Can the relationship calculator be updated to not take non-biological relationships into account?
Someone I am chatting with shows as my 4th cousin. But the listed MRCA does not have a biological relationship to me - their child is marked as a foster parent to my biological ancestor.
It seems that the calculated relationship shouldn't exist if there isn't a biological connection.
I would understand if the parent-child relationship indicator were marked as biological or not present at all, but that's not the case.
Answers
-
I've complained about this too. If you have a relationship between a child and a parent, it doesn't matter what the relationship is or even if the relationship is set to the default type (ie no defined relationship), the connection will be considered by all relationship finders and used if that is the closest relationship between 2 people. That is what I have been told.
This really penalizes those of us who believe in maximizing information about an ancestor's childhood. But there you have it. My closest Rootstech relative for several years was actually a descendant of a guardian parent of one of my great grandmothers. No blood relation at all.
0 -
I am being spammed by the RootsTech promotion that claims I have all these famous ancestors. Turns out they are all due to a step GGF, who married my GGM, who had already given birth to my GM before this marriage. I understand that they are trying to show how smart and technologically advanced they are, but this undermines that image.
1 -
I agree complete with you @AndrewHardy1 Finally this year my closest RootsTech relative is not through a guardian of my great grandmother, but the next 2 still are and are therefor not relatives at all or are much more distant.
Since non-biological connections can be established between parents and children, and are recognized by FamilySearch when displaying the Family Members section, the programming to ignore those connections when calculating lineage should be fairly easy to do.
0
