Ancestry 'Potential' Common Ancestors

Is it just me or is anyone else finding the green potential common ancestors to be way off lately?

Over the last few months every time there is a new match I've found that as I work back from the more easily verifiable potential common ancestors (which are also most likely to be the correct ancestors of my DNA match) I get so far and then the chain breaks and I find we don't match on the suggested line.

I've been researching my genealogy since I was 12 (I'm now 59!) so I have a huge, extensively researched tree, especially for my Cornish ancestry, however lately none of the matches go back to the suggested common ancestor! Sometimes it's easy to find the correct branch instead, but most times I am left dangling as to how we're connected.

It's so frustrating when you spend hours, days and weeks unravelling their suggested threads only to find they are all loose at the end! Especially in Cornwall where it is quite common to find a Cousin Jack or Jenny connected on several different lines!!

 

The potential common ancestors suggested by Ancestry are derived from other people's trees, so will only be as accurate as those trees. As we all know, many trees on Ancestry are inaccurate and often the inaccuracies have been copied several times, giving them an apparent, but false, credibility. However, on a more positive note, Ancestry do take into account private trees as well as public ones, so there's always a chance that something that is accurate and is of interest to you has been recorded on a private tree, and without the potential common ancestor information, you might never know about it, or know to look for it?

 

Some of the inaccuracies have to be seen to be believed, don't they!
Just very frustrating as it pretty much happening happing with every match at the moment and the excitement of seeing a new match turns to disappointment when the connection doesn't pan out.

 

I am also getting this Julia. Match the other day on my Dads where we have a brickwall. The other persons tree back to 1716 I checked - accurate.
On Dads I can only get back to a James 1771 birth somewhere in Scotland. The suggested James on Common ancestor was born 1780 - a bit too late - especially with my James marrying in 1794. The 1780 James' parents married in 1763. The suggested Mother of James - Agnes born 1745 - perfect - age 18 at marriage. BUT the suggested Parents of Agnes 1745 had an Agnes 1745 and another 1753. That suggests to me Agnes 1745 died and Agnes 1753 is too young to marry in 1763. So Agnes 1745 is likely wrong and the Agnes 1753 too late and James 1780 is too late to be my James 1771!
Another one that has gone into 'starred matches' as important but a continuing brickwall.

 

Exactly!
Yesterday's one said the link was Eleanor Woolcock (1743) -> William Roberts -> Mary Harris Roberts -> Margaret Uren, which is where the connection broke as her mother was Susanna Mitchell. Cornwall has excellent records so I knew something was up when one name after another I couldn't find marriages or births to support it.
The previous day another tree had married the son off at the age of 14! Permitted, but unlikely!
As you say, relegated to the ever growing starred matches list, in the hope that one day the mortar will crack enough for the brickwall to tumble. It can wait. The dead aren't going anywhere!!

 

Like others, I have had "odd" suggestions, but today was different The suggestion was that the father of Ann Crugar (of Trowbridge, Wilts) was "Ahlert Im Sündrigen" (of Hankhausen, Oldenburg, Deutschland). Unsurprisingly, Ann Crugar did not appear in the tree referenced

 

Good grief!!