RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: sugarfizzle on Tuesday 02 October 18 23:59 BST (UK)
-
Two new features I have noticed in the past few days.
1) Matches with 'Unlinked trees' are now shown as such on your match pages, without clicking on them. Potentially very useful/time saving.
2) Map view, also on match pages. I am not sure exactly what this is supposed to do, I have only 24 people shown on my map view. I would have thought at least all of my 4th to 6th cousins would be entered there. Possibly has potential.
Regards Margaret
Modified: I have looked at map view again, it appears to show only 4 to 6 cousins who have entered full details or county details of where they live currently.
Margaret
-
I noticed the unconnected trees label yesterday. However, they don't then go on to analyse said trees for surname matches. I'm annoyed with this because I had a new 4-6 match which has about 36000 people in her tree. I discovered that there where about 10 pages of EOL (?end of list?)and many many ancient noblemen/women. I gave up in the end and decided that 34 cM/1seg would have to wait since none of the shared matches had a tree!
(rant over!)
Gadget
PS. It was always possible to look at the unconnected trees by clicking on their details.
-
Gadget, I know it was always possible to look at unconnected trees, but sometimes taking just a quick look at new matches page showed no tree - on more distant matches I couldn't always be bothered to click to see if they had an unconnected tree or not, just skimmed them by (fault mine, I fully accept, but when you have several thousand matches, you have to use your time wisely!).
As for ancestry not providing surnames from these unconnected trees - they cannot find ancestral surnames in common unless the match attached themselves to a tree. This can be either public or private tree, surnames and places theoretically show up in both, though it is 'flaky' to say the least.
EOL I think is meant to be End of Line.
Your best bet, if you want to follow it through, may be to ask your match if they will connect the tree to themselves or identify to you where they are in the tree, if they are not the home person.
Regards Margaret
-
I've finally got round to taking an Ancestry DNA Test... fingers crossed that it's not a total waste of time.
Having gone round and round in circles after my Wilson Grandfather for the last 40+ years, and got nowhere, - it seemed the only way to go(!) I suspect a name change though, - and so I'm not sure that the 'Search by Name' facility would help me at all.
Romilly.
-
I've finally got round to taking an Ancestry DNA Test... fingers crossed that it's not a total waste of time.
Having gone round and round in circles after my Wilson Grandfather for the last 40+ years, and got nowhere, - it seemed the only way to go(!) I suspect a name change though, - and so I'm not sure that the 'Search by Name' facility would help me at all.
Romilly.
If what you suspect is true, the surname search won't help you find anything about your grandfather's origins. But, depending entirely upon who else has been tested, you are likely to find 3rd cousins and will denitely find 4th to 6th cousins from his line, so it may be able to work out possibilities.
Wish you luck, let us know in a couple of months how you get on!
Regards Margaret
-
Yes, Margaret, I know. It's just that I'm getting annoyed by the dubious trees that are put up.
Romilly, having tried to find your Wilsons in the olden days, I do hope you get some matches. I did find my missing great grandfather but it took a lot of searching and matching and redoing their trees! etc.
I now have 2 more lines to push back further, both stuck in the late 1700s. My matches tend to mostly come from 2 lines that I had gone further back with than they had.
Gadget
-
I've finally got round to taking an Ancestry DNA Test... fingers crossed that it's not a total waste of time.
Having gone round and round in circles after my Wilson Grandfather for the last 40+ years, and got nowhere, - it seemed the only way to go(!) I suspect a name change though, - and so I'm not sure that the 'Search by Name' facility would help me at all.
Romilly.
If what you suspect is true, the surname search won't help you find anything about your grandfather's origins. But, depending entirely upon who else has been tested, you are likely to find 3rd cousins and will denitely find 4th to 6th cousins from his line, so it may be able to work out possibilities.
Wish you luck, let us know in a couple of months how you get on!
Regards Margaret
Many thanks Margaret, - will do!
Romilly.
-
I just looked. The map seems pretty useless for the moment but I like the distinction between "no tree" and "unlinked tree". As someone else said, when you've got so many matches you focus your time and effort on the ones most likely to give you a result. If you've got pages of "no tree" it's easier to ignore them unless you've got a specific interest, such as a closer family match.
