Posted by Ancestry Team on April 9, 2019 in AncestryDNA, Website

Last month at RootsTech our CEO Margo Georgiadis revealed three game changing innovations to give you a clearer and richer view of your history—helping you make more personal discoveries, faster.

  • ThruLines™ illustrates how you may be connected to your DNA matches through a common ancestor — and gives you a clear view of how you’re likely related
  • MyTreeTags™ provides 20 universal options and the ability to create your own custom tags to highlight personal details or research status for individuals in your family tree
  • New & Improved DNA Matches enables you to easily sort, group, and view your DNA Matches any way you’d like

We launched these features in beta so you could explore them and send us feedback to make your Ancestry® experience even better. Our teams received unprecedented engagement and feedback from all of you, and for that we’re so very grateful. We’re fulfilling our commitment to continuous innovation and improvement by thoughtfully reviewing your feedback and making requested updates.

Here’s what we’re working on:

ThruLines

In just a few short weeks, we’ve already heard stories from many of you who have smashed through brick walls or connected with separated family members as a result of this launch–thank you for letting us be a part of your success.

We’ve heard your requests for this feature and are prioritizing the following updates over the next few months:

  • An updated algorithm that only suggests new potential ancestors not already in your family tree
  • “Smart suggestions” for how to get discoveries from ThruLines™ even if you already have a large tree linked to an AncestryDNA test
  • Providing relationship records and DNA evidence details to help you better understand why potential ancestors are being suggested
  • Flexibility to keep or remove suggested potential ancestors from ThruLines™ discoveries

MyTreeTags

Over 400K members have joined the MyTreeTags™ beta and users love that they can expertly keep track of the details and research status of their ancestors. A few users have asked if the relationship calculator is still accessible in the beta experience and we’re happy to report that it is still available. If you have any feedback regarding this feature, please let us know via this link.

To keep innovating this feature, the MyTreeTags™ team is making the following updates, based on your suggestions:

  • An autosave feature in MyTreeTags™ that will replace the manual “save” button
  • A new feature guidance tool to help you know how to effectively use MyTreeTags™
  • Improved scrolling that is more compatible for members using a FireFox browser
  • Making MyTreeTags™ available in mobile app

New & Improved DNA Matches

Thank you for telling us about how you’ve been using color coding, custom labeling, and our other new features to better visualize your DNA connections. Through your feedback, we’ve learned what helps you make meaningful discoveries and in the coming months we will continue refining this feature by:

  • Making extra information, such as shared surnames, available on the match profile page
  • Moving “add a note” feature and “add a match to a group” feature to the match profile page
  • Adding the ability to bulk-add a match’s shared matches to a custom match group
  • Showing the number of matches in each match group next to the group name in the match filter
  • Moving the search button to a more visible location (next to the match group filters)

Thank you again for all of your suggestions. We’re committed to ongoing iterations to deliver the best possible discovery journeys for our dedicated community, so please continue to tell us about your experience. If you would like to learn more or opt into any of these public betas, please visit our new release page.

55 Comments

  1. James Shannon

    The New & Improved DNA Matches needs to include search by User ID as that is how most of the DNA Matches are listed.

    • Alan

      I agree we need to be able to search matches by User ID. Scrolling through 50 pages of matches trying to spot an ID is really a drag.

      • Barbara

        Definitely need to be able to search by User ID and list all their matches in one list, not like they are now only via a person’s profile page. Also, changes need to be compatible with the AncestryDNA Helper extension for the Chrome browser that so many people use.

      • Joyce

        I totally agree…we need to be able to search under match name.

        We must also have pages, not one long list. It is impossible to keep track of where you left off in viewing matches and sorting.

      • Michele

        I asked for the same user ID search field to return too. I keep paper and digital files with the user ID. This field needs to return!!

      • Larry Van Horn

        Mega Ditto. Please get rid of the scroll roll and give us pages. Another dumb idea by people who apparently do not do genealogy on a daily basis.

    • nmolina153

      I strongly agree. Especially now that through Beta ThruLines there are no page numbers, although if there were page numbers, we still have to scroll through everyone; like search for the needle in the haystack. If we know the user name, we currently can only search by surname which doesn’t function if none available.
      I like that Family Tree DNA has options to see matches by date, generation, alphabetical order, and more. That would be ideal if Ancestry were able to provide the options as well.

