Is a DNA test really worthwhile ?

[Josephine]

It seems clear that DNA matches have made it possible for some people to solve some of their family history mysteries, but that hasn't been the case for me.

I have an extensive, well-researched tree and I've gotten some really tantalizing DNA matches but I've been unable to figure out the exact connections because the required paper records are missing (this is especially important for family connections that pre-date the census).

I paid for me and one of my siblings to be tested. Has the cost of the DNA testing been worth it?

On the positive side, these matches have at least proven that there is a connection between certain families with the same surname in the same small towns but, on the negative side, I've spent many additional hours tracing as many of them as I possibly can and am no closer to finding answers than I was 5, 10 or 15 years ago. This has been frustrating and probably not worth the cost of the DNA, unless it pans out at some point in the future. But you can't know unless you try to do the research and follow those trails. In my case, the records either don't exist or they aren't available online yet, but in someone else's case, they just might, and wouldn't that be amazing?

I had also hoped to figure out who my great-grandfather's father was... hahahahahahahaaaaaa. Yeah, that's not going to happen. It's like trying to prove a negative. There are thousands of names out there but absolutely no way for me to build working trees for each one of them, just so I can rule them out. It was impossible enough with the known surnames. If I had done the DNA with just that goal in mind, no, it wouldn't have been worth it.

However, my main motivation in taking the DNA test was to provide a way for any potential half-siblings to contact me. I haven't heard from anyone yet, and maybe I never will, but knowing I've made it possible for someone to reach out has given me some peace of mind and, for that reason, I'd say the DNA test was worth it.

As others have said, it all depends on why someone decided to spend the money on the DNA test in the first place. It's not cheap, it definitely isn't always easy, and it isn't guaranteed to solve those mysteries but, if someone can afford it, and if they're lucky in terms of the right records being extant, and if they're a good enough researcher, it's probably worth it.

I enjoy doing the research, so the process itself isn't too onerous for me, but it does feel frustrating when there's no big pay-off at the end.

[Annie65115]

Of course, it’s always possible that if you have no DNA matches on one side, it could be due to a NPE and you’re actually barking up the wrong tree! This was the case for me - but that made the DNA test invaluable!

[chrissiecruiser]

G'day all,
I like to think that I too have done much homework on my trees, gathering info from various libraries, sites etc., and conducting interviews with my last remaining oldies.

My dna was done through Ancestry and I was very happy to see the results prove that my research was correct!
Was that worth it?
A resounding Yes!
But, any supposed relatives I have messaged have not replied.
Why do a test if you don't want to follow up???
Cheers,
Mystified Chris

[coombs]

People are quick to assume the worst and cry out "NPE. NPE." in absence of DNA, but I was told by an expert that it is often that no one else has tested yet, or that you may not have inherited that person's DNA. They added that DNA that is there that shouldn't be is indication of an NPE.

About 1-3% of your ancestors may not be blood ones, but that is still about 97%-99% that will show the paper trail is correct, and you may have been simply climbing the wrong branch due to a name, age similar birthplace coincidence, and DNA steers you to the right one.

[Rosinish]

People are quick to assume the worst and cry out "NPE. NPE." in absence of DNA, but I was told by an expert that it is often that no one else has tested yet, or that you may not have inherited that person's DNA. They added that DNA that is there that shouldn't be is indication of an NPE.

See my reply #8...

"My brother & I have both had our DNA done, he used 23&me, I used Ancestry & neither of us have any close matches with our maternal side.

This tells me my maternal side don't seem to be interested in their Genealogy or she wasn't our mother"

We have numerous matches who could be our maternal line but those matches have no other shared matches with us.

Can you please ask your 'expert' how we define whether those matches could be...
"DNA that is there that shouldn't be"?

Basically, ask your 'expert' to explain to us novices, how can we tell whether a DNA link shouldn't be there unless we were dealing with very recent family e.g. siblings/cousins/aunts/uncles which I'm sure we'd all be able to see wasn't right?

I'm sure we're all interested in how to tell if more distant matches are likely to be 'NPE'?

Annie

[Ruskie]

Dna misses generations and passes down randomly. My daughter has numerous higher cm connections than me though she is obviously a generation removed.

I have matches which I definitely know are from my father’s line which he does not have, and vice versa.

My OH has very few matches on his father’s line. Many children were born in each generation I have traced. Like Annie said, I put this down to current descendants just not having taken dna tests yet. Does not follow that there is any illegitimacy. May have been. May not have been.

I think you need to keep an open mind PommieG, and don’t jump to conclusions. More matches will come as more people test - you might just need to be patient.

[phil57]

Dna misses generations and passes down randomly.

Sorry Ruskie, I have to disagree with that. DNA does pass down randomly, and a specific segment from one or both of an individual's parents may not be present in their DNA, as the individual of course only inherits 50% of the DNA of each parent. It may pass down to a brother or sister of that individual, or it may not be passed down at all.

But if a segment was not passed down to any of the parents' children, it cannot reappear in a subsequent generation. It is gone forever. None of those children can recreate or pass along to their children a segment of a previous generation's DNA that they didn't inherit.

If the parents had brothers or sisters, the missing segment may of course be passed down through one or more of their children and grandchildren, and continue in their family line. But that's not missing a generation, its just splitting the lineage in which that particular segment can continue to be found.

That's why testing siblings, cousins or preferably members of the oldest surviving generation can yield dividends in obtaining matches that might never be found by testing a single individual and their offspring.

[Ruskie]

I probably explained that poorly Phil. 

What I was trying to say is that my father has some dna matches which I do not have, so as you say, that segment of dna did not pass on to me.

It could be that the OP has a similar situation on his father’s side, which may explain the lack of matches. 

[phil57]

Just to add, as I hadn't read the latest newsletter before my previous post, but the owner of the Lost Cousins website has just reposted an updated version of his DNA Masterclass in the latest newsletter. You don't need to be a member to read the current newsletter, just go to the website at https://www.lostcousins.com and click on the link to the latest newsletter in the column on the left side of the page.

If you don't want to read long complicated books about DNA, but would like a summary of the most important things you should know, I'd highly recommend this. Really, really, really!!! It's worth reinforcing though that common ancestors or "thrulines" identified by Ancestry are only as good as the information in other peoples' trees. Don't take them as certain until you have verified the lines of descent on both sides by traditional research of documentary records. Of course, you may already be happy that your side of the match is correct, but the other line of descent is only as good as the accuracy of the user trees it has been derived from - and there are a lot of trees with errors on Ancestry, many of them simply copied from other incorrect trees by people who fail to do their own research before "grabbing" new relatives. Just because something or someone appears as a "fact" in numerous trees doesn't make it more likely to be correct. It may just mean that more people have copied the incorrect information without checking it for themselves. Peter Calver does say that in his article, but possibly not strongly enough.

Of course, there are a lot of very good trees as well, but do your own research before accepting anything in another tree as correct, otherwise you may end up being just as guilty of propagating false information as the people you have copied it from