Are Anc*stry "Traits" as Totally Useless as I Think They Are?

[Wexflyer]

It annoys me no end that they keep expanding the number and range of - what I believe - are totally useless and meaningless "traits", while not providing some obvious and useful DNA tools.

[LizzieL]

Yep

[Ruskie]

Yes. Useless and not accurate in my case. I was entertained for a couple of minutes by how wrong many of them were.

[Biggles50]

At present probably Traits are more of a statistical guess.

The BRCA1 and 2 DNA tests that look for the altered gene in breast and ovarian cancer does not provide a conclusive yes/no answer, only 5-10% of those affected or likely to be affected carry the altered gene.

In my mind Traits are a marketing ploy, the My Heritage Traits are way off the mark with me and my Wife.  No reason why Ancestry should be regarded as anything more than a bit of fun.

[rosie17]

Yes. Useless and not accurate in my case. I was entertained for a couple of minutes by how wrong many of them were.

Agree with you there 

Rosie

[Jebber]

I don’t bother with Ancestry traits after I found 95% of my traits are totally wrong.

[SouthseaSteel]

Yes. Next question

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

A chunk of the problem is the dna test for family history purposes is a shrinking market so the non family history aspects of dna are being promoted to attract a different customer base. If 1% of the ethnicity chasers and health tourists go on to buy a sub then it's worth their while marketing it, whilst  anyone who falls for it is being a bit daft to put it bluntly but what is it they say about fools and their money? 

[Pennines]

I stopped looking at mine, since I received one telling me I was ticklish (or not ticklish -- I can't remember which now).

Just thought it was so inane!