Ancestry DNA test - disappointing result

[sbunter]

Keith, can you qualify please, do you mean that you don't match each other on Ancestry or you match each other and don't have a green leaf?

Yes, we have matches to each other, of which we have been aware for several years and which are confirmed by Gedmatch, yet Ancestry doesn't even flag us up to each other, despite the fact that we are each listed on the other's tree.

Keith

Keith - have a read of this article by Roberta Estes.  The fact that they're not recognising the match between you and your relative might have something to do with Timber.
https://dna-explained.com/2015/11/06/ancestrys-new-amount-of-shared-dna-what-does-it-really-mean/

[Keitht]

Hi folks,

Sorry for the tardy reply. Been away for a couple of days. I need to go through what you are all offering. When I've done that I'll come back with my thoughts.

Keith

[jackie hubbard]

I also found my results disappointing. I don't think they test at all -- just check out your Family Tree. Even worse, is Heritage. Their DNA test result listed me as Spanish and Asian. I am actually English and Welsh.

[diplodicus]

Just to redress  the balance a bit...

I have found my Ancestry DNA experience to be really interesting. I agree that there are restrictions on the way they report "Shared Matches" and I presume that this is an attempt to simplify what are difficult concepts (SNPs. centimorgans, etc). Getting both a paternal and a maternal cousin to test was very useful for those matches where they were one of the shared list. It directed the search to one half of my tree or the other.

I have over 360 shared matches (so far) and few of them are with only my close family. I attribute the volume to two things: most of my paternal line is Irish and since most tests are performed on people in the US, I am likely to find many distant cousins who fled the famine and deprivation of the catholic population. My mother's side is all Welsh and again there was a mass migration from agricultural South Wales to the US and on to Utah where the Mormon faith attracted people long-used to religious non-conformism. Much nineteenth century US coal was dug out by the blood of the men of "The Land of My Fathers" (or in my case "Mothers").

I have also uploaded my results to Familytreedna.com and Gedmatch. There are some good matches there but I daren't start yet another activity stream; I'm already out-of-control with all the contacts available to me.

Whilst I acknowledge the benefit of my particular ancestral pedigree I don't think that this makes my experience particularly unusual. My two children's mother was born in Poland and looking at their results, there are plenty of shared matches from that side of the family. Most of these are Polish emigrees to the US but there are lots of them. I look forward to finding more shares as and when Ancestry's marketing momentum pushes them further into mainland Europe.

[LizzieW]

One of my sons who lives in USA had an Ancestry DNA test, courtesy of a birthday present from his partner.  He said most matches were too distant to bother about, but there were two women who were fairly close.  One was his 2/3rd cousin and the other 3/4th cousin - not sure why those are a bit vague.  Anyway both are on Ancestry and he contacted the 2/3rd one but got no response, so he then contacted the 3/4th cousin.  She replied and gave him a list of surnames in her family tree, but not one matched any of the surnames in my tree.  I gave my son the details of two of my g.g.uncles who emigrated to Boston, USA in 1870s/80s to see if the woman recognised any of the names but he's not had any response - so a bit disappointing really.

[diplodicus]

A third cousin can be a long, long way back. I found a third cousin (who I now have had the pleasure of meeting) and our common ancestor was born in 1790!

Estimated relationships are based on the length of a shared length of DNA. They're always 2/3 or 3/4 or 5/8.

[LizzieW]

A third cousin can be a long, long way back.

3rd cousins have 2xg.grandparents in common and my sons 2xg.grandparents were born in the mid 1800s.    If the woman and my son share a g.g.grandparent, then I have all my sons g.g.grandparents on my tree as, naturally, they are only my g.grandparents.  Likewise if one of the woman is a 3/4th cousin I have my sons 3 and 4 x g.grandparents on my tree.

Perhaps you are young, but although mid 1800s sounds a long time ago, my mother was born in 1911 and her grandparents were born in the mid 1800s.  As she was next to the youngest of 10 children my mum didn't know her grandparents as they died not long before she was born, but her older siblings knew them and used to talk about them, so my mum was also able to talk about them to me.

[Gaynorf]

Hi, I am a biologist and unfortunately the problem lies in the way these companies do the tests and the levels at which they investigate. For example, none of us are really English, or British: we all came West, so a proper analysis would find which part of Europe we originated from etc. I think it is all a bit hit and miss and the DNA can't really tell everything at this level.  It's a shame when we get different results from different companies and agree, it's the algorithms etc that they use.

[shellyesq]

I also found my results disappointing. I don't think they test at all -- just check out your Family Tree.

I, and probably thousands of others, had/have no family tree attached to their results, so that theory is just not possible.