Making the most of Ancestry's 'Thru Lines' in DNA research

Public Domain

Many people receive a DNA TEST as a gift these days, and feel that they are on the fast track to discovering their family. They are, but not in the way they planned. Human error is one of the things that DNA testing in genealogy is supposed to help eradicate, but in some ways, it is making the spread of incorrect lineages and casual family connections run rife. What I am about to explain here is mainly in relation to Ancestry's 'Thru Lines' feature which is currently the worlds largest DNA genealogy database.
 
As we know with most things, data is only as accurate as the person entering it. When you’ve done your test and you excitedly log in to view your matches, you may find the majority of kits contain no links to know family trees, and yet others claim to have thousands of ancestors neatly packed away into their online trees. BEWARE!!!
 
Traditional genealogy is still required, and I would say, in fact vital, and DNA testing should help you to prove theories and confirm your research via common matches, but beware of claiming ancestors suggested to you without first checking the relationships, dates and places properly.
 
Online DNA kits are cross-linked to peoples supplied family trees. Keep in mind, that many of these trees can contain vast inaccuracies. For example if Person A has Louis Snodgrass as their three times great grandfather, and Person B who is researching the same line, has simply picked up the same information without confirming genealogical proof standard, the data base simply sees two people who share DNA, but the information for the supposed relative may be incorrect. When other people DNA matched on the same line then add their tests to the database, it is no surprise, that for example, ‘Thru lines’ software will suggest to them, that Louis Snodgrass is their ancestor also, and the mistakes become ingrained. 
 
People see the matching DNA, and assume that the link is correct, and whilst the DNA link is correct, the person identified may not be. This is why I suggest for people seeking an accurate family tree (which should be all of you), that you undertake traditional genealogical methods alongside DNA testing. Firstly build your own basic tree, and check and double check all facts before you wantonly begin adding people suggested to you from the database.
 
Ask yourself, do the dates and places match, can I find a marriage certificate for the claimed coupling, does the link meet genealogical proof standard, or is it dubious? Consider that genealogy is like reverse detective work. You may have a suspect, but can you place that suspect at the scene of the crime. Would your case be tight?
 
Many people who test their DNA and have not provided a traditional tree to link to their results, are often the same people heard to mutter, “I don’t understand my results, I have matches, but I don’t know what they mean”. Adding a family tree to your DNA kit allows you to identify how you relate to your matches, and also helps you to figure out which line of your family people descend from. You should consider at least trying to compile a small family tree to enrich your DNA experience. Three to four generations are required as a minimum amount of information, for anyone wishing to unlock the power of the ‘Thru lines’ feature on Ancestry.
 
Sometimes for whatever reason, adoption, estrangement and other birth events, people have no possibility of adding basic family trees. It is for these people, that it becomes important that the rest of us who do know our backgrounds try to at least provide some kind of tree to link to our DNA. Those trees can often help people searching for vital family connections to learn something about their genetic ancestry. As the Aunt of two adoptees, I can tell you, that is important work!
 
DNA is amazing technology and has the power to make our family trees accurate, but we must remember that it is a tool that still needs to be coupled with solid research methods if we are to create accurate pictures of our families past.