Most of my matches are so far in the past that their trees don't go back enough. Then there are others who have everyone and his wife on them, regardless of accuracy. I even got told by a cousin of one match that he was dubious of the information and to take it with a pinch of salt. I do think I've got a "whoops" in the tree somewhere though, we've got some matches to one branch of my family where nobody can work out the connection. I'm hoping in time more people will test and we can narrow down the guilty party.
As for trees with sprawling nobility in them, while I accept that some people do connect to nobility I admit that the further back someone gets the more scepticism I have, although the first time I found a tree that went back through nobility, through Biblical and right back to Adam and Eve the first Man and Woman I had to admire the amount of effort that went into it.
-
I'd stay well clear of anyone who's got 36,000 names in their tree.
To paraphrase Star Trek, "It's genealogy Jim, but not as we know it" :) :)
-
I clicked on the map and of the people in the UK who have tested there are only 3 related to me. One I already know, she is my half 2nd cousin (her g.gran and my gran were half sisters) but Ancestry has her as my 3-4th cousin. Of the other 2 one has a locked tree and the other one actually lives about 35-45 minutes from me. However, looking at her tree I can only see one name that matches a name in my tree and in her tree the name starts mid 1800s in Yorkshire, whereas in my tree, the last use of the name, in Yorkshire is my 4 x g.grandmother who died in 1791. I guess the name could have been handed down from my 6th g.grandfather but I can't really be bothered to contact her to find out.
My son who lives in Connecticut has done his DNA but he hasn't a tree, so he doesn't show up on the map.
-
I'd stay well clear of anyone who's got 36,000 names in their tree.
To paraphrase Star Trek, "It's genealogy Jim, but not as we know it" :) :)
As they also say, genealogy without sources is mythology. Doubt very much if many of the 36,000 names have got sources, but you never know!
Regards Margaret
-
There are quite a lot of trees on Ancestry (I don't know any of the people who have them) with names of my ancestors including the apparent names of my mysterious g.grandfather. I have always been nearly 100% sure that these names are wrong because of what I've been told in my family - unfortunately, not enough to trace g.grandfather - and other suspicions I have about his heritage.
Guess what, one of the people who has one of the trees and is genuinely descended from the apparent parents of my g.grandfather has done his DNA and he is not one of my ancestors - not even the most distant ancestor. If we really shared g.g.grandparents which he has implied then he would be my 3rd cousin.
I'm so glad I've been proved right and all the trees are wrong. I doubt even if I wrote to the owners of the trees they would change anything. Sadly, I still can't trace my g.grandfather's origins even with the DNA results. I guess there needs to be many more British people to do their DNA before I can get near tracing him.
-
I'd stay well clear of anyone who's got 36,000 names in their tree.
To paraphrase Star Trek, "It's genealogy Jim, but not as we know it" :) :)
;D
I'm sure she's been very thorough - all those EOLs and nobility ;) I can link into Welsh nobility (and the Tudors) via a gateway ancestor but I don't include them on my tree - it would be enormous and just name collecting - and I expect that there are millions of descendants from those branches. I like to get to know as much as possible about my ancestors and the places and times they lived in, otherwise it would just be like a horse/dog breeding chart :-X
Re the mapping gizmo - Many went to US and Canada but the Ancestry map shows more there than in the UK* - I can only cope with a few at a time!!. I have found an interesting match that I'd not got around to and who has a number of ancestors born in one of the Welsh places that many of mine came from but with an unfamiliar surname, so that's a lead to follow.
Ah well, it keeps my brain active in my dotage. I do wish that Ancestry would introduce a chromosome comparison facility.
Gadget
* obviously UK kin don't like to say where they're from
-
I think they've started doing shared matches of 5-8 cousins - or did they do it all along and I was unlucky.
I was whizzing through my 'new' matches today. They were all 5-8s but I accidentally clicked on shared matches and lo and behold, a list of shared matches came up. I tried another one, just to check and then another one. All had shared lists.
Now that is a useful improvement :)
Gadget
-
I think they've started doing shared matches of 5-8 cousins - or did they do it all along and I was unlucky.
I was whizzing through my 'new' matches today. They were all 5-8s but I accidentally clicked on shared matches and lo and behold, a list of shared matches came up. I tried another one, just to check and then another one. All had shared lists.
Now that is a useful improvement :)
Gadget
I am getting the occasional 5 to 8 shared match, but that's only when there is a 4 to 6 shared match as well IYSWIM.
No purely 5 to 8 cousin shared matches, and not even where I have a good 4 to 6 match from the same line of descent.
