RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: lesleyhannah on Monday 07 November 16 10:11 GMT (UK)
-
I decided it was time to pass my family history research onto relatives and persuaded one of my sons to take the ancestry dna test. I've been an ancestry subscriber for many years, son is not. The results have just come back - he emailed me to say they consist only of a map showing shaded areas - these shaded areas cover the UK, Ireland and most of western Europe.
And that is it! No report or explanation. Well, we already knew our ancestors were probably all from this area, so didn't need to pay all that money to be told they probably were.
Is this lack of information due to son not being a subscriber? There is no suggestion that they will be connecting his dna with other people's results.
Or has my son just missed some valuable information, or failed to click onto a vital link? Any help from others who have used the test would be very much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
-
I don't know about being a non-subscriber what you get, but as a subscriber the map is clickable and I also have a table next to it with percentage information. Clicking on either of these then gives some historical information on that 'region' and migration patterns for it. You wont get any reports on the actual DNA itself if that's what you were thinking you would see though.
If you are still a subscriber, you should be able to get him to share the results with you, and you may even be able to link him to you tree to start getting the matches to other users.
Richard
-
I'm a subscriber, and I do have a list of matches. I also did my husband's DNA under my account and have an option to view his matches.
One thing that your son can do is make an account at gedmatch.com, which is free. He can download his raw data from Ancestry (an explanation of how to do so is here - http://www.dnaadoption.com/uploads/DNAadoption/DNAadoption_files/To_Download_Raw_Data.pdf the explanation for Ancestry is towards the bottom) and upload it to gedmatch. That will give him possible DNA matches, and it has a few little tools like one that predicts your eye color and one that indicates if your parents are related. The matches aren't as user-friendly as on Ancestry, where people often connect their trees and you can more easily see where the connection is.
-
I'm a subscriber, and I do have a list of matches. I also did my husband's DNA under my account and have an option to view his matches.
Thanks to you all for your replies. I will contact ancestry and see if I can view my son's matches. I'm disappointed that the results don't reveal anything new. The 3 areas - Ireland, UK and west Europe all overlap significantly so tell us nothing we couldn't have guessed (and are so vague that the guesses remain just that - guesses!). I'm hoping if there are some matches they will be able to at least point us along a different path. Thanks again - I'd be interested to know how others got on with these tests.
-
I don't know if this is available to non-subscribers, but my results give a green button that says See Full Ethnicity Estimate. After clicking on that, it gives a list with percentages of each ethnicity. Mine also gives Trace Regions, which are other smaller amounts that aren't represented by the circles on the map.
-
Try this facebook page. There is a lot of info you are missing and these people will help explain it to you: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AncestryUKDNA/ DNA help for genealogy(UK)-GEDmatch-ftDNA-AncestryDNA-23andME
-
I have persuaded my two children to "spit in the tube". My son decided to link his result separately so I now see it as a "match". However my daughter's test (still in the lab) is attached to my tree and hopefully this will prove more useful.
My own results, linked to my tree have connected me to several unknown 4th to 6th cousins where we are able to establish a link. The other two thousand possilbe matches remain for me to consider.
I have found it worthwhile. The DNA portion of the site is not particularly friendly but there are some useful videos on the dot.com site that helped me expand my analysis of my results.
I have absolutely no connection to Ancestry!!!
-
I had my 90 year old mother tested, myself and my brother, my husband. Not for ethnicity and personally I'm not sure of the point in that, we all come from one area and its about how quickly our tribe arrived where we are, via what route. Anyway, I've had great fun with the results but you need to get your 32 ancestors or near to them as you can (I have brick walls, illegitimate births etc) but it certainly helps if you want to get matches. Forget surnames for the most part, look for locations. If you're UK and getting lots of US matches check onto ancestry worldwide and get their most recent descendent's ancestor to the 1940, 1930, 1910, 1900 census, look for who was born in England, follow that line back to the UK. Check their death certificates in the US, lots of times they give the parents names. Pick them up in the UK and keep going back to you collide with the same ancestor. Got to think outside the box and be creative in your searches.