    • Nancy Thomas

      I agree. The ability to see if one username matches another is so fundamental and is especially needed when researching smaller matches under the 20 cm. threshold for shared matches. My research would be greatly facilitated by this basic addition.

    • Louise

      I so agree. I can’t understand why Ancestry doesn’t see the need for a basic match name search function. How are we supposed to find anything? I have been reliant on the AncestryDNA Helper extension to find particular matches and to search within my notes, but this doesn’t work with the ‘New & Improved DNA Matches’ beta. So much effort has been put into new and exciting tools like ‘Thulines'(which are wonderful), but the basics are still missing.

    • Kim H

      DNA circles and New Ancestor Discoveries have been in Beta for YEARS!! Makes you wonder if any of them ever will leave that phase.

      • I keep forgetting that DNA circles is beta. But I was under the impression that ThruLines was not available to everyone. So I guess my questions really is when will it be released to the public?

  2. Kim H

    What is going to happen with the DNA circles? I like this feature and it has not worked in months so I’m not sure why it’s just sitting there.

  3. Gerrye Fielden

    at my age, I’m having trouble figuring out how to try even one of these ideas! Sound great, if I only knew how to start….. also interested in the “color coding”. What is that?

    • Joyce

      Gerry you can now sort your matches using names and a color code. This helps you separate DNA lines and really helps w/ research.

      I found one group of people that I started seeing the same surname over and over and I identified a couple who is probably my 2nd great grandfather’s grandparents–although I still can’t figure out my 2nd GGF’s parents, it’s a start 🙂

  4. Andrea

    A “new and improved game changing innovation” would be a chromosome browser that can analyze X-DNA as well.

    I’m grateful for the MyTree tags, but the rest is just flash with very little substance. It’s an insult to our intelligence that Ancestry continues to treat us this way.

    Please ancestry, treat your customers that send you 100’s and thousands of dollars each year like we are intelligent enough to use tools to analyze our DNA and those of our DNA matches.
    Even a 10 year old knows to “show their work”.
    Less flash, more substance please.

    • Bonnie Schrack

      Echoing others here — Ancestry does not really listen to their customers; we have very little influence. Although I suppose some organized effort might get their attention. If they actually had a spirit of service to the community, they would have agreed to our urgent pleas and demands for a chromosome browser long ago.

      Tadhere is some element there that is fear-based, rather than inspired by love. They are afraid of chromosome browsers for some reason, though these haven’t been known to cause any problems for any of the other companies that do offer them.

      There are so many things you could do that would make a dramatic difference for your customers. Real genetic genealogy requires a chromosome browser, but even without that feature which frightens you, Ancestry could do this one, little thing: tell us whether each Shared Match matches us *on the same segment*.

      If I match Joe and Linda, but Joe and Linda match eachother on another line, and thus on a different segment, that’s not at all the same situation as having three people who all share at least some of the same segment, and thus, a common ancestor. How easy it would be for you to tell us that little fact, without having to reveal specific DNA locations! As it stands now, we are operating in the dark. As others have said, giving us genuine access to information is what matters to us, NOT flashy graphics.

      Another next step would be to identify the chromosome number where the matching segment(s) arelocated. This is also far short of revealing anything sensitive.

      Finally, one request I’ve been making for quite a while, which would be an immense benefit at virtually no cost to you: allow us to filter matches not only to see all who match our tested parent, but also, to be able to see all matches who DON’T match that parent. I have no way to see just my non-paternal matches! This is such a big pain, and would be ridiculously easy to fix.

      Thank you!

      Bonnie

      • Bonnie Schrack

        I’m sorry for the typo in my post. It’s unfortunate that there seems to be no way to edit or even delete one’s comments.

      • John

        Bonnie makes some good suggestions. 23andme, FTDNA, MyHeritage, and others offer their users a chromosome browser. With the information we gain using DNA matches on these sites, DNA researchers can use DNA Painter to map their chromosomes to their ancestors. If ancestry would just tell us the chromosome where we match without the specific segment data, then in most cases, we would be able to predict the common ancestors for our ancestry DNA match.

  5. Barbara

    Definitely need to be able to search by User ID and list all their matches in one list, not like they are now only via a person’s profile page. Also, changes need to be compatible with the AncestryDNA Helper extension for the Chrome browser that so many people use.

