else there in some way, but it's still important to figure out the correct relationships whenever possible. Biello is actually a very rare surname and given that and the same location, our Biello lines probably intersect at some point, it's just a question of whether it's before or after civil records began in 1809. I'll certainly keep looking.

ThruLines vs DNA Circles

The most common question I see about ThruLines is whether it uses DNA, or family trees, or both, and there seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding and confusion about ThruLines, especially in regards to how it compares to the now retired DNA Circles. The best thing I can say is that ThruLines does things with trees that DNA Circles didn't do, and DNA Circles did things with DNA that ThruLines doesn't do.

I'll start with what DNA Circles used to do.

A screenshot from Ancestry's blog of how DNA Circles
showed everyone in the group shared DNA with each other 

DNA Circles would first look for a group of people who mostly all shared DNA with each other. So let's say you shared DNA with A, B, and C and on top of that, A, B, and C all shared DNA with each other too. In addition, you did not share DNA with another person called D, but D did shared DNA with A, B, and C, and so was included in the group. So not everyone in the group had to match every single other person, but had to match enough people in the group to justify including them. Once this DNA group (or circle) was established, the system would then look for a common ancestor among your trees - and only among the trees of the people in the group. Once the common ancestor was identified, people in the group who didn't have this ancestor in their tree yet (or didn't even have a tree to begin with) would get DNA Circles in the form of "New Ancestor Discoveries". Within the tools of DNA Circles, you could see who all was in the group and who shared DNA (and who didn't) with whoever else (see above right). (Note: I think the minimum for a Circle to be created was 7 people not too closely related to each other, not 5 like the example I'm using, but I reduced it for the sake of ease).

So, DNA Circles was primarily looking at the shared group DNA and only using trees to identify the source of all that shared DNA (which is actually much how Genetic Communities work too, but I digress).

ThruLines works sort of in the completely opposite way.

ThruLines is only showing these matches descend from the
same ancestor based on trees - it does not tell you whether
they share DNA with each other or not

ThruLines looks for a common ancestor between you and an individual DNA match by looking at the entire database of (searchable) family trees. This is something DNA Circles didn't do, because it only looked at the trees of those in the Circle. So ThruLines is taking match A and looking for a common ancestor by trying to compile all the data from available trees (not just the tree of you and match A). It does this for each DNA match individually, so it then separately finds match B and C are also supposedly descended from the same ancestor and it groups A, B, and C based on what the trees say is their shared ancestor, regardless of whether these matches also share DNA with each other or not (and it doesn't even tell you if they do or not). ThruLines does not check to see if A, B, and C also share DNA with each other like DNA Circles did, and it doesn't even involve D because you don't match D. You can sometimes check to see if they share DNA with each other yourself by using the Shared Matches feature, but remember only estimated 4th cousins or closer are included in the Shared Matches list. If you share less than 20 cM with A, B, and C, you can't see whether they share DNA with each other or not.

What does this mean? It means that beyond the fact that ThruLines is only looking for tree connections with your DNA matches, DNA really isn't a part of ThruLines. The groupings are not based on DNA like DNA Circles were because ThruLines doesn't even know, much less show you if the people in the group share DNA with the others in the group or not. Knowing which of your matches also match each other is important for establishing a connection to an ancestor because remember, family trees are fallible and you can't rely on them alone, especially when there's also no known paper trail to confirm it. You need those DNA groups/circles to tie those alleged descendants together and confirm what the trees say, but ThruLines doesn't do this.

Another screenshot from Ancestry blog showing the now
retired New Ancestor Discoveries.

Another thing ThruLines doesn't do, because it's primarily working off trees instead of primarily working off DNA like Circles did, is provide you with Circles, or New Ancestor Discoveries, even if you don't have a tree attached to your test results (shown right). Because ThruLines is working off trees, it needs a starting point in your tree to connect it to other people's trees. Without at least a basic tree with your parents in it (and ideally they want at least 4 generations), you will not get any ThruLines at all. But because DNA Circles was firstly looking at groups of shared DNA, it didn't matter what your tree said or whether you even had a tree, it could tell you that you fit into that established DNA group based purely on DNA. While ThruLines does include "Potential Ancestors" not yet in your tree, this is again based on what trees say and you will not get any if you don't have a tree attached to your results. This is a drawback for adoptees and people looking for unknown biological family since they have no biological tree to add.

Hopefully that helps clarify the main differences between these two tools. They are/were both useful in their own ways, but they are different and understanding their differences is important so you're not making assumptions about ThruLines and letting it lead you astray.

Breaking Down More Brick Walls with DNA and ThruLines

Previously, I detailed how I broke down one brick wall with the aid of my DNA matches, involving a suspected maiden name. This time, I'm going to detail how it helped me prove that my ancestor Jonathan Deaves was the son of Isaac Deaves.