-
It does seem the problem is my son is not a subscriber as we don't seem to have any matches. Thanks to the replies I've received here I have now emailed ancestry asking whether any matches can be added to my tree as I'm a long-term subscriber (son is shown as editor to my tree). When I get a response from them I'll post it here in the hope it will help others. At the moment it's a big disappointment
-
He can transfer his results to Gedmatch I would think. You get matches there and it's free. https://www.gedmatch.com/. When familytreedna (FTDNA) resuming taking ancestry.com dna transfers you will get matches there too. Might cost you $39.
-
I agree with josh that Gedmatch is the way to go. I'm not into the ethnicity mix either but they have several different approaches to it. But Gedmatch has some great chromosome browser tools that can help with matches. And it's free.
Re FTDNA uploads, transfers from Ancestry can still be done with chip1 kits which were sold up to May. Anything since, FTDNA hasn't upgraded its system...and I'm inclined to think they never will.
-
Ancestry have advised me that as my son is not a subscriber he cannot see how he is related to any of the matches they provide!! I print this as a warning to others.
The results he received came with the following info:
0 shared ancestor hints, 0 starred matches, 74 4th cousins
It would seem that we have the most boring family in history - not one single match as a result of the DNA testing. I also print this as a warning to others. Having read of the pages of results other people received I'm at a loss to understand how our DNA is so exclusive! As for the 74 possible 4th cousins these seem to be no more than the often-useless 'hints' that ancestry provides to all subscribers - and as far as I can see has nothing to do with DNA testing.
I'm curious - has anyone else come up with a Nil return on the DNA results?
-
As a point of comparison, I will show you what Ancestry gives me and my husband in those categories.
22 Shared Ancestor Hints
6 Starred matches
305 4th cousins or closer
23 Shared Ancestor Hints
0 Starred matches
228 4th cousins or closer
We are both American, so that may skew the number of matches that we received as I believe Ancestry's database currently has more Americans than anyone else.
The starred matches are ones that I made a "favorite", and the shared ancestor hints are based on matches between my and the DNA match's family tree. So, since your son is not a subscriber and doesn't have a tree connected to his DNA results, it makes sense that he has zero there.
The 4th cousins mention he got may refer to "4th cousins or closer". Those matches are based on DNA that he has in common with those people, so they are not useless hints. By looking at their profile and/or tree or contacting them, you may be able to find where the connection is. At this point, it's a matter of getting to look at the results.
-
I wonder if it makes any difference if a non-subscriber links DNA results to you, a subscriber's family tree?
-
I was watching Time Team on You Tube recently. Phil Harding submitted his DNA sample and the results on origination on his female line was Dordogne, France 20,000 years ago!!! He was delighted, Dordogne was a flint knapping area and Phil is a keen flint knapper. Both lines are Celtic. I would have guessed he was an Anglo-Saxon.
Another Rootschatter thinks he is related to me via 2 brothers born in the 1750's. I think he may well be right and hope so. Unfortunately neither of us can justify the expense just now. If circumstances change we will have to submit together and request whether we are descended from the same father. Should be a doddle.
-
Unless everyone involved is a son of a son of a son, etc., I wouldn't do DNA testing expecting to find anything much about the 1750's. From http://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_statistics, ""The probability of having DNA from all of your genealogical ancestors at a particular generation becomes vanishingly small very rapidly; there is a 99.6% chance that you will have DNA from all of your 16 great-great grandparents, only a 54% [chance] of sharing DNA with all 32 of your G-G-G grandparents, and a 0.01% chance for your 64 G-G-G-G grandparents. You only have to go back 5 generations for genealogical relatives to start dropping off your DNA tree."
Perhaps there is something new, but I'm not aware of any commercially available test that can pinpoint your maternal line with a degree of specificity that would locate a town of origin.
-
Thank you for your input shellyesq. That sounds as though the whole thing is a waste of time. Nice little earner for the DNA Labs though.
The same father would be 5 generations ago in our case.
-
It's not a waste of time for everyone, but you have to consider what you're likely to find. I found my birthfather's family through DNA testing, so it's nothing short of a miracle to me. There are many stories like mine.
-
Ancestry have advised me that as my son is not a subscriber he cannot see how he is related to any of the matches they provide!! I print this as a warning to others.
Hi, as I mentioned above why don't you look to transfer the results to you as you are a subscriber, your son will still have access, but you will then be able to see the matches ?
