Common/potential ancestors on Ancesty

[wizbit93]

Hoping someone can answer this please? When I look at the shared ancestors on Ancestry, most of them come up as ‘common ancestors’ but a few have come up as ‘potential ancestors’. Does anyone know why this is? Surely if the dna is matching they shouldn’t be ‘potential’?

Is this from your uploaded family tree research, or from an Ancestry DNA test kit?

"...but a few have come up as ‘potential ancestors’"

Do you mind me asking where you are seeing this?

I've never seen that anywhere.

"When I look at the shared ancestors"

I take it from this that you have clicked on the profile of a person who is a DNA match to you and then clicked on the tab that says 'Shared Matches'

Against each shared match there is first whether they have a public or private tree, an unlinked tree or no tree at all.

Then, if there is a common ancestor then it will state this.

But if there is no common ancestor then there is nothing there.

.

Or perhaps are you clicking on a profile of a person who is a DNA match and then clicking on the tab that says 'Trees'.

It then says something like "You and Joe Smith may be related through Bob Smith".

The reason it says this is that it is relying on other people's family trees - and they aren't always accurate.

.

Or perhaps are you talking about on the actual tree itself where occasionally a little green box will appear above a person on your tree as a prompt suggesting a potential mother or father?

In this situation, it is just taking what other people have put on their trees and suggesting it to you as a potential parent.

Sometimes these prompts are accurate and sometimes they aren't, you should really check the details for yourself.

Ancestry DNA test

Common ancestor means you are matched by DNA and Ancestry has identified who your common ancestors are via your trees.

Potential ancestor means you are a DNA match with that person, but your tree doesn’t go far back enough to include the common ancestor you have - but theirs does. So ancestry guesses by using their tree and lines from yours on who your current ancestor is.

So for example your common ancestor may be a great great great grandparent, you have only got your great great grandparent on that line but the match has the great great great grandparent in their tree (who is the parent of your great great grandparent - and their tree also may establish your great great grandparent as their great great grandparent’s sibling).

So it says potential as you haven’t added the common ancestor in your tree yet.

Thank you @Another2Cats. I've attached some screenshots (hopefully!)

So i have set the filter for common ancestors. I then clicked on the person and then on trees. Then in the common ancestors part it has each person, but also has the wordng as potential ancestor. When I then click on the person it is the same style as usual, in that i have my name at the bottom, then my parent above, their parent above etc until the shared ancestor, and then back down the other side to the person i clicked on.

It is very strange! I have not seen it before, and it is only on several people, everything else is as I would expect.

@probablyamunreasonableThank you! That makes perfect sense actually. I did think it is probably correct given that it was from a dna kit.
So, going by that theory would you say it is safe to add that person that they have but I haven't to my tree?

Personally, I don't add any people on the basis of the dna result alone, without checking paper records. They may be correct, but if they're not, you've introduced an unnecessary error into your tree.

So many people have mistakes in their trees, because it's so easy to add information. Then others copy the mistake, until everyone believes it's true, even though it's completely wrong!

OK, thank you very much indeed for sharing that.

I now totally understand what you are saying. Despite what I said earlier, that I had never seen it before, I have in fact seen it once (quite some time ago).

Typically with common ancestors, there will be a common ancestor in your current tree and the Ancestry algorithm will say that somebody else is related to you through a child of that person.

However, sometimes there are cases where Ancestry suggests that the common ancestor is not already in your tree but is a parent of somebody in your tree where you do not have that parent showing in your tree.

I hope that makes sense? For example, if you have your great great grandparents on your tree but not their parents then Ancestry may show their parents as 'potential ancestors'.

What this means is that they have looked at trees that contain your DNA match and also people on your tree and the algorithm thinks that this may be the common ancestor.

For example, let's say that your 4th great grandmother is on your tree but you have not got her parents.

Ancestry sees that you are a DNA match with some other person.

They then have a look at different family trees and find that some of these trees say that your 4th great grandmother is the sister of your DNA match's 4th great grandmother or grandfather.

That would imply that the common DNA ancestors are your 5th great grandparents - even though they are not on your tree.

Ancestry cannot say this for certain as not all trees are entirely accurate so they say that the people they name as your 5th great grandparents are only the 'potential' common ancestors. It is down to you to determine if they actually are.

