Shouldn't Ancestry.com be able to do better?

[Eric Hatfield]

Hi Margaret,

It is useful knowing what the arguments come down to, and from what you say, there are only two.

Argument 1.

"a chromosome browser exposes actual SNPs (“snips”) for your matches. Ancestry has to be really thoughtful about doing that. They have to decide if that makes sense. Ultimately, people’s privacy is more important than a chromosome browser"

1. So we are asked to believe that Ancestry cares more about privacy and ethics than do FTDNA, DNAPainter, Gedmatch, My Heritage, 23andMe? I don't believe that. Maybe they care more about possible litigation I guess, but those other companies seem to have found a way.

2. If that was really the issue, wouldn't allowing the data to be downloaded create the same problems? Sure, it is someone else's choice and not Ancestry's direct doing, but would they have no responsibility?

3. And offering a browser as an option surely overcomes those problems, especially if it was opt-in.

Argument 2

"Ancestry offers two alternatives"

As you point out, two of the tools are pretty useless (Search, DNA Circles), one is OK as a start (Shared matches), but only takes us so far.

I first tested with FTDNA because my reading suggested they were the best company despite having a smaller database, but when I tested with Ancestry, I took out a 6 month subscription because I had read about DNA circles and mirror trees, two tools that I thought offered some real ways forward. Like you I found circles useless and mirror trees likewise - I think you need far more relatives to have tested for these to work, and not that many people here in Australia have tested. Even shared matches I have not found very useful. In fact, I had one crucially important match on Ancestry that helped me, and that has been all, and even that required transfer to Gedmatch so I could compare it with people who had tested on FTDNA. There is probably more good information there, but I don't know how to get at it.

I am probably a cynic, but I can't help wondering if Ancestry avoids giving these tools so the main ways to use matches (links to tree, DNA circles and Mirror trees) are ones that require us to take out a subscription. Thus a DNA test can be made to most likely lead to a subscription, and more income. Yes, I'm a cynic.

So I don't buy their arguments and I remain very disappointed with Ancestry.

[Jill Eaton]

I'd like them to give some indication of which country a match comes from. Experience of contacting matches has so far shown that many from Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada know little or nothing of their ancestors before they emigrated.

I'd prefer to deal with matches from the UK first before I started contacting matches further afield.

[Nanna52]

I agree Jill, country would help, but I have different problems.  I am looking for an unknown father who created a child nearly 100 years ago.  This particular line dominates my matches, but those in America with whom I match are no use.  I want the Australians.

I try my best with my UK ancestors, but have to rely on online sources.

[sugarfizzle]

Nanna and Jill

There are two partial workarounds this, neither fully functional, as everything else, but worth a shot.

Search by birth location - type in England.
This should find only matches who have ancestors born in England, even if they have given more detailed birth places for them. It will miss quite a few who have not included England in the birth place. Should theoretically find 'Westerham, Kent, England' but won't find 'Westerham, Kent'.

Presumably should work with other countries, e.g. Australia, but don't quote me.

Search Regions
This could be more useful than it is, but sorts out most of the spurious US matches.
For instance, I have 3 regions to look through - Devon and Cornwall, Southern England and South East England.
None of my documented paper trail ancestors are from Devon or Cornwall, which still leaves me 2 valid regions to search through.

I only have 66 Southern​ England pages, c. 330 matches and 18 South East England pages, c 90 matches. Some of these are obviously the same match, so a lot more manageable to search through than the many thousands of so called matches that Ancestry provides me with. As ever, it will still miss some, but interestingly about half of my '4th to 6th' cousins are included in the Southern England pages.

Regards Margaret

[Nanna52]

I played around with that the other day Margaret.  I hadn't thought of typing in England.  I typed in Keynsham where one set of great grandparents came from and found someone who is possibly linked through my 5X great grandparents.  I am supposedly 71% Devon and Cornwall so I doubt that will help much  . Will try places though to see if that helps.