Author Topic: Shouldn't Ancestry.com be able to do better?  (Read 1836 times)

Offline Eric Hatfield

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
  • Sydney, Australia
    • View Profile
Shouldn't Ancestry.com be able to do better?
« on: Tuesday 21 August 18 07:01 BST (UK) »
I don't know if this topic has been raised before, but I feel quite strongly that Ancestry could do better for its many paying customers.

Ancestry has by far the largest DNA database, so it is hard to go past them when doing DNA research. But the lack of simple tools deny paying customers some extremely useful tools that other companies supply. I'm thinking of:
  • a decent search function,
  • the ability to download my match list (especially important to me since I use a Mac and AncestryDNA helper doesn't work with a Mac), and
  • a chromosome browser
Ancestry's apparent unwillingness to provide these tools significantly diminishes the value of their DNA product to anyone wanting to do serious genealogy.
  • I have hundreds of pages of matches I will probably never see or be able to use because I can't search properly nor download and use a spreadsheet to search.
  • Currently I am cooperating with a couple of other researchers to try to find how we all match, and which side of each tree we match on. This requires comparison of segments, which I can do at FTDNA and Gedmatch (and which I understand 23andMe also provides) but we are severely limited because many of the matches we'd like to check only have their results with Ancestry and haven't downloaded to those other sites.
I can't understand, and am frustrated by, why such a big company would be willing to offer such an inferior product, and I wonder whether there is any way the genetic DNA community could press Ancestry to do better on this.

Or do others not agree with me?

Offline Yonks Ago

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
    • View Profile
Re: Shouldn't Ancestry.com be able to do better?
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 21 August 18 07:13 BST (UK) »
Eric,
I'm with you on that I would also like to see 2 stars..for when you find if the match is Maternal or Paternal..say 1 orange 1 blue that you can tick.

Yonks
Ago
Kilgallon Langdon Nicol Bolger Smith Carlisle Thomas Delahide Blackman Harley Amphlett Scarbourgh Murrish Oats Tonkin Aveyard Armitage Child Fox Bland Gomersal Mountain Gelder Harrison Armstrong Laws Steel Main Lambert Law Laws Christie Kirk Bell Black Amphlett Barclay Harley Dewar Rodger Fortune McCann Nealis Sutherland Rumgay

Online Nanna52

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 921
  • Edwin WB Vincent, my actor, (1881-1940)
    • View Profile
Re: Shouldn't Ancestry.com be able to do better?
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 21 August 18 08:00 BST (UK) »
At the moment I am plodding my way through those who are fourth cousins and closer on Ancestry and noting in general which lines I believe they come from.  Very time consuming checking shared matches and I have over 400 of them.  There are still some that I cannot work out.
Some way of sorting them would make life so much easier.
James -Victoria, Australia originally from Keynsham, Somerset.
Janes - Keynsham and Bristol area.
Heale/Hale - Keynsham, Somerset
Vincent - Illogan/Redruth, Cornwall.  Moved to Sculcoates, Yorkshire; Grass Valley, California; Timaru, New Zealand and Victoria, Australia.
Williams somewhere in Wales - he kept moving
Ellis - Anglesey

Gedmatch A327531

Offline medpat

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,351
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Shouldn't Ancestry.com be able to do better?
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 21 August 18 08:19 BST (UK) »
23andMe does not give maternal/paternal lines unless like my daughter you have both your parents on the database then it's easy to show where the link is.
GEDmatch M157477


Offline kooky

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,651
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Shouldn't Ancestry.com be able to do better?
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 21 August 18 08:31 BST (UK) »
Have to agree with Nanna 52 ::)
Kooky
Clulo - Staffs.,Warwickshire, Lancs.1780 -1950
Fisher- Nafferton,Hull, Manchester.1770-1840-1950
Kane&McNeill,Forkhill, Armagh and Glasgow,Bray Dublin.1850s -1920
Boshell and Dowzard- Dublin, 1840s -1911
Kay/Bremner Edinburgh 1800 - 1841.Kay Staffs.& Lancs1842 -1901
Kay - Newcastle on Tyne 1780-1861
Swindell, Marple & Manchester 1900->
Makinson, M/c & Prestwich 1870 ->
Beacom/Jones - Enniskillen 1780 ->

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,514
    • View Profile
Re: Shouldn't Ancestry.com be able to do better?
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 21 August 18 16:33 BST (UK) »
They have said that they will never introduce a chromosome browser, for reasons of privacy.