Either yours is similar, or it is yet to be rolled out to everyone.
Regards Margaret
-
I have a third cousin, who I share with 3 others.
If I click on the 3rd cousin's shared matches it shows a 4 to 6 cousin - the two 5 to 8 cousins do not show at all.
If I look at one of the 5 to 8 cousins it shows the 3rd and 4 to 6 cousins, but not the other 5 to 8 cousin.
So, only 4 to 6 cousins, or closer, show in shared matches.
This has been the case for me since April when I got my results.
-
I've not had any shared matches for any of the 5-8 cousins that I'd clicked on until yesterday. Maybe the ones that I'd previously clicked on hadn't got any close matches with me but I can't believe that :-\
-
Another feature I'd not noticed before is a " Regions" filter. Is this new too? Unfortunately it doesn't make clear where the filter information comes from - as someone with one line in a totally different area to all my others, it would help to know. I'm assuming it relates to the area my matches have as their main links with,
Steve
-
Thanks for highlighting these new features. In my usual blind-as-a-bat way. I hadn't noticed them!
I suppose its good that Ancestry are making efforts to improve our 'viewing experience'.
One I could do with - please tell me if it already exists and I've missed it - is just a straightforward search to go straight to a specific match. I have made a written list (sweet, old fashioned thing that I am) of all my matches down to 4-6th cousin with notes of progress so far with each. However, when I come to want to find them on my on-screen list, I'm having to scroll down the whole list to find them. I try to get there faster by estimating where they are on the list from the number of matching cMs but that doesn't help with the newer ones that have been tagged on to the bottom of my written list!
Speaking of new ones: I'm getting withdrawal symptoms - haven't had any for a while. Mine tend to be like buses: none for ages and then a few come along together (albeit, usually with no tree. Boy, does that make me spit!!) :-[
Jill
-
Jill, One way that I have found to keep track of specific matches is to give them a yellow favourite star, then there aren't as many to go through. I try to use this only when a match has been confirmed though.
Another way - in your notes make a comment on surnames in their tree, search for that surname and hopefully they will come up.
Today I saw something different, only works if you have sent them a message. A search by username in messages.
Another way, a bit longer, but should be quicker than your current method - search member directory for username - not always successful.
Final suggestion, would need updating over the months and years - in your notes make a note of what page the match is on, use Find in Page for username.
Regards Margaret
-
I use the stars too but it would be nice to be able to have different coloured stars or a range of different symbols so that shared matches could be grouped together or other groups/people indicated.
Gadget
-
Two new features I have noticed in the past few days.
1) Matches with 'Unlinked trees' are now shown as such on your match pages, without clicking on them. Potentially very useful/time saving.
2) Map view, also on match pages. I am not sure exactly what this is supposed to do, I have only 24 people shown on my map view. I would have thought at least all of my 4th to 6th cousins would be entered there. Possibly has potential.
Regards Margaret
Modified: I have looked at map view again, it appears to show only 4 to 6 cousins who have entered full details or county details of where they live currently.
Margaret
Yes the map view seems to be extremely limited usefulness as most people do not put their exact location on their profile, not that in this era people's current location may be a particularly useful indication of where their ancestors lived 100 years ago.
-
I've just had my results back; which don't help me much, but throw up a new set of questions!!
Romilly ::)
-
Romilly, Results can be bewildering when you first get them, and perhaps not what you were expecting.
Have fun with them for a day or two, explore whichever site you tested with, get used to how things work.
I strongly suggest you read Lost Cousins DNA Masterclass. Very good tips and hints, though I don't follow them exactly, have developed my own ways of searching through matches.
https://www.lostcousins.com/newsletters2/aug17news.htm#Masterclass
As ancestry's surname and place search is inconsistent, to say the least, it is not always the best way to look through matches there.
This link may be helpful if you want to upload elsewhere.
http://thednageek.com/how-to-transfer-your-ancestrydna-test-to-other-databases/
Good luck with your searches.
Regards Margaret
-
Many thanks for the Links Margaret, - they will keep me busy today:-)
Before I spend ages trying to copy and print my matches, - is there a straightforward way of doing so from the Ancestry results page please?
And has anyone on here uploaded their results to GED Match? Or is that a mainly USA Database?
Cheers, Romilly.
-
Quite a few of us have uploaded to Gedmatch, with variable results. See:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=801507.0
Gadget
-
I use the stars too but it would be nice to be able to have different coloured stars or a range of different symbols so that shared matches could be grouped together or other groups/people indicated.