The results he received came with the following info:
0 shared ancestor hints, 0 starred matches, 74 4th cousins
It would seem that we have the most boring family in history - not one single match as a result of the DNA testing. I also print this as a warning to others. Having read of the pages of results other people received I'm at a loss to understand how our DNA is so exclusive! As for the 74 possible 4th cousins these seem to be no more than the often-useless 'hints' that ancestry provides to all subscribers - and as far as I can see has nothing to do with DNA testing.
I think you are miss-understanding the numbers here. As mentioned in other replies the 'shared' matches are against a tree, which you son doesn't have. If you transferred the test to you, you may well get matches against your tree. The starred as mentioned by another person, is just a 'favourite' marker. The 74 matches are not normal waste of time matches, they are actually the closest matches to you tree, the quality here will be dependant on what effort you and the other people put in on there trees to help find the connections, I only have 35 on my results. as for the other having pages and pages, what you are not seeing is distant cousin matches (which is 5th cousin or further back, and that's where the bulk will be (I had about 80 pages, each of 50 matches, when I first got my matches.
Richard
-
Well, finally son and ancestry managed to get the results to me; so his DNA results are linked to my tree.
As I suspected the 4th-6th possible cousins were more like the ancestry hints we get as subscribers. I contacted those most likely to be matches, but none had any connection to our tree - or had taken part in the DNA tests. To be fair, ancestry had put a disclaimer by each 'cousin' - saying there was no DNA match with this person. Most were in the US, We received this message with the map -
We haven't found a New Ancestor Discovery for you yet—stay tuned...
Our latest scientific innovations make it possible to discover ancestors you never knew you had––just through your DNA. We haven't uncovered any for you yet, but we'll keep looking.
As I said, we obviously have a uniquely boring tree! I'll let you know if we get any matches at all. I'd love to know if anyone else had so little positive feedback (just to say, my tree, collected over many years, includes over 6000 names - including in-laws)
-
I think the New Ancestor Discovery thing is being beta tested and those aren't the actual DNA matches. If you go to the DNA page and click on the green button that says "VIEW ALL DNA MATCHES", it should bring to a list of people who have taken DNA tests and match your son.
-
Well, finally son and ancestry managed to get the results to me; so his DNA results are linked to my tree.
As I suspected the 4th-6th possible cousins were more like the ancestry hints we get as subscribers. I contacted those most likely to be matches, but none had any connection to our tree - or had taken part in the DNA tests. To be fair, ancestry had put a disclaimer by each 'cousin' - saying there was no DNA match with this person. Most were in the US, We received this message with the map -
We haven't found a New Ancestor Discovery for you yet—stay tuned...
Our latest scientific innovations make it possible to discover ancestors you never knew you had––just through your DNA. We haven't uncovered any for you yet, but we'll keep looking.
As I said, we obviously have a uniquely boring tree! I'll let you know if we get any matches at all. I'd love to know if anyone else had so little positive feedback (just to say, my tree, collected over many years, includes over 6000 names - including in-laws)
So where are you going to view the matches ? On my results I click on the DNA button in the top menu bar, and a number of 'areas' on the returned page, one of which is labelled 'DNA matches', clicking the view matches on that area, I get a new page with the list of matches. All these people listed are the results from people that have taken DNA tests on ancestry and match to you son, so there is a very high chance they are related, its just now you have the hard bit to work out what the relationships are. Not everybody has linked trees or just have the DNA page like your son). You will find that some people don't respond, or take a while to respond.
If you have the 'new ancestor discovery' then you are really lucky, as that like shellyesq says is a beta feature and actually means you have a number of good solid matches you your sons DNA, and what they are trying to show you is a group of people who share connections, some with DNA matches to you son, but others who only have matches to people that do match him but not him directly. I haven't got this beta feature myself, as I don't have enough close matches.
Richard
-
I was a non-subscriber (though had been in the past) when I submitted DNA test. I had 2 shared ancestor hints, 0 starred matches and 52 4th cousins or closer. The 2 shared hints were both to German ancestors, though someone contacted me from Bristol with mutual Somerset links. I don't have any high hopes of finding any long-lost relatives there. Though I have a friend, like shellyesq mentioned, who did find her biological father and two half-sisters through DNA testing. She did get it tested through 3 sites though to achieve that.