  6. Mike

    “ThruLines
    An updated algorithm that only suggests new potential ancestors not already in your family tree”

    I hope you make this an option (perhaps the default) but don’t remove the ability to find ancestors already in the tree. If you have hundreds and 3rd and 4th cousins and people have a username attached to their DNA that doesn’t match their actual name (lots of people use pseudonyms) then you may not have found all the DNA matches that are actually in your tree. I’ve already found several cousins using ThruLines who are DNA matches this way, and they were happy to be contacted thru Ancestry. I never could have found them without using ThruLines.

  7. peggy

    I’d prefer you fix problems that have been going on for years, before you tackle new items!! I’ve been writing in for years requesting a fix to this issue: I get frequent emails telling ‘new content has been added to your tree’ and I excitedly click on ‘view all new people’ only to be taken to the index of ALL people in the tree!!! Nowhere can I find a way to search that tree for NEW people. This is such a time waster. Can’t you make it that I can actaully view new people added and to select to search for people added in e.g. the past month, or ‘since I last viewed this tree’, etc.?? Why send these email notifications when they don’t actually DO anything!?!

    • Madeleine

      Peggy, you are so lucky to even get emails form Ancestry. I am not getting any that relate to my trees, i only get these emails that advise me of a new blog item and of course, when my sub is due. I have repeatedly asked Ancestry customer help to investigate and my ISP has asked them to do so . Neither of us is getting anywhere near satisfactory answers. As you point out Ancestry is too focused on new stuff to find time to fix existing problems.

    • Joyce

      Wholeheartedly agree Peggy…there was a time when you went straight to the person on tree you wanted to see…that has been broken for quite a while and needs to be fixed.

      I have about 15 trees for various brick walls I am trying to break through, I have invites and am editor on many trees (my cousins want me to update their trees LOL –I do it for one elderly 2nd cousin who is a peach and we’ve become attached -but I can’t update all these folks trees-can barely keep up with the 15 I have LOL)

      ANC needs to realize that some of their customers are serious researchers, and are helping others get decent trees…

      If it wasn’t for serious researchers, ANC would not be able to generate so many hints. WE are creating their tree databases, WE are guiding others and helping them with their trees.

      ANC needs to make it easier for those of us who do that…

  8. MKath

    I have done extensive research to prove that my 3rd great-grandfather, Thomas C. Wood 1825-1899, Bedford Co., VA, was NOT the son of John B. Wood and Catherine Citty. They had a son with the same name, but his verified dates were 1822-1908. ThruLines has connected my relative with John B. and Catherine and now the names are all mixed up on a million other trees. Please do something about this. I don’t care for ThruLines.

    • Joyce

      MKath…I have had one or 2 people like that…who other trees had lots of misinformation.

      The solution I can up with that actually works is to do a story, and attach to all involved parties in your tree.

      Explain why other trees are incorrect. That way folks can easily find it on a search and the story usually shows up in hints.

      You’ll never totally resolve all the incorrect files, as many folks no longer have membership, but little by little folks will get on the right path.

      I hope that helps

      J

  9. M E Hall

    Thank you for the update(s) and communicating that the “feedback” has been heard. Very much appreciated from this 18+ year Ancestry.com subscriber/customer

  10. Jojo

    1. Would be nice if Ancestry would add a timeline as to when they will apply these fix-up’s!

    2. I never get emails for new DNA matches (3rd cousin or better) from Ancestry. Why not?

    3. Many people have multiple trees. There needs to be a way to sync a tree from someone else you are collaborating with and merge updated trees into a master tree.

  11. Christopher Schuetz

    Since there is no response panel on your Profile Beta, I will comment here.
    The right hand side concentrates all the stuff that I try to avoid at AncestryDNA because it makes my time with this material unpleasant.
    Ethnicity that cannot even specify which continent my paternal grandmother came from.
    And says my Cornish are all Irish.
    But at least you didn’t locate them in the Caribbean as your upload often mangles my Cornish locations.
    New matches – who have no trees – without any filter to exclude all those without a tree.
    And those helpful big images, so I can’t take in all of my matches ethnicity to make some sense of it.
    You have taken MyHeritage’s approach but made it 100 times worse.
    I would blame the intern for these ideas, but they have all the hallmarks of a shared, committee decision. Try again.
    And this time, try working with a real user, not just a web person, or someone caught in the corporate culture.