My 3rd great grandmother, Mary W Deaves was always a huge brick wall in my tree. When I first got into genealogy, I started out where my grandmother had left off with her research. She did not even have Mary's maiden name. I was able to find Mary's death record (shown left) which said her father's name was Jonathan Deaves. That at least gave me her maiden name, and her father's name, but there was no mother's name and for years I was not able to find out anything more about her father. I had no idea when he was born or died, though I assumed it was probably somewhere in or around Philadelphia since that's where his daughter lived. I had no idea who he married or when or where, or who his parents might have been. By the time of the 1850 census, Mary was already married and I couldn't narrow down any Jonathan or Jon/John Deaves, Daves, or even Davis in census records as conclusively the one I was looking for. So I'd made a little headway but I was stuck again, just like my grandmother had been.

Deaves seemed like a fairly unique name, although it is also written as Daves or Davis sometimes, which are very common, but I thought I'd give my DNA matches a search for the more unique spelling. Three matches showed up, and they were all descended from an Isaac Deaves or his father, Thomas Deaves. Looking into the records, Isaac Deaves did indeed have a son named Jonathan (named in Isaac's will) but how could I be sure he was the Jonathan Deaves I was looking for? The location was right but the will didn't mention any of Jonathan's children, or any other information about him (though even if it had, I had no other info on my Jonathan so how could I confirm it?). I couldn't find any other records to help confirm it either and I thought three matches were a good lead, but not conclusive. It didn't seem like quite enough, especially since I couldn't find anyone descended from Jonathan himself.

Then ThruLines happened. And suddenly, it was finding connections I hadn't been able to find. It's showing Isaac Deaves as a potential ancestor! I look again, and I (and my mom, who is one generation closer) now have six matches descended from Isaac, one from Jonathan, and three from Thomas for a total of ten, most of whom also matched each other (an important factor) and most of whom share a 15+ cM segment with me or my mom (meaning they are definitely identical by descent). I carefully went through each one and confirmed their descent from these men - it doesn't mean much to have this many matches to one branch if there's an error somewhere and most or none of them are actually descended from these ancestors. But once you do have this many numbers, it becomes less likely they each have an error, especially when they are descended from different generations in the same line because that means they can't have all just copied the same error.

Interestingly, I also have one other DNA match who is descended from a Deaves family in Glouchestershire, England, which is supposedly where Thomas's father was from (another Isaac), but I haven't been able to confirm this yet and with only one match, I can't confirm it with DNA. Hopefully with more research (either on the paper trail or with DNA), I can confirm or disprove it eventually. For now, I'm very happy with my breakthrough.

ThruLines only picked up on 4 people descended from Isaac, I found the
other 2

ThruLines No Longer in Beta

It's official, ThruLines is here to stay and DNA Circles have been permanently retired. If you're upset by this, check out my article on why ThruLines really is an improvement.

More than that, they've rolled out a few improvements to ThruLines and the match review page. Nothing major, but small things can have a huge impact on your workflow and several of these new items will do just that.

In ThruLines/Common Ancestors:

When viewing pathways with a DNA match to a common or potential common ancestor, clicking on individuals now first brings up a side bar on the right that lists "Relationship Records", which DNA matches have that individual in their trees, and which other trees (not DNA matches) have them in their trees. You can then click on any of those trees and basic data will appear in the same side bar so you don't even have to leave the DNA pages (though of course if you want to bring up someone's full tree you still can by clicking from the side bar). This really helps to streamline your workflow by not having to open as many new pages.

And let's go back to this new "Relationship Records" feature. In the side bar, it will list what records can be found which identify someone as the parent/child of someone else, helping to prove ThruLines pathways may be accurate and not 100% based on tree data. Of course in the example above the only Relationship Record found was for Find A Grave, which is not necessarily reliable - Find A Grave doesn't exact include source citations and often people get linked to the wrong families, etc. So be careful even with these Relationship Records, but they should be useful in general.

Another improvement you might have noticed is the "evaluate" tag shown on anyone who isn't in your tree already. This helps point out (particularly to newcomers) that ThruLines is only a suggestion and you still need to verify (or disprove) it before accepting it as fact.

On the match review page:

We can now view a 10 generation pedigree preview from the match review page like we used to be able to do before all these changes. Granted, you now have to click on "expand tree" which opens a popup box, and I believe this is only available to subscribers, but it's better than having to open a match's full tree in a whole new tab. And while non-subscribers can only view the 5 generation pedigree preview (so I've heard), that is better than the nothing they had before. So this should be an improvement for subscribers, and a big improvement for non-subscribers.

The preview of basic data on an individual in a match's pedigree is also back. When you click on someone in the pedigree preview, instead of opening their full details in the full tree in a new tab, we see the return of the popup box with vital data: birth, death, parents, spouse, and children. These are the basic things we need to more quickly identify a DNA match without getting cluttered with everything else that might appear on an ancestor's profile in their full tree.