My main interest was the Ethnicity estimate, being an Australian yet on both sides, ancestors very recently came here from UK & Europe. I was surprised that for me ethnicity was 53% Irish only having one great-grandparent from Ireland. Anyway Ancestry kept offering a year subscription at a VERY reduced rate, which I eventually took up and after many years away, find it more user-friendly than it used to be.
-
My parents have both recently done Ancestry DNA tests and I am the one who updates and researches my maternal line on Ancestry. We got two hints (one of which was rubbish, the other is a private tree) and 60 odd cousin matches.
The biggest problem I've had, after people simply not responding, is that a lot of the trees don't go far enough to show me the mutual ancestor. HOWEVER I have, with some investigation of the trees, found a few mutual ancestors quite far back, which has been a wonderful feeling because it feels like vindication that the research has been correctly done and the paperwork might be accurate. Even better, I believe I might be not far off proving the father of my illegitimate great great grandmother as I've got an ancestral match on her paternal father's line.
When the topic of DNA tests first came up I was sceptical of it- for one thing, I thought if someone said "your ancestors came from the middle east six million years ago" you wouldn't be able to prove you weren't being ripped off, but secondly if the results came back with "you have Scottish ancestry" I didn't like the idea that someone might grab the first possible Scottish ancestor they came across using that DNA as proof instead of other evidence. Since doing the test, I've found that with investigation things can be discovered and it has its uses.
I share my 7th great grandparents, Robert TREWARTHA and Ann RALPH with one result. I share my 6th great grandparents Peter BULMER and Elizabeth PIG with another result. My potential 8th great grandparents Nicholas UGLOW and Elizabeth SHORT with another result. My 5th great grandparents Alexander NELSON and Jane HUTCHINSON with another result...
... but those matches came because of poking around with the trees of my matches and looking for the links. Ancestry didn't supply them for me. It's unfortunate, but genealogy always has been a game of finding things out for ourselves.
I'm very much looking forward to narrowing down the guilty party who got my 3rd great grandmother pregnant and hope that with DNA we can at least get it down to one of four brothers.
-
When my parents tested I activated the codes for their kits which probably made it a lot easier for access. Now my mother's first cousin has tested and has activated her own kit (she is not a subscriber) but does have a tree permission. I am hoping it is as simple as her linking her result to my tree. Her kit is still processing.
My father (who is German) was in some DNA circles with people in Louisiana - I couldn't work it out as I thought you had to have mutual links in your trees. Then the DNA circles just vanished after a while. Now says he is not in any.
People not replying at all and not having any tree linked is a problem.
I have my closest match as a 3rd Cousin to my mother and a 4th Cousin to me in the USA. I redid the research. I am pretty sure it is my 4th great uncle who went there, but lack of early BDM's in Ohio makes it difficult. The research has people living in England and America at the same time, kids born in both countries and the wrong father per three baptismal records - so not easy to figure out. Copied across many trees. I have never heard back from the person (and I never told them about the rotten research).
I have worked out about six connections, some in the USA and some in Australia. You do need to have a pretty extensive tree with all the side branches to be able to work it out. It is nice when it helps validates your research.
-
I just read about the DNA. I feel the same way. Disappionting I been with them for years now & they haven't really help me at all. I just check to see if I had any message or found any one new?
No messages & no one new. I would have to sign up for 6 more months to email to any other member now. :( I hope you have better luck. spw
-
I don't feel so bad now I know other people have had disappointing results. Our match remains at one second cousin related to my ex-husband and who used to live round the corner from him. There are 76 'distant cousins' listed but most of them have private trees. Of those who have replied to my messages no-one has recognised any of the surnames on my tree. One American 'distant cousin' did have relatives with the same surname, but although he believed the family may have originated in Scotland he has no clues as to their whereabouts, and the first names of his ancestors are very different from mine (where the same names crop up every generation).
To be honest the only positive result is that two family anecdotes have turned out to be myths: our DNA shows no Jewish ancestry at all, nor is there any Spanish DNA traceable. Not sure I'd have paid so much money just to learn what I suspected anyway. Otherwise there are no surprises, either good or bad.
-
I just had a look on the ancestry web site as I saw the DNA kit was on special offer. I thought I might give it a try and then saw they wanted £20 for postage :o I think I will give it a miss. Bad enough being £71 but that is no discount when you add the postage on top.
Regards panda
-
Spw ,
Have you checked your settings tab on the ancestry page to see if you've got it ticked to receive weekly updates?
