Ancestry Assignment to Both Sides

[Millmoor]

interesting thread. My both sides matches have increased from 4 to 41 in this latest update. Good to see others are bemused by this as well!

[Ruskie]

I was about to ask where the “both sides” matches are to be found, and I have just noticed that a “both sides” has suddenly appeared where there wasn’t one before.

I’ve only ever had Parent 1, Parent 2 and Unassigned. I presume the “both sides” wasn’t showing because I didn’t have any matches in common with both sides, which is as I would expect.

Now two have popped up - one 12cM and one is 9cM.

Ancestors of my Parent 1 and Parent 2 were between 2.000 to 8,000 km apart so any kind of cM match is fairly difficult to believe. 

I have no common matches with either of them.

[MJW]

My "Both Sides" matches have jumped from 2 to 74 in latest update, ranging from 45cM to 8cM.

Not analysed them all yet but seems odd.

[LizzieL]

Ancestors of my Parent 1 and Parent 2 were between 2.000 to 8,000 km apart so any kind of cM match is fairly difficult to believe. 

It doesn't matter if your two sets of ancestors were widely separated, it just needs a descendant of each set which may be your generation or your parents generation to meet, marry and produce a child who takes a DNA  test. My two lines from a couple of hundred miles apart came together in the 20th century to produce ME and to produce my only genuine both sides match. Descendants of your widely separated ancestral lines obviously came together to produce you, so why not another descendant from each branch getting together?.

Ancestry failed to pick up my real both sides match, just makes it paternal because that is the closest relationship - paternal 3C and maternal 5C1R

[Ruskie]

Ummm, still not convinced of accuracy, but understand what you are saying Lizzie. 

If Ancestry didn’t pick up your real both sides match, there’s a possibility some of the both sides matches are misassigned too.

I await any new updates to see what they bring, and hope for some matches in common to appear (which might help clarify).

[LizzieL]

If Ancestry didn’t pick up your real both sides match, there’s a possibility some of the both sides matches are misassigned too.

I'm pretty sure most are spurious, but haven't checked thoroughly

[phil57]

Between the two of us, my brother and I have 29 new both sides matches. All but one are at match lengths of 10 cM or less. None are shared between us, they are all apparently unique to either him or me. For three of the matches there are shared matches with other matches on our maternal side (2) and paternal side (1). Several of those shared matches are already confirmed.

For one of the matches with shared maternal matches, there is a surname in her tree that matches a surname on our paternal side. I spent a couple of hours researching her line with that name back to c. 1780, but with no indication that her line is connected to ours in any way.

As none of the matches appear to be necessary to corroborate my own tree, and most of the match lengths are in the region where IBC is a distinct possibility, particularly with no other shared matches and none at all being attributed to both of us, I'm not going to spend any more time on them.

[LizzieL]

One thing I have noticed is that all but one of my new "both sides"  matches have 2 segments. Given that the matches range from 8 to low teens cMs this is rather unusual, normally at these low values it's a single segment.

[Ruskie]

One thing I have noticed is that all but one of my new "both sides"  matches have 2 segments. Given that the matches range from 8 to low teens cMs this is rather unusual, normally at these low values it's a single segment.

It is the same with my two “both sides” matches - 2 segments.