Gadget
There is an add-on you can use to do just that. Take a look at DNA Match Labeling.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dna-match-labeling/kgkhfloclmjcbgilbdhjkmmaohlemfci
Cheers
:)
-
Pity DNA Match Labelling is not available on Android, where I do most of my work these days.
Regards Margaret
-
Is it available on Firefox or just Chrome?
-
Gadget,
Not sure. I would just Google it (not use my link) and see if it works.
:)
-
I just checked and it may be a Chrome thing. Here is another link that gives more information.
https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2018/09/16/introducing-dna-match-labeling-sorting-mechanism-ancestrydna-matches/
:)
-
Thanks, that would be good if it works :)
I'm not all that fond of Chrome though.
-
Just read this comment in your link:
Great tool! I need more than eight labels though
I think I would too, but 8 is better than one mangie star!
-
I've been having a little play with the chrome DNA Match Labelling add-on. Has anyone succeeded with changing the colours of the dots? Logically to me I'd assign my eight GGP surnames to the dots and have them arranged in a pretty rainbow pattern, so at a glance I could see roughly how the match linked in.
I thought I had managed this by editing the underlying code (right click on dot, inspect), but as soon as I refresh the screen it reverts to how it was before. Is it something as daft as I'm failing to see a "save" button?
Jane :-)
-
I've just noticed that they've now added the shared DNA in the general listing of matches - a great help compared with having to click on the info (i) button.
It wasn't there last night.
Gadget
snip eg:
-
I just saw this as well, wasn't there this morning before I went out. Indeed a great help!
Regards Margaret
-
I'm probably just being dense here, - but what do the cms and strands actually denote?
Romilly.
-
I've just noticed that they've now added the shared DNA in the general listing of matches - a great help compared with having to click on the info (i) button.
It wasn't there last night.
Gadget
snip eg:
A good improvement - also if you now click the ? you get a guide as to what centimorgan amounts may mean. Perhaps there should be a caveat that there are sometimes extreme outliers.
-
Ahh, - thanks, I hadn't clicked on that!
Romilly.
-
I've just noticed that they've now added the shared DNA in the general listing of matches - a great help compared with having to click on the info (i) button.
It wasn't there last night.
Gadget
snip eg:
A good improvement - also if you now click the ? you get a guide as to what centimorgan amounts may mean. Perhaps there should be a caveat that there are sometimes extreme outliers.
What on earth is an 'extreme outlier'?
-
I've just noticed that they've now added the shared DNA in the general listing of matches - a great help compared with having to click on the info (i) button.
It wasn't there last night.
Gadget
snip eg:
A good improvement - also if you now click the ? you get a guide as to what centimorgan amounts may mean. Perhaps there should be a caveat that there are sometimes extreme outliers.
What on earth is an 'extreme outlier'?
What it sounds like ;D. You may have a much higher centimorgan match for a much more distant ancestor than is included in those ranges or a much smaller one for a close relative due to the random nature of DNA inheritance.
-
***Outliers are the cases that deviate from the 'best fit line' of a scatter diagram (regression analysis, etc. )
http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/linreg.htm
(Thank goodness I'm not analysing data anymore !!)*** See next post
;D
-
Thinking about it, I think melba was using outlier to mean those at the extremes of a range rather than in the Statistics sense of deviating from the line of best fit.
-
The centimorgans are the most important. For instance the centimorgans of my son are 3425 (not 2425 as I put originally, a cousin's daughter 423, my half 2nd cousin once removed 66, however, Ancestry shows her as my 4th cousin as the average number of centimorgans is similar for half 2nd cousin once removed and 4th cousin. Obviously, if I hadn't already known this person I could have got confused trying to find a 4th cousin who didn't exist.
There is a shared centimorgan (Cm) Project with charts showing the relationships etc. if you go to:
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01mwq/
some of you may find the information interesting. ;D
-
I think your link is wrong Lizzie. It just has
Forbidden
and a whole page of code -see snip
If you look at my earlier post #34, you'll see that we were talking about cMs :)
-
Just noticed the little blue 'compare' on right, under View Match. It compares your ethnicity results with that particular match.
-
Not sure why the link didn't work, it did when I first tested it. Anyway if you google "August 2017 Update to the Shared cM Project - The Genetic Genealogist" hopefully you'll be able to find the page I was looking at.