-
I notice that with some people if you click on their username and go to profile page it will say if they are a DNA match or not. I have experimented and this is not universal - even with known matches. Why this is not across the board, I do not know???
Would be great to see who else they match to who matches you. I think that would vastly improve it.
I am concerned it is not picking up all matches when you use the search filters.
My mum's first cousin showed no Tasmanian birth location matches, where as Mum and I did. I did try a number of times. Also tried Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Now she does show matches. She should have at least matched to us initially for common ancestors with that birth location. Now she does.
Bit hit and miss.
-
I guess that most of those that have participated in Ancestry's testing are in The United States. Therefore I am not surprised that so few of the matches provide me with the name of an ancestor. My Irish forefathers would have left Ireland either before reasonable record keeping or during the chaos of the famine. So, to start with, it didn't really get me anywhere.
However, both my children and one of my maternal first cousins have also submitted their DNA and suddenly, it all gets a little more focused. Using the "shared matches" function, any person who is a shared match with my cousin and with me and or one or both of my offspring, is definitely a maternal connection. There are eighteen of them and I knew about only five beforehand.
I now plan to entice one of my paternal first cousins to submit a sample and hope for similar results.
There are more nuggets to be unlocked by using the "shared matches" functionality but tempus fugit and the leaves need raking!!
I believe that as more UK people join, life will become more interesting.
BTW it has been fascinating to see the difference in matching between the children. My son seems to have inherited more of my Welsh DNA and my daughter has the Irish blend.
-
I have tested and look at it another way. This is for the long term not the short. The other thing I keep hearing '' oh its mostly Americans who have tested and I wont match'' . Well I say what about helping our American cousins? If we, as shared English stock , don't test, how are they meant to find out their forebears?
I don't expect to find a long lost sister or a missing grandfather as I have accounted for most. Its the deep deep 200 year+ connections I am searching and these American cousins will help me.
:)
-
I agree with DavidG02 - despite the constant "mostly Americans in the database" comments a look at the FTDNA Forums will show that a lot of the Americans on that database are finding they have British Isles DNA that they did not realise they had and are looking for connections.
Kim
-
This Ancestry help article explains the difference between an Ancestry with and without a subscription:
https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/AncestryDNA-with-an-Ancestry-Subscription-US-1460090085520-3160
Your son does have access to his matches. If he clicks on the bit where it says 74 fourth cousins or closer he will be able to see a list of all these cousins and the predicted relationships. There will probably also be several thousand more distant cousins. He can also click on the big green button which says "View DNA matches".
-
Posted on behalf of SPW who has sent the following message to me in error.
Hi
I'm not sure How can I check to see if I am. I tried to get in my account the other day & I can't. I will tried later
Thank you for the idea. spw
-
Even better, I believe I might be not far off proving the father of my illegitimate great great grandmother as I've got an ancestral match on her paternal father's line.
I was wondering if a DNA test would do something similar for me. I have long been very curious if the man who gave his surname to my great grandmother, and married her mother, is the actual biological father. He had brothers and sisters, some who had children who may have descendants. Or his father or mother could have siblings who had descendents. My DNA could match those descendants.
-
BTW it has been fascinating to see the difference in matching between the children. My son seems to have inherited more of my Welsh DNA and my daughter has the Irish blend.
Does the Ancestry DNA test differentiate between Welsh and Irish?
-
Does the Ancestry DNA test differentiate between Welsh and Irish?
No but it is interesting I have a lot more matches that I share with my son and my Welsh cousin than I have with my daughter and my Welsh cousin. In fact I have no instances where I have a shared match with my cousin and my daughter that isn't also matched with my son whilst I have lots with son, cousin but not daughter..
I know what I mean even if I have explained it very poorly :-\
-
My mum's first cousin showed no Tasmanian birth location matches, where as Mum and I did. I did try a number of times. Also tried Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Now she does show matches. She should have at least matched to us initially for common ancestors with that birth location. Now she does.
Bit hit and miss.
I suggest you also upload to FamilyTreeDNA. A transfer without the bells and whistles is free. You can see your matches' trees and contact them via e-mail (rather than a FTDNA message system). If you want to use the chromosome browser and My Origins there is a one-off fee of $19.
FamilyTreeDNA was selling DNA testing kits to Australia long before Ancestry was. I know people with Tasmanian ancestry who tested years ago with FtDNA. You might match them!