  12. ThruLines has been nothing but problematic for me. Issues like step parents being represented in ThruLines as bio-parents (and yes, the people are connected correctly in my trees), ThruLines ignoring properly attached ancestors, even if on the original rollout day the ancestors were in ThruLines, they later disappear, etc.

    And because the match list leaf hints are now on “Common Ancestors” found in ThruLines, if ThruLines doesn’t want to add a (correctly attached) ancestors in a ThruLine then too bad, one doesn’t get those little shaky green leaf hints.

    On a more fundamental problem, ThruLines tries to resell so many dodgy old family trees, like those used to erroneously connect people via the Ancestry app “We’re Related”, that false ancestors will now continue to be promulgated with the imprimatur of “DNA”.

  13. Bill Greggs

    I’m finding the ThruLines feature very helpful for providing hints for matches with common ancestors. A few comments: Some ThruLine Ancestors are not the already well-researched ancestors I already have on my Tree, but what someone else’s tree indicates — “Potential Ancestors” are indicated where I have the actual ancestor in my tree. From ThruLines there is not a way back to the main DNA home page. It would be nice from a specific ThruLine ancestor landing page to be able to go back one generation, e.g. from the 2nd ggf or ggm to the 3rd ggf/ggm in that line. I am taking a lot of time to go through each of the ancestors to confirm and document matches. It would be nice to have some way of checking a box for each of those so that Ancestry could signal when there are new matches for that common ancestor since the last time I reviewed them.

  14. MKath

    Joyce, I posted my ancestor’s obituary a few years ago but removed it because too many users didn’t bother to read it and just posted it automatically to the wrong person. I’ve put together a decent summary of the two (possibly related) families. I don’t dare post it because of how it could be handled. I put too much work into it for someone else to take credit. I don’t want to see it posted all over the internet. And for people asking for a search by username feature, I’ve been asking for many years. It would really help, especially when you’re working with common surnames. There’s no way to find anything. I was a Beta DNA tester and the only “new” feature that has helped me over the years is the “Shared Ancestors” list.

  15. Terry

    Please make searching by ethnicity, which was previously available. a part of the New and Improved DNA Matches. Currently, I have to opt out of the new features to use this tool It should be integrated with the new matching system.

  16. Rick

    Great improvements! Now, if you could just get people to use tags and delete a zillion images!
    I am spending more and more time deleting pictures.

  17. Larry Van Horn

    Honestly, I have not been impressed with most of what you have done. You continue to rely on heavy graphic-laden pages and then watch your website crash to its knees during peak prime time periods. You have rolled out major beta features with zero whitepapers to explain what we are looking at or to help us make educated estimates about the validity of the information being presented. Your lack of understanding of the value of DNA segments and chromosome browsers is an embarrassment. You see “we asked,” since the very beginning of your atDNA offering, we have asked for a chromosome browser but you have artfully dodged the issue. Even at Rootstech in Feb your spokesman artfully avoided answering the question by telling us to look at the shiny new tools we just gave you in beta which were buggy at best and you will like them but no chromosome browser to see here. Not sure who in your company is against providing your customers’ segment data, but it is obvious you and they are afraid to confront your customers with reasons why you won’t provide us with what all your competitor have — a chromosome browser. Shame on you Ancestry. I agree with Christopher Schuetz, “I would blame the intern for these ideas, but they have all the hallmarks of a shared, committee decision . . . try working with a real user, not just a web person, or someone caught in the corporate culture.”

  18. Doris Pyle Haynes

    I wish Ancestry could find a way to use only the newest versions of our trees with Thurlines.
    I made mistakes in earlier trees that I now have corrected. Also, when needing to do a backup, I’ve been advised to rename a tree. Going by the number on a tree does not tell which is most current.
    I’m with others that we need pages. Also a way to see new matches that you don’t have to go through the hundreds of persons to find them.
    I have been advised by Ancestry not to delete the okd trees.

  19. Steve Moray

    I’m seconding and thirding others in this thread, and will forever continue to be a broken record regarding a CHROMOSOME BROWSER. This is an essential tool if we are to properly follow the GPS. Everything else is secondary to that.

  20. Elizabeth Korf

    I really enjoy these features. The tags are an awesome addition. Great features. More searching options and maybe statistical elements. The ability to use both the tradition and the new is good. Not exactly sure how to explain it all. But I like everything so far. Some way more than others. I am weeding through some of my tree and tagging stuff that need heavy research. I like the hypothesis tag as sometimes there is no real source to go with. And the adopted tags and the relationship drop down menus a great helpful feature too. I have found long lost relatives due to it.