-
Oh yes - have seen that and have used it and recommended it. I think Margaret might have linked it a while back.
https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2017/08/26/august-2017-update-to-the-shared-cm-project/
-
Hi Margaret,
Thanks for the info you posted first, and to everyone for all the interesting discussion. Ancestry is like great big blundering dinosaur - you can't ignore it for it is the biggest kid on the block, but it can be so frustrating and unhelpful. I have become so discouraged with the difficulty of finding useful matches among my 25,000 that I have hardly checked it out lately, so your note about the map was helpful thanks. I, like others here, wish for a chromosome browser and (surely this wouldn't be difficult!) a simple search for match names, but I guess the map is better than nothing.
Like others here, I had only a few of my matches showing on the map, mostly 4th cousins it seems from the ones I checked. Presumably this is because it is only a beta version. But the good news is that I did find someone else who lives in Australia that I hadn't noticed before (I don't regularly look through 500 pages of matches checking out each one!!!) and he had a common match with two people with a surname I am interested in, so that was breakthrough that I might never have come across without the map.
So let's hope Ancestry turns the beta into a full working product that allows as to filter what the map shows, and that they continue to develop other useful tools.
-
Thanks also to whoever shared the link to the Lost Cousins Newsletter (can't remember now, sorry), that was a real goldmine!
-
Just noticed the little blue 'compare' on right, under View Match. It compares your ethnicity results with that particular match.
Yeah that's another new feature that appeared yesterday.....Played it a bit, and now wont bother again, why implement a feature to compare the most useless bit of the 'test results' :-) I just wish they would ask or listen to what customers want rather than waste time developing features that don't help with research.
-
I think ancestry is truly amazing, I take back anything I may have said against them.
Alerted by the new shared DNA amounts under matches details, I found this -
Shared DNA: 1,577 cMs across 61 segments
This for my husband's niece.
There was me, thinking that the maximum number of chromosomes should be 46.
Can we really take notice of anything they say?!
Regards Margaret
Modified. Eric has pointed out the error in my thinking, didn't get much sleep last night!!
-
That makes sense doesn't it Margaret? It just needs there to be several segments on many chromosomes.
-
I just wish they would ask or listen to what customers want rather than waste time developing features that don't help with research.
Yeah, me too. Comparing ethnicity could help in some cases, but very few. A simple sort function for matches' names, and the ability to download the match list (which can be done with a Chrome extension, but it doesn't work on a Mac) would help, and would take far less programming effort than some of what they are providing.
-
That makes sense doesn't it Margaret? It just needs there to be several segments on many chromosomes.
Eric, Thank you for pointing that out! For some reason I was confusing segments with chromosomes. My only excuse is a lack of decent sleep last night. I was really puzzling how they reached 61 chromosomes.
Regards Margaret
-
Temporary insanity doesn't need any explanation, for we all experience it regularly! :) I am particularly prone to it! :(
-
Temporary insanity doesn't need any explanation, for we all experience it regularly! :) I am particularly prone to it! :(
Especially when trying to fathom out Ancestry!!
-
I noticed this yesterday, but an not sure if it is very recent, or simply is being rolled out slowly, or did I just miss it before ?
Anyway, on the matches listing page, each match has a note on the 'summary details' block, a note of basic dna details, - total number of CM shared, and across a given number of segments. There is also a compare logo, which when clicked, shows you a comparison of ethnic estimates (which can vary depending on whether the match or you have loaded the update to the ethnicity results from earlier this summer),shared migrations, and shared matches between the 2 samples. This is undoubtedly an improvement in information, though we still don't know which chromasome these shared segments are on.
This seems very useful in analysing which part of your tree a given match might be from!
Have others seen this? What do you think??
-
I think its good that Ancestry are prepared to add these elements to their DNA match lists and are not sitting back on their laurels.
However, I do so wish they would introduce some easy way of searching for a specific match username. I have loads of pages of matches (I haven't delved any further than page 50 yet) and recently had to go through the bloomin lot to find 3 possible matches that I'd been asked to check on by another match where we're desperately trying to find our connection! Luckily, I found two of them at the 13. cMs level but not the third.
Also, has anyone else's new matches dried up? Have Ancestry staff all gone on a late holiday? :-\ I haven't had notification of any new matches for about a month now. Perhaps its the lull before the Christmas (did I really just type that word in October?!!!) storm?