But it's more than just the return of what we had before. If you notice in the expanded pedigree preview above, shared surnames are now highlight in green, something we've never had before! Of course, shared surname doesn't necessarily mean that's the branch which your relationship is from but the incorporation of shared surnames into the pedigree preview could be really beneficial for quicker reference.

There are still a few items I have complaints about, but they are mostly regarding the match review page, not ThruLines. It may be worth noting that the match review page, the match list, and the user profile are all still in beta, it's only ThruLines which has been fully rolled out now.

My main issues are:

1. We are we no longer able to select a tree when someone has an unlinked tree. We can click on it, but it opens the full tree view on another page - in the past, we could select an unlinked tree and instead of opening a new page, it would show the surname list, pedigree preview, and map/locations for that tree as though it was a linked tree, and then we could even toggle among other trees if the user had more than one. This was much more useful and without it, it's harder to compare surnames and locations and find a connection with an unlinked tree.

2. The loss of the Shared Locations list. The map is there but it would be much easier to see a list than have to click around the map. I never really used the map in the past, and found the locations list much easier to use.

3. There should be a distinction between "Common Ancestors" that appear in both my tree and my match's tree, versus ThruLines/Common Ancestors being found through combining multiple other trees together, which is much more speculative. If I have the same ancestor in my tree that a DNA match does, that should take priority and be a notable distinction from other ThruLines.

I guess with ThruLines coming out of Beta, this is unlikely to be implemented, but a girl can dream and hopefully with enough feedback, my other two complaints regarding the match review page might change.

Why ThruLines is an Improvement (Really!)

I've been hearing a lot of negativity about AncestryDNA's new feature ThruLines (aka Common Ancestors when viewing your match list - they are the same thing, just different ways to view them), which seems to be replacing both DNA Circles and Shared Ancestor Hints. It works by looking for a tree connection between you and a DNA match through other family trees, not just yours and your match's trees.

Naturally, this opens the system and connections up to a lot of room for error. We all know how inaccurate some trees out there can be, how those errors can get copied by the dozens, and I'm not going to pretend that this isn't an issue. Anytime you're working with trees, you absolutely must verify the information yourself before you accept it as fact.

But that doesn't mean ThruLines can't be useful. I've been working with them for a few weeks now, and I have found that the majority of them can be verified with a little work. Some of them I haven't been able to verify at all and remain unknowns, and others I have actually proven wrong, but the amount of them which I've been able to confirm far exceeds the old Shared Ancestors Hints which were limited to looking at your tree and your match's tree only. ThruLines is finding legit shared ancestors that neither the system or myself doing the work manually could have ever found before. Take the following example.

As you can see, Sally has a family tree with only 3 people in it and on top of that, it's a private tree. In the past, this would be a complete dead end. Unless I contacted her and she responded to tell me more about her tree or at least give me access (which I likely wouldn't do for every match at this distance), I would have completely written off this match in the past.

But now, ThruLines has found a common ancestor! Just by adding those mere 3 people to her tree and making her tree searchable even if it's private, Sally has allowed ThruLines to find a connection between us. Of course, I first have to make sure ThruLines isn't leading me astray, so let's look at the connection.

Part of what you're seeing here is the benefit of researching as far down the descendant lines of your ancestor's siblings as possible. When I first looked at our ThruLines relationship, I had only researched down to Samuel Gross, and Sally's tree only went back to her grandparent. The two generations in between were being filled in by ThruLines finding them in other trees. Of course, to verify the relationship, I had to do my own research and fill in the missing generations, but this was much easier since I'd already gotten a head start. I researched all the way down to Sally's grandfather, Robert. Since her tree was private, Robert was originally shown as private, but you can actually click on deceased people in private trees and get basic details like their name and birth, just like you would from clicking on results of a private tree in the search engine results (see below). If they are still living, you get nothing, as it should be - living people's privacy is always totally protected (also see below).

In the past, if a tree was private, we got nothing unless the tree owner chose to share info or an invite with us. But with ThruLines, we can now see which common ancestor we share and get basic data on each generation even from private trees, enough that we can then go and research the pathway ourselves and verify it, which is exactly what happened here.

ThruLines isn't perfect, of course. It's only as reliable as the trees it's using, and I have found errors in the trees it uses on occasion. Additionally, the system itself is not infallible and I have come across the occasional case where ThruLines is assuming two different people are the same person. In those cases, the error is with the system, not the trees it's using.

But we are genealogists - fact checking and verifying data is what we do. So let's do it! You might find ThruLines just as beneficial as I have so far. It has found common ancestors with people that the old system wouldn't have, and with people I never found have by searching manually on my own.