  21. Martin

    Hi

    I have been using Thrulines and find it can be very misleading. It is making incorrect suggestions for my 2x great grandfather when I have him in my tree with multiple documents and media to back it up. I’ve taken the time when on holiday to visit churches and libraries and get copies of original documents so some of my work is traditional rather than online to ensure my tree is correct as it’s considered a reference tree for my wider family.

    There are a few items I would like from Ancestry.

    1. A way to designate a tree or part of a tree as verified and correct. There are so many trees out there that are incorrect. On Twitter some users are verified with a blue tick. Maybe trees need a blue tick after certain strict criteria are met do that they can be trusted. I think DNA circles went some way to doing this and would prefer if they were retained as complementary to Thrulines and not abandoned.

    2. Like everybody else we need a chromosome browser.

    3. A way to upload mtDNA fasta files and yDNA files and then display the haplogroup on the matches index page. This is needed as a Ancestry will eventually run out of market to sell DNA due to atDNA being good for 150 years. We need the ability to verify remote matches with other DNA methods. It’s not atDNA is best. It’s they all have their place in research and Ancestry needs to cater for advanced researchers in addition to
    hobbyists.

    4. Consider introducing Projects so people can join and collaborate like Family Tree DNA.

    5. Please Ancestry, start considering serious researchers and the tools needed to make research possible.

    With nearly 15 million samples you could really start to move towards helping serious research. Please make it happen.

    Many thanks
    Martin

  22. Mal Mace

    1. As many have said, a chromosome browser is IMPERATIVE. There are serious genealogists on this site and you continue to do all of us and Ancestry a disservice by not providing one.

    2. Surnames automatically listed on the profile page from member trees is needed.

    3. Need a way to search unlinked trees for surnames. A wealth of information is in unlinked trees.

    4. The large graphics on the profile pages are distracting and unnecessary. People aren’t interested in pictures of the Alps to indicate Swiss ancestry. Having a clear, concise and easily viewed format is what people want. Less flash and more substance, please.

    5. Merging trees or deleting whole branches of trees needs to be easier. Having to delete entries one at a time or, worse, having floating disconnected people in tree because you thought deleting the top person would delete all.

    6. Having an interactive site format similar to Facebook where people can create and join groups, communicate in real time and not have to rely as heavily on other sites to collaborate. As it stands, I can never be sure if I will ever hear from anyone on this site for all of the unanswered emails.

    Thanks for the improvements and consideration.

    Mal Mace

  23. Linda Rothchild

    I have been waiting for information to come in the mail. Does your company send mail? Written documentation is preferred.

  24. Robert LaRock

    I’m really happy to see the match list and filtering options on the DNA Matches page. However, I have been experiencing a curious problem which greatly reduces the overall utility.
    The problem occurs when I select the “common ancestor” filter option. There is a very large gap of common ancestors missing in the range of 61cM to 11cM. I know there are many common ancestors in this range (in excess of 30, since I don’t have the patience to page down any further than 25cM) but can find no way to isolate them for easy viewing.

  25. Mike Daigle

    I, in particular, like the “color coding”. I have used up all the color codes however. Please make sure to add in new ones, as I can’t add in new understandings on grouping people without more colors. Thank you. (Ps. I am REALLY liking all the additional work that is being taken to improving the site. Things are being tackled that haven’t been really looked into for years. Thank you.) Mike

  26. Carmelita Boivin-Cole

    Just received a new discoveries for you message. Checked with several of those listed. There is a problem with those of descended from the first 200 families who came from france to quebec in the 1600s. There are 10-12 generations of large families with crisscrossing DNà, The first close relatives & first cousins worked. After that, your discoveries do not really work if we check (as two of us –shown to be unrelated did) when compared with the comprehensive family histories (m and f ) many of us have. You may need a new methodology to deal with this genetic group. C. Boivin

  27. Mariyah Israel

    I am EXTREMELY offended by your racist commercial that romanticizes slavery with a white man and a black slave. The white man could have any black man, boy, girl, or woman to do whatever they wanted to do with them! For you to romanticize this is demonic and portrays an unrealistic view of our trauma! Did you make a commercial similar to this for Jews and their little holocaust? Would you? I will ask you again on Twitter until I receive an answer to how you would craft this commercial for Jews. I am advocating that ALL black people in America should DEMAND that you destroy their DNA sample, then close their accounts and NOT ALLOW any other family members to use your company!