-
Hi Jill
The 'close matches' come through for me in dribs and drabs - say 4-5 a week - but the more distant ones appear fairly regularly.
You won't be informed about these distant ones but if you click on New, they will show up and if you click on Date they show as last 7 day, last 14 days, etc.
You can search on surname but it's not always accurate. Just click on Search Matches on the top right hand side of the listings. You can then enter surname.
Gadget
-
Hi Jane
See
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=801386.0
Gadget
-
You can search on surname but it's not always accurate. Just click on Search Matches on the top right hand side of the listings. You can then enter surname.
The way it seems to work for me is that if you search for a surname, it searches through the family trees of my matches and finds anyone who has someone with that surname in their tree. Sometimes that is also the surname of the match, but that is not what was searched for. If a match has no tree, then you can't find them in the search.
So I can sometimes find someone that way, and it appears to be the only way I can find them, but it only works to find the match name if they have a tree, and only if I know their surname (some people have a username that isn't their surname).
That's how it seems to work for me, and it makes things difficult sometimes.
-
Yes, I guess that might be linked to what I see. I had noticed the unmatched trees earlier in October, but the note of dna details and the compare button only appeared yesterday.
However I have been aware of a problem in updating/downloading information to my log-in version of Ancestry DNA, represented by a constant rotating circle, - indicating 'trying to upload/download/update' etc. This has, and still does, go on for hours, so perhaps this indicated a wi-fi issue which has been going on for a while.
Whatever, the information is helpful, though not everything I need from Ancestry. I tend to stay signed on constantly, and rarely shut down my computer, so perhaps that has been part of the delay!
Jane
-
I've only ever searched for surnames at the grandparent or earlier level, which is totally dependent on whether they have trees or not. Many of my US matches haven't got back to their UK ancestors so it's left to me to do the links myself, if it looks relevant. I mostly rely on shared marches of shared marches of shared matches ..... and build up groups that way. Usually some of them do have trees so I can work on those. The notes on each of them with definite or possible surname links.
I also redo many of the trees to check on accuracy.
-
The thread that I linked to does mention all the latest changes. I put up the info about cMs and the compare button yesterday.
Gadget
-
4-5 close matches a week!! Really? I'm lucky if I get 3 matches a month (and certainly not this last month).
Must admit, I haven't really bothered much with the distant ones unless they come up via a closer match or if the username contains a relevant surname. Must admit also, that I've only just twigged that they are added to without me being informed. How far down the pecking order of matches do Ancestry go I hit the shared matches button? Do they include every single match?
Thanks, Gadget, I've used the match surname search but its no use for matches that don't use the surname or confound it by mysterious digits and hieroglyphics.
-
If you hit shared with close matches, they usually only come up with other close matches but if you manage to get some shared matches when you hit the distant ones, you often get some closer shared ones! Ancestry is a mystery.
I've got a little group, which is growing, that I can't link to me so far and all their trees seem to have lots in Liverpool.
I'm surprised that you and I don't match somewhere with our Shropshire ancestors.
Gadget
-
4-5 close matches a week!! Really? I'm lucky if I get 3 matches a month (and certainly not this last month).
I'm lucky if I get 4 or 5 second to fourth cousin matches a year! (I didn't test with Ancestry though). :)
-
Thanks Gadget! So I wasn't going mad, the compare button had just appeared!
just read thru the other post - re the compare button. At the top it does display a comparison of ethnicity between you and the match concerned, but further down the page it also summarises your joint matches, and allows you to push thru' to a list of all your joint matches - very helpful in gauging where the match might fit into your tree.
-
One of the shortcomings of Ancestry DNA is that it does not readily give you chromosomes which you share with other matches. In order to achieve this you have to download the raw data and upload it again onto something like “GedMatch”.
If Ancestry showed the matching chromosomes, which they obviously have, this would enable you to better identify who were the common Ancestors.
I have manage to persuade one, and only one person out of all of my matches, to upload his data onto GedMatch.
-
I've not found Gedmatch all that helpful. My matches there are low level Ancestry matches. It's really the luck of the 'draw'. I suppose.
See:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=801507.0
Of sites other than Ancestry, I've found My Heritage most useful and it does have chromosome analysis.
Gadget
-
I find the the chromosone matching on My Heritage easier to use.
-
I agree. But the point I was making, is that you still have to download the raw data and upload it again to something else, and persuade a match to do the same.