Very rarely have I managed to persuade a contact to upload DNA to other sites - some aren't interested, others find it too difficult. So to be able to compare directly would be a bonus.

The very least they could do is introduce a decent search facility, it is very capricious whether it will work or not, depending perhaps on the stage of the moon.


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 Eric Hatfield

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
  • Sydney, Australia
    • View Profile
Re: Shouldn't Ancestry.com be able to do better?
« Reply #6 on: Tuesday 21 August 18 23:26 BST (UK) »
They have said that they will never introduce a chromosome browser, for reasons of privacy.
If privacy was really an issue, how come everyone else manages to offer a browser? And it could be option whether you allowed your results to appear in a browser.

Quote
Very rarely have I managed to persuade a contact to upload DNA to other sites - some aren't interested, others find it too difficult. So to be able to compare directly would be a bonus.
My limited experience is similar. I think because Ancestry advertises so much they get a lot of people just curious about ethnicity, and once they have that result, they are little interested in genealogy - and so don't have a tree and don't respond to questions.

Quote
The very least they could do is introduce a decent search facility, it is very capricious whether it will work or not, depending perhaps on the stage of the moon.
You must have had more success than I have! I have found search almost totally useless, always.

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,514
    • View Profile
Re: Shouldn't Ancestry.com be able to do better?
« Reply #7 on: Wednesday 22 August 18 07:02 BST (UK) »
Eric, Here is an 'unofficial, unauthorized view of Ancestry.com' which quotes Kendall Hulet from Ancestry - I don't know is if he is still there or not.

http://www.ancestryinsider.org/2017/03/it-keeps-ancestrys-kendall-hulet-up-at.html

''He said 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, he said.''

Kendall is then quoted talking​ about pile up areas,  “It’s not because they are really amazing matches; it’s actually just because you are humans or you both happen to be from the same rough area of the world,” he said.

If I could see that these many thousands of matches that ancestry produce actually are in a pile up area, easily seen in a tool such as DNAPainter, I could discard them completely, not try to prove a relationship with a really amazing match!

The majority of my more remote Ancestry DNA matches are American, some with very good trees and nothing in common for two hundred years or so. Surely Ancestry realises that these are most likely from a pile up area?!?

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 Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,514
    • View Profile
Re: Shouldn't Ancestry.com be able to do better?
« Reply #8 on: Wednesday 22 August 18 07:24 BST (UK) »
http://www.ancestryinsider.org/2017/03/it-keeps-ancestrys-kendall-hulet-up-at.html

"Kendall said Ancestry offers two alternatives. When you view a DNA match, select Shared Matches to see a list of users who share SNPs with you and that DNA match."

This mainly works for 4th to 6th cousins, occasionally for 5th to 8th cousins, and is reasonably useful.

"The other alternative is DNA Circles"

They are totally useless. I have found several matches at ancestry where the tree is fairly large and well sourced, a few where there is no family tree at all, and some in the middle.

All but the first, I have to do the work to find the match, perhaps break someone elses brick wall, on two occasions my own brick wall.

The only circles I appear in are the first group, obviously, and I only appear in 3 circles. 1 and 2 are a married couple, 3 is someone who has a spouse, but 1 member of the circle hasn't 'found' that spouse as yet.

What use is that to me, or to them? I should theoretically appear in many more circles.

So the only tools ancestry give us are shared matches (reasonably useful), surname/place search (rarely works as intended) and DNA circles (totally useless).

They could at the very least improve the surname/place search if they are determined not to provide a chromosome browser.

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