Author Topic: Don't ignore 5th to 8th cousins at Ancestry  (Read 1828 times)

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
Don't ignore 5th to 8th cousins at Ancestry
« on: Thursday 08 March 18 05:49 GMT (UK) »

My maiden name is Steer, and apart from my first cousin, I have found no other confirmed Steer matches at ancestryDNA. I frequently search matches for Steer in case something turns up. I looked yesterday - same old results, my cousin plus 2 other matches with Steer in their tree, but no obvious connection.

Today I was browsing through my newest matches, 5th to 8th cousins. Skipping through those with no tree and those with private trees, I looked at a few who had largish trees and who had logged in recently.

Found two new Steer matches on first page, one still dubious, probably not a match with this name, might or might not match somewhere else.

The other one, bingo.
A Steer family member, sharing only 6.9 cM, would be ignored at gedmatch. Obviously need to confirm, but if confirmed this would be a match with my 6G grandparents, making us 7th cousins.

To me this is fantastic news, and goes to show the reason not to ignore 5th to 8th matches. You can't go through everyone of the thousands that keep coming, but regular searches of name and place, or a quick look at new matches, does often prove fruitful.

One very happy Steer descendant.

Regards Margaret
STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline haliared

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • The future rests upon the foundations of the past.
    • View Profile
Re: Don't ignore 5th to 8th cousins at Ancestry
« Reply #1 on: Friday 09 March 18 02:00 GMT (UK) »
I have found some 5th to 8th cousins with a moderate rating to be mine and others I admin for.
I have found ancestry very accurate and am pleased with the results.
Census & BMD information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Online GailB

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
    • View Profile
Re: Don't ignore 5th to 8th cousins at Ancestry
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 13 March 18 02:09 GMT (UK) »
I have a third cousin showing as 5th-8th cousin. I think it may because of cousin marriages on both mine and his side of the tree.
Armitage, Atherton, Barton, Beck, Bradshaw, Brumfitt, Chetwin, Conalty, Connolly, Connor(s), Davidson, Hilton, Hoey, Johnson, Jones, Knight, Lester, McDonald, Molyneux, Morris, Pownall, Rushton, Spark, Stanley, Tunstall, Welsby, West, Wharton, Williams, Wilson, Windridge, Windstandley

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Don't ignore 5th to 8th cousins at Ancestry
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 15 September 18 23:28 BST (UK) »
I have a third cousin showing as 5th-8th cousin. I think it may because of cousin marriages on both mine and his side of the tree.
Once you get past first cousins, the distances can be very inaccurate because of the random distribution over generations. You may have a very small amount of DNA from one great grandparent, as little as 2% - which ancestry might show a cousin in common with as a 5th cousin, or as much as 20% which ancestry may show as a first or a half sibling. So you should only take these relationship distances as a very vague guide.

Offline Palladium

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Don't ignore 5th to 8th cousins at Ancestry
« Reply #4 on: Sunday 16 September 18 00:36 BST (UK) »
I think ancestrydna tends to be a little bit optimistic sometimes....
Pall
WESTMORLAND/LANCASHIRE
Heap
Armer
McNamara
Nelson
ESSEX/NORTHAMPTONSHIRE
Humphrey
Potton
Snow

Offline Mart 'n' Al

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,048
  • Martin H. Watson Gedmatch DNA Kit H062246
    • View Profile
Re: Don't ignore 5th to 8th cousins at Ancestry
« Reply #5 on: Sunday 16 September 18 00:49 BST (UK) »
Margaret, I know your original comment is from 6 months ago, and I've been following your postings with interest ever since you constructively commented on one of my comments, but saying that "... sharing only 6.9 cM, would be ignored at gedmatch... " needs correction, or at least updating. I will only UPDATE your comment by saying that, as you know, parameters can be set to specify minimum matches of interest.

I know we all want to suddenly discover unknown close relatives, (which seems odd but I admit to it myself), but life is probably too short to look for 8th cousins.  I enjoy all your comments, which I follow closely and find very informative.

Martin
Gedmatch DNA Kit H062246.
FT-DNA Kit B388093

Names: Loughborough and Loughbrough, (London, Hull, Pirton and Hartlepool);
Watson, (Bedlington, Jarrow & Hartlepool);
Ballard & Glassop (E. London); 
Leggett (Corton, Scarborough, Hartlepool); 
Young & Wilson, (Hartlepool). 

I use GRAMPS v5.0 software.

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
Re: Don't ignore 5th to 8th cousins at Ancestry
« Reply #6 on: Sunday 16 September 18 07:03 BST (UK) »
Martin, Thanks for your reply. I agree it does need clarifying if anybody reads it in the future.

This is from ISOGG, page modified Oct 2017, I think it's still correct.

https://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_match_thresholds

23andme - For half-identical regions the autosomal threshold is 7 cMs and at least 700 SNPs for the first segment; 5 cMs and 700 SNPs for additional segments and for people you are sharing with. For fully identical regions the threshold is 5 cMs and 500 SNPs.

