Search for content in message boards

2012 Relationship Calculator Should Display DIRECT relationships as a default

Replies: 18

Re: 2012 Relationship Calculator Should Display DIRECT relationships as a default

Posted: 10 May 2012 7:25AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 10 May 2012 7:47AM GMT
Marco
Thanks for your reply - you are correct in the Relationship Calculator does not ‘directly’ compromise the integrity of data in that it displays all relationships which technically may be a good aspect and perhaps is
interesting and useful in some cases but if you have a large tree going back 20-30 generations with say 10,000 entries it does compromise that data as the user will find that the displayed relationship is not always the closest or direct one which is the one that most genealogists and family tree experts want to see. I am not interested in the remote relationships but rather only those that I DIRECTLY descend from and because the Relationship Calculator does not appear to apply a consistent rationale to how it displays the relationship I am missing out on many direct ancestors - what it does is skip a generation - for instance if you like me are descended from siblings in the same family group it displays some of the Great Grandparents correctly in one case I am descended from 3 siblings in the one family and the Relationship Calculator displays this correctly so all subsequent relationships from those 3 displays correctly in the right generations i.e. the 27th Great Grandfather/mother is the parent of the 26th Great Grandfather/mother BUT in some cases where I am descended from 2 individuals in the same grouping it displays 1 sibling as a Great Grandparent and the other as a Grand Aunt/Uncle but then corrects this in the next generation by displaying the child of this Grand Aunt/Uncle as a Great Grandparent . The result is the Grand Aunt/Uncle does not show in the direct lien chart which does compromise the integrity of the information one provides. Less experienced users may never pick up on this glitch which will ultimately reflect their direct descent incorrectly. Like you I do attach and detach regularly to ensure that the info I produce is correct and yes it is a PITA BIG TIME. It could be resolved if Ancestry would allow the user to override the unwanted relationship in favour of the most direct - a Grand Aunt/Uncle is not a direct ancestor although relationship wise they can be a variety of less direct relationships including Aunt/Uncle, cousin, in-law etc depending on the subsequent generations and how one descends form them. The user should not have to resort to attaching and detaching to get the most correct DIRECT descent it does devalue the information and leaves one's data open to criticism as being inaccurate or wrong. As you have probably experienced there are those that do not believe that one can trace direct liens back to 25 and 30 generations ( I have them in my own family) and beyond accurately and this type of glitch only feeds their arguments. I am currently involved in a very large family event where relations are coming from literally all over the world, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, South Africa, Tahiti and many states in the USA - preparing the data and charts etc for this event has been a nightmare because of this glitch and my desire to ensure that each branch has the correct lineage. I have notified Ancestry support of this and they claim to be working on it.
SubjectAuthorDate Posted
cohsen 29 Apr 2012 9:13AM GMT 
Shillaker 9 May 2012 9:20PM GMT 
Marco Scavo 9 May 2012 10:04PM GMT 
cohsen 10 May 2012 1:25PM GMT 
Marco Scavo 10 May 2012 2:47PM GMT 
cohsen 10 May 2012 3:14PM GMT 
susandallri 13 May 2012 4:14AM GMT 
susandallri 13 May 2012 4:14AM GMT 
DevonnaWick 4 Jul 2012 12:17AM GMT 
cohsen 4 Jul 2012 9:52AM GMT 
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

© 1997-2014 Ancestry.com | Corporate Information | Privacy | Terms and Conditions