-
I have downloaded my ancestry data, and uploaded it to Gedmatch/FTDNA & My Heritage, as well as Living DNA - though nothing from them as yet (as per recent discussions elsewhere here), but I have found very little. My Heritage is slightly better as it has a larger proportion uk based customers, though the only person to reply to me is someone I already knew about. As others have said, 2 things stand out:-
practically nobody replies to you, and
people near the top of your Gedmatch/My Heritage/FTDMA match lists, are people you may not have found, but are already in your stats, just at the bottom of page 2 of your Ancestry matches, and you haven't quite got there yet!!
Like others have said, a chromosome browser would make Ancestry so much better!!
-
I have loaded my DNA to the usual sites. What annoys me is the number of people who don't reply when you message them. I sometimes wonder why they have bothered to have been DNA tested if they are not interested in finding out more about their DNA connections.
-
I have loaded my DNA to the usual sites. What annoys me is the number of people who don't reply when you message them. I sometimes wonder why they have bothered to have been DNA tested if they are not interested in finding out more about their DNA connections.
I agree. One person in USA was in touch with my son who has done his DNA (who lives in USA) but he hasn't a tree. Obviously, she's also a match with me but we couldn't find the connection, then she said she'd rather communicate with my son!! Makes no difference where we live, so I don't know what her problem is. However, having done a DNA match to see who else she and I are a match with, I realised what the connection was. I sent her a message telling her what the family connection was (although not sure where she fits in) and that this particular line and it's branches can be traced back to the 1100s - they are in Burke's Peerage at the time - thinking that might interest an American. No response, so I'm not bothering any more with her.
I also have a very close match but their tree is private and they've not bothered to respond and when I do a DNA match for others that match both of us, all their trees are also private. As you say, why have your DNA done if you're not going to communicate with others who share some of your DNA.
-
I can understand why people prefer to keep their trees private, having experienced a few blatant raids on mine in the past. I now have a rather jaundiced opinion of 90% of so called family historians. Should they have free and easy access to my tree, all they'd be interested in is harvesting the lot without bothering to message me. Thank the lord for the other 10%!!
However, if I manage to get someone to reply to my message on Ancestry, I usually open my tree up to them. And, should I ever receive a first email from a match (never happened yet - always me who makes the first move!) I would do the same.
-
I understand keeping your tree private, but I do wish when you contact people connected by DNA they would respond to you. My tree is private too but I always respond when someone contacts me even if the connection is very tenuous.
-
I agree - it is very frustrating.
If I get no reply to my first message, I usually try again but add that, should they not reply, I'll not bother them again. I assume these people only did the DNA test for the ethnicity results - and because they could!
Occasionally, in my second message, I might politely put something along the lines that they obviously aren't too interested in the family history side of their DNA test so I'll go away and leave them be. I have had the occasional reply from that approach, saying of course they're interested but then they go on to prove that they're not really!!
Its their loss in a way, as I can often use what's on their (often tiny) tree or even use their username to trace their ancestry back a few generations to try and find a connection to my own tree. This I would gladly have passed on to them, given the chance!
We have a saying up here in the north - 'there's nowt so queer as folk!'. ::)
Jill
-
Referencing an earlier posting about using a range of different virtual stickies (App available in Chrome only), it would be good to be able to mark the non-responders with a special mark/emoji.
I see that many of the ones with the new 'unconnected trees' maker have really informative info - 10 people(say) all private or even only 1 or 3 - owner or owner and parents!
-
I have made some major breakthroughs via DNA, - the main one being having located my 'missing' Great Uncle, who was sent to Canada as a 'British Home Child' in the 1920's. Some of his Grandchildren had tested!
However, the side that I've been stuck on for 40+ yrs... remains an enigma:-(
And yes, it is exceedingly frustrating that so many people don't bother to reply.
Romilly.
-
Re the new feature that identifies unlinked trees. This can be very useful but many of them are like the one shown below - sometimes just one, sometimes maybe up to 10, all private. Could Ancestry not do some kind of search of the tree too see if any names are mentioned - e.g.
if name = private, don't show
-
"Could Ancestry not do some kind of search of the tree too see if any names are mentioned - e.g. if name = private, don't show"
The tree itself is likely to have surnames and places, ancestry privatises them as they are still living. They will show up in surname/place search, so to exclude them could be unfavourable.
I know your frustration, though.
Regards Margaret