But limited to 2000 matches

ftDNA - A match is declared if two people share a segment of 9 cM or more, regardless of the number of total shared cM. However, if thereís not a block thatís 9 cM or greater, the minimum of 20 shared cM with a longest block of 7.69 cM applies
(Autosomal DNA uploads from other sites limited to close cousins, more distant cousins only show up for those who test there).

Ancestry - The minimum threshold for a match is set at 6 cMs of IBD sharing across the genome.

Gedmatch - Default set at 7 cM
Again, 'One to many' limited to first 2000 matches.

And from myheritageDNA site, updated last year -
Previously the minimum of shared DNA for a match was 12 cM and now the minimum is 8 cM.

So only at ancestry would this match show up automatically. I have tried to persuade her to upload to Gedmatch, unsuccessfully, so I have to leave it at that.

A group of Steer descendants from RootsWeb Steer mailing list, have uploaded to Gedmatch, and by lowering the threshold to 1 cM the Surrey Steer group all match, but only by about maximum 4 cM. This is all on the same place on one chromosome, so it is a pity that my ancestry match can't upload there as well, to see how much and where she matches with the others.

We have confirmed the connection between me and her though, so I am happy.

Thanks for correcting me, Martin  :)

Regards Margaret

STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
Re: Don't ignore 5th to 8th cousins at Ancestry
« Reply #7 on: Sunday 16 September 18 08:04 BST (UK) »
Martin, You say 'I know we all want to suddenly discover unknown close relatives, (which seems odd but I admit to it myself), but life is probably too short to look for 8th cousins.'

I have to disagree with that, especially where we are talking about lines that we are unsure of, or with brick walls.

Another example from my DNA
One name, Laversuch, traced back to marriage in Wiltshire, England in 1745, no obvious parentage, family brought up in Idmiston.

By the time census records are readily available, the family is still in Idmiston, a family of the same name a few miles away. Tracing this second family back there is no obvious connection.

Wiltshire PRs then came online, showing a few 'possibilities' where the name is considerably different, but could be 'manipulated' to be the right name. Tentative details and family entered as an 'island', i.e. not attached to my original man.

Then comes DNA - several matches with 3rd, 4th and 5th cousins, to be expected.
'Surname search' at ancestry with variation of Leversuch, a known variation, I found a match with a family I had never heard of.
Looking at myheritage DNA, another match descended from the same lady, but unknown to my ancestry match.

Back to Wiltshire PRs
Stephen Leversidge (my ancestor) and Mary Leversidge (their ancestor) baptised in Chitterne, Wiltshire at appropriate times for their marriages.

The family name that could be manipulated? Leverstretch or Leversidge.

Do my current confirmed 3rd to 5th cousins also match with my ancestry match? Those that have replied to me do, but none have uploaded anywhere else to compare with chromosome browser, unfortunately.

Do the family found 150 odd years later in census also relate to this family from Chitterne? Yes, in hindsight quite easily.

The conclusion? I have almost definitely taken my Laversuch Leversuch Leversidge Leverstretch line back by 2 further generations, by finding 7th cousin matches at myheritage and ancestry. Further matches from different descendants and matching with a chromosome browser could verify it further.

The same result could have happened with 8th cousins, so I am still happy to say 'Dont ignore 5th to 8th cousins at Ancestry'.

Regards Margaret



STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Don't ignore 5th to 8th cousins at Ancestry
« Reply #8 on: Sunday 16 September 18 09:57 BST (UK) »
Margaret, I know your original comment is from 6 months ago, and I've been following your postings with interest ever since you constructively commented on one of my comments, but saying that "... sharing only 6.9 cM, would be ignored at gedmatch... " needs correction, or at least updating. I will only UPDATE your comment by saying that, as you know, parameters can be set to specify minimum matches of interest.

I know we all want to suddenly discover unknown close relatives, (which seems odd but I admit to it myself), but life is probably too short to look for 8th cousins.  I enjoy all your comments, which I follow closely and find very informative.

Martin
Sorry if I am explaining something you already understand Martin, I think many people think the centimorgan match is accurate or very near accurate reflection of the genetic distance, when the reality is it can be very misleading indeed. It is based on the belief that we share 25% for each grandparent, or something VERY close, and then so on further back. The reality is after our parents it CAN start to vary significantly, so we may have 20% of one grandparent's DNA and 30% of another. If that outlier result happened in the previous generations - and the 20% grandparent had a skewed share of their own grandparent's DNA, you could end up with no DNA from a great great grandparent at all.

I highly recommend looking at this video by Andy Lee from Family History Fanatics who shows using a computer model and charts running in real time how the share of our ancestors DNA can vary quite hugely more than people realise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlmK0X3I1Lo