ancestryDNA​ new (at least, to me) features

[LizzieW]

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.

[sugarfizzle]

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

[LizzieW]

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.

[Gadget]

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'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 

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

[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

[sugarfizzle]

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

[stevemiller]

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.

[Gadget]

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 

[Old Bristolian]

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