So, what Ancestry are saying in this case is that your DNA matches are still definitely your DNA matches but that the 'Common Ancestor' is only a 'potential' common ancestor as you have not got them on your own tree.

If you are certain that these people are indeed your 5th great grandparents and add them to your tree then they will no longer be 'potential' common ancestors but actual common ancestors.

I really do hope all of the above makes sense. If anything doesn't then please do ask me to clarify anything

"So, going by that theory would you say it is safe to add that person that they have but I haven't to my tree?"

No, definitely not. As @CucumberSummer very rightly said:

"Personally, I don't add any people on the basis of the dna result alone, without checking paper records. They may be correct, but if they're not, you've introduced an unnecessary error into your tree.

So many people have mistakes in their trees, because it's so easy to add information. Then others copy the mistake, until everyone believes it's true, even though it's completely wrong!"

It is likely that it is correct, in my experience, I have found that around 9 out of 10 of these are correct. But that still leaves around 1 time out of ten that it is totally wrong.

I think that Ancestry is now making wider connections, not just following what's in our own trees, which increases the chances of mistakes.

In my tree, I show my 5xg grandfather John, who has a daughter named "Hannah Maria". Ancestry gives a 9cM (low) match as a potential 3rd cousin 3x removed. His very full tree shows no common ancestors, so I looked at Ancestry's link.

This shows the connection is from John via a wrong "Maria Hannah", down through her line to an "Yvonne June" who is my match's grandmother. However, my match's grandmother is a different "Yvonne June" born the previous year - and checking the paperwork on Ancestry, my match's tree is correct.

Therefore, in this case, Ancestry has looked at other trees, and weaved in two mistakes. Perhaps this is because both mistakes are copied in lots of trees, so AI gives the mistake more credence.

@CucumberSummer@Another2Cats
Thank you so much for the detailed replies. I shall not add them to my tree then.
I too have seen mistakes in others trees. My Great Grandfather died in WW1. There were two babies born in the same quarter in the same village with the same names. Think John Bertie Cook and John Bertie Charles Cook (not the real names). The first is definitely my ancestor but I have seen several trees where people have chosen the other John. There is a military photo often shown that everyone seems to use yet I have the original so I know I definitely have the correct one! Ancestry shows me with matches with the ancestors of his parents so again, I have selected the correct one. It’s very easy to incorrectly add people without getting the copies of certificates etc.
Thanks again for your help, much appreciated.

Yes, I think people are more careful when it's a common name, but when the name is more unusual, or a more unusual pairing of names, many users don't do any checks.

When I first started doing research, I sent off for a birth certificate that I thought was my grandfather's, as he had an unusual last name, but I got the wrong certificate. Luckily, my DM was still alive, to point out my mistake. To make matters worse, both married Annies! This means I see a lot of trees with either of the Freds married to the wrong Annie...

"There were two babies born in the same quarter in the same village with the same names."

I am very used to seeing that sort of thing. I'm sure that you're probably aware of this, but just for anybody else reading:

On Ancestry, the Civil Registration Birth Index (the one that shows, for England & Wales, which quarter a birth was in) includes the mother's maiden name from 1911 onwards. Earlier than 1911 it doesn't, which can obviously cause problems as you pointed out.

There is a way to get around this though. If you go to the General Register Office website:

https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/

and then go to 'Order certificates online' and (after registering) then go to 'Search the GRO Indexes'

From here you can search for free the index of birth certificates and death certificates.

The index will show the mother's maiden name from 1837 to 1926. Although do be aware that I have often seen the mother's name spelt incorrectly so it's often best not to search on the mother's maiden name initially.

You can search the indexes for free. In the case of the OPs example it will show the records for both John Bertie Cooks with each mother's maiden name. It will also give the volume and page number so that you can go back to Ancestry and make sure that you have the correct record.

In addition to this, if that isn't enough then you can get a digital image of the actual birth certificate much more cheaply than getting a standard certificate or a pdf.

A paper certificate is £12.50, a pdf is £8 but a digital image is only £3 and you can download it immediately rather than having to wait.

Digital images are available for birth certificates from 1837 to 1923 and death certificates up until 1957.