Some interesting, and opposing views!
Yes, I do look at it as some kind of investment for the future but, if current responses are anything to go by, not much of one! Still, hope springs eternal and all that!!
If lots of people have taken the test purely for ethnicity results and that is why they haven't bothered with trees, all I can say is that they must have more money than sense. Its not exactly cheap!
I used to be as belligerently convinced as both Milliepede and KGarrad about not taking the test but then I got so frustrated with my many brickwalls that I decided to have a go, especially as more and more people are adding to the 'pool'. As I said in my original post, I don't actually regret doing it, its the response, or lack thereof, of most people that makes me want to spit (oh no! not doing that again!!
). I have very little faith in humankind at the best of times, and this exercise has only served to bolster that sentiment.
I worked out via FreeBMD that my main match is a 2nd cousin - our grandmothers were sisters but, for geographical reasons, the different branches of the family were separated. I messaged him, informing him of the link but assuring him that I had no wish to invade his privacy family-wise - nothing! Zilch! Absolute zero!!
I have used, and will always use, the traditional documental method of research. I will check on my DNA matches now and then because I hate the thought of actually missing something!
Margaret, I
was overwhelmed at first but quickly became disillusioned. I suppose its disillusionment with the people rather than the system. By the way, apart from the lines of unknown fathers of illegitimate ancestors, I know the names of at least all 4x ggrandparents and most up to and beyond x6. I put a lot of names on my Ancestry tree but have stopped now because I really don't see the point.
One more point before I stop bleating: I started out 2+ weeks ago with 121 4th cousins or closer - and still have 121. I was told that Ancestry update these but my number hasn't shifted. At a rough guess, I'd say I've contacted 75% of those people yet not one has made the first move and contacted me first, which leads me to believe even more that the vast majority of people taking the test are NOT family historians, genealogists - call us what you will!
Oh dear! Just another sentence, on a positive note, yes I also read Blaine T. Bettinger's Guide to DNA testing - and it
is very informative without being overly technical.
Moaning Minnie Jill
ADDED: Just seen Xin and Pheno's posts and, whilst I'm not sure what effect Xin's hieroglyphics might have, I would just point out that I found a couple of DNA matches (with trees! hallelujah!) without matching surnames and, after further delving, found that I use the surname Patchett for my grandmother's family but these other people had used Padgett - and the surname match had not been picked up. There must be loads of surnames with such spelling varieties - I have another line which starts off as Barnett but was Barnard as you delved further into the past. I wouldn't have known this unless the Borthwick Institute hadn't pointed it out years ago.