    • Scott Welch

      Just as an alternative point of view — My great-great-great-grandmother was a free black woman living in Charleston SC and working as a seamstress, who was married to a white man.

      She escaped north, settling in Boston and passing as White.

      To put this more clearly, the ad almost perfectly parallels my family situation.

      (I say “almost” because when she was 23, with three young children, her husband died and she remarried a mixed-race man born in Jamaica. So when they went north, she was married to a non-White man.)

  28. Scott Welch

    Hi there, these new features are great.

    A few suggestions:

    1) The ThruLines does not appear to pick up all of the information which DNA Circles did. For example, I have a person with 15 matches in DNA Circles, but only 1 match in ThruLines.

    2) You really need to show and allow the additions of tags/groups in all places in the product, particularly in the main person detail page.

    3) It would be very helpful to integrate tags/groups with Circles and ThruLines, so you could tag all people in a Circle with the same tag.

    4) Need the ability to search for *untagged* matches.

  29. Robert LaRock

    Further info on the “missing common ancestors” when the common ancestor filter is used. The problem occurs when I select the “common ancestor” filter option. There is a very large gap of common ancestors missing in the range of 61cM to 11cM. I know there are at least 130 more common ancestors in this range, since took the time to page down to 11 cM and count them. This is a time consuming process. I have also checked with another subscriber and found that she had a similar problem. WHAT GIVES? (sorry, didn’t mean to shout)

  30. Sandra

    Unfortunately, the usefulness of the new features is too limited by ancestry policies designed to hamper users. Since ancestry doesn’t allow the family genealogist to “own” multiple profiles, we were all set back to “manager” status. Now that the person testing has died, ancestry still wants you to submit POA. POAs expire at death. Apparently ancestry’s legal team hasn’t figured that out. This problem will only grow over time since death awaits us all. But ancestry stubbornly refuses to allow the person who controls the results “own” them, even after the person who tested has died. Ancestry instead claims it is the owner, which is clearly false.

    This leads to the situation that ancestry only allows one “manager.” This means no other family members can see your notes, grouping…nothing. To do that, you have to share your pw, which is a really bad policy. I put extensive notes on all the profiles I manage, and it’s annoying not to be able to share them unless I hand out my pw. It defeats the purpose of being able to make a note, if I have to rewrite the same thing to everyone I want to see it.

    Further, with respect to POAs, POAs vary by state. Even banks and financial institutions have trouble navigating all the state nuances. Ancestry has a much lower tier of people evaluating these, who frankly aren’t very knowledgeable or qualified. Nor has ancestry contemplated that the person testing may have included all their personal property, including DNA test results in a trust. Trusts survive death and can have multiple trustees. But ancestry has doesn’t have this level of understanding. More than anything though, I resent that ancestry has essentially claimed ownership of our results. They do NOT own them, but they act like they do. They set themselves up as gatekeeper, without so much as asking for permission to name themselves as owner. This a serious problem, because someday I do NOT want ancestry claiming they own my results rather than my designee. I’d rather gift my results to the general population, rather than have ancestry own them.

    If one can look beyond these issues, ancestry still does not provide a chromosome browser, still doesn’t page results, still refuses to allow managers to list the NAME of the person, still has too many graphics, still won’t even allow the basic function of identifying the match or being able to link DNA results to multiple trees (both your own and others). Plus, the new features such as color coding do not always work; the colors disappear and reappear without rhyme or reason. I was excited when I first saw the features, but I generally log into more than one DNA site at a time when I do this work, and I find myself only using ancestry to search for certain historical records, ignoring the DNA match list altogether because it’s so amazingly hard to work with.

    In the end, while all the “beta” features are designed to improve the interface, the interface is permanently damaged by ancestry decisions and policies. I’ve quit recommending ancestry. I have older relatives who want to test, but who have no email address and at 90+ are not getting one. And I am too busy to create and manage another 5 email addresses. We’ve chosen another testing site and should be receiving the extra kits in a few days. Ancestry has just become too tone deaf to how family genealogists work, both in terms of handling the actual test results and of the tools we need.

Join the Discussion

We really do appreciate your feedback, and ask that you please be respectful to other commenters and authors. Any abusive comments may be moderated. For help with a specific problem, please contact customer service.