Making peace with the unknown

[Josephine]

I've been busy going through my various DNA matches and assigning a group label and a note to every one that I've checked, so I don't waste time doing it again.

One of my group labels is "Unknown" and it probably won't surprise many of you when I say that, out of a total of 33 group labels, "Unknown" has been assigned to the highest number of DNA matches. I've got 426 "Unknown"s so far, and 108 "To Do"s. My highest known group is at 137 matches, and my five smallest groups contain just one match each.

I've had to make peace with the fact that I will never be able to figure out some of these unknown matches. It's a process, of course, and I keep having to remind myself that I won't be able to solve all the mysteries. But sometimes it feels like an itch I can't scratch.

How many of you have also had to make peace with the unknown and, possibly, the unknowable? The promise of truth is so tantalizing, and the knowledge that it's just out of reach can feel so frustrating.

[David Nicoll]

Never surrender!

But on a more serious note, yes we have to accept that we are all going to have matches we can’t explain. Whether by not enough people testing, private trees or NPE’s.
What I would however say is you do need to revisit match clusters, I have had more than a few mystery clusters that suddenly become clear because of one more match in a cluster or because someone has decided to make there tree public, or even just adding another couple of generations to their tree.
So it’s definitely always worth revisiting periodically.

Happy Hunting


David

[Josephine]

Good points, David.

I should include the date in the notes that I'm creating for my DNA matches.

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

I'm starting to add date info to my notes as it's surprising how often an existing match comes up in shared matches but I overlook them or fail to add new information. If the note section on the match list is too small then I add and link them to my tree on a floating branch and use the notes section on their tree profile page with 'last update' noted on the tree and match list.

In terms of names in my tree I'm using tags far more frequently, particularly custom tags, I'm not sure what the maximum number is but wonder if there's enough available to tag them to align with the dna group names so they can be searched in tree view more easily?

NPE's are right at the base of my tree so my matches are never going to be big, yesterday my 4th highest match of all dropped @366cM, they are my closest living relative save for half siblings. I'm resigned to the fact that age gaps and deceased unknown cousins will probably mean I can only ever say brother x, y or z from a particular family is my grandfather.

[Biggles50]

When you have a DNA Match with a User Name “kgeng45” and no Family Tree there is not a lot you can do other than look at the Shared Matches too see if their is any divine intervention likely to happen.

K Geng b1945 reports Zero records in Ancestry.

I have gone through all my DNA matches where the shared DNA is 20cM and greater.

To those who I can ID they have been placed in one of four Groups (One for each Grandparent) where the shared matches would indicate which one to select.

Those that I have worked but have not resolved are placed in the “ Mystery Group”, others who have potential are added to the “WIP” Group.

Those that have found a place in my tree are given a * and assigned to one of eight Groups which are for each GGP.  So my half Sister has a * and a 1, 2, 3, 4 Group label as we share 4 Great Grandparents.  In the Note section I add the names of the MRCA and if the DNA Match has used her married surname I also include her Birth Surname.

Those without any Group label are well, assigned to the “one day, maybe, but don’t hold your breath” category.

I have 16 assigned WIP and 3 assigned to  “ Mystery” as these do seem to have an NPE in their tree that they have not yet realised they have.

[Josephine]

Those are all good methods, Glen & Biggles50. I'm going to think about possibly incorporating some of them.

I like the idea of using more tags with my tree and coordinating those with my DNA matches. I use Reunion for the Mac and I've only recently starting using the tags, "DNA Match" and "DNA Match with Descendant." They're really helpful.

I hadn't thought of using numbers as group labels! Numbers might be better than letters, because I have duplicate first letters that are only differentiated by colours, which I can never remember. Then again, I'd have to keep a list somewhere to remind me of what the numbers stand for. It sounds like I have my matches split up into a more groups but it's out of necessity because I have so many mysteries.

It would be helpful if we could see more than the first number or letter of a group label while scrolling through the list of DNA matches.

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

Another tip I saw which I've found useful is to add the shared cM amount in the suffix box, as someone who dips into WATO from time to time it saves me diving into my match list or tree to look for the figures all the time.

[Josephine]

That's a great idea, Glen!

I use the suffix box (for the "Junior"s) but I'm sure there's some other spot where I can plug in the cMs.

[4b2]

Are you investigating the trees of your matches? Or are you mostly grouping?

If the group has a good amount of matches, it's often not difficult to find common ancestors among the matches. I open up dead-end ancestors of people in each tree and press the [Search] button for them. Typically they occur in another tree with more ancestors. Otherwise you can look them up in records. So the unknown ones I will label based on the common ancestors in the trees, such as:

Jones of Llanbrynmair
Dodd-Carter of Suffolk

With all the groups I don't know what the link is, I then put them into groups, where I think they probably have a connection, like so:



When you have groups of matches when the largest match is not greater than about 32cM (not sure of the exact threshold, might be higher), those tend to be more distant with common ancestors more in the window 1700-1730. That takes you back to about 6X GGPs, of which you have 128. So you'd need to have a pretty good idea of who those 128 are to make sense of your DNA matches, and I don't think many of us have close to that.

So, I've not been able to determine a relationship between most of my small clusters, which is in part due to remaining NPE gaps; otherwise due to inadequate records.

A key aspect is how far back shared ancestors in a cluster are. In my experience they always range from MRCAs in the window 1800-1660; typically more towards the former. If a cluster has matches that go back further on a line, then you can see there are no NPEs on that line.

You can have other clusters where you can only find MRCAs going back to 1800, and not know how they connect to you. So the common ancestor with you may be three or even four generations earlier. So when you don't know all your 6X GGPs and you then have to have a reliable tree for the 1700s of multiple lines of ancestry - most of which are not shared, it becomes cumbersome. If you are lucky there is an obvious surname link, but that occurs in the minority of cases.

As an example, see the char above where I have clusters for York and Ward-Wright. I found marriages between Yorks and Wards; and Wrights. However, since I don't know where in my tree that fits in, it's just a mystery.

There's also the possibility NPEs mean that actual paper trial in the cluster are false. There are so many variable that make DNA a delicate art. One ancestor was married in India and listed as being from an orphanage. Her surname was Nash and I've found nothing from DNA that connects to that surname. So I lean to that not being her birth surname. I've got a few clusters I know fit onto her general line, but I don't know which, if any, relate to her. One has MRCAs from about 1770. With no further generations. For all I know one of them was actually an NPE deposit from an unknown ancestor.

When I first began, with no knowledge, I clustered too fervently and made clusters that don't actually exist. This is done by clustering when there are not enough common matches. I tend to only put someone in a cluster if they share at least three matches in a cluster. If you add everyone who just matches one, you will end up with giant clusters with no common thread.

Another mistake I made is thinking that if I could not find DNA matches on a line, then it's probably due to an NPE. I felt pretty certain that two of my lines were NPEs. However, after more time and knowledge, I found that matches were just hidden away. Specifically almost all of the matches on one line also matched another line independently. Then the other cluster is just small and very diffuse; while still having matches with MRCAs back to c 1720.

So there's a very large amount of time and moderate knowledge that allows you to make the most of the matches. I was going through some matches a few days ago when after a lot of digging I found MRCAs from c 1715, some of which were from matches I'd written off. So there is always the possibility of finding more, but mostly I don't know how I am related to these people.