-
Although I am primarily a YDNA researcher, I went ahead and took the Family Finder test just to see how many matches I would have. During the last forty years, I have published nine 600 page books which include 58,000 cousins (less than 5 % from any online sources). All my ancestors remained in the deep South in United States with only one European connection to date in the 1730s. To my surprise, I had around 200 matches at FTDNA. After looking at them, I quickly found where the connection in my family histories for around 20 or 30 of these testers. So if you have lines stuck in the US, atDNA should work pretty good. Not a single match in Europe to date - but this is not surprising as I have all my ancestry traced back to 1700s and all but one has anyone proven ties to Europe.
However, testing in of our possible cousins in Ireland is very limited. There is more in England but it pales compared to US testing. For the Casey YDNA FTDNA project which I am the admin, we now have around 75 Casey men who have tested for YDNA. We have around 15 US participants who have traced their ancestry back to Ireland (these are all related in the last 1,200 years or so) and they all came to America in the mid 1800s during the potato famines. But out of the 75 testers - not one person has tested to date that currently resides in Ireland. If you are a Casey descendant in Ireland with your line traced back to at least 1850, I will sponsor a 37 marker test (see my other post for more details). You can contact me offline for more details:
http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R_L226/R_L226_Contact_Project.html
-
I have now re-examined all 74 matches that Ancestry thinks are 4th to 6th cousins using their "Shared matches" tab. It has revealed some interesting connections. for example,
I have a match with Person A and we both share a match with my son, my daughter and also Person B.
Then I have a match with Person G and share that match with Person B (but not A).I also share Person G's match with my Welsh cousin so the chances are that A,B and G are linked through one of my Welsh ancestors.
This puts these individuals in ancestral proximity.
I have one person who shows as only matching me but have several other matches who also match him as well. I appreciate that there might be other connections between them but I think this still might (only might) be significant.
Well I think it's interesting but I don't get out much ::)
-
I have now re-examined all 74 matches that Ancestry thinks are 4th to 6th cousins using their "Shared matches" tab. It has revealed some interesting connections. for example,
I have a match with Person A and we both share a match with my son, my daughter and also Person B.
Then I have a match with Person G and share that match with Person B (but not A).I also share Person G's match with my Welsh cousin so the chances are that A,B and G are linked through one of my Welsh ancestors.
This puts these individuals in ancestral proximity.
I have one person who shows as only matching me but have several other matches who also match him as well. I appreciate that there might be other connections between them but I think this still might (only might) be significant.
Well I think it's interesting but I don't get out much ::)
How can I have failed to notice the Shared Matches function? Epic failure on my part. New fun to be had >:(
-
How can I have failed to notice the Shared Matches function? Epic failure on my part. New fun to be had >:(
I found this after watching a couple of the videocasts in the Ancestry learning centre.
If you are comfortable with excel, then I have found it useful to plot them on a spreadsheet. Each name along Row 1 and then duplicated down Column A.
In the example, Owain isn't shared with my Welsh cousin, but he is shared with Dick who is shared with my Welsh cousin so I assume that Owain is connected on my Welsh side of the tree.
I know what I meant to say. I'm just not sure if I said it.
-
I was attracted to the headline of this thread because I have just had my own very eagerly awaited DNA results back and am feeling an awful sense of anti-climax. If it wasn't for the fact that I personally know my top two matches, I'd be tempted to think they'd got the kit boxes mixed up!
I know it's early days yet, but I haven't been able to find a single surname that matches to my father's side of the family amongst the long lists of 'cousins'. But what concerns me more is that I haven't been matched with someone whom I know is a fourth cousin of mine, and neither am I matched to any of the other people in that line that she has been matched with. Fortunately for me, I have a cousin in law who is much better versed and experienced in this field than I am (it wouldn't be hard!) and she is holding my virtual hand and helping me through it, but unless I find a match soon, I'm going to be worrying about a suspected extra marital event!
I take the point made earlier, that it is more helpful if you come from a more mixed ancestry. Mine has come back 96 per cent British Isles with a smidgeon of Western Europe, which doesn't apparently help.
-
Keep the faith Winterbloom21.
Next Sunday I will be meeting for the first time a third and fourth cousin both found from DNA matches. These are from my Welsh family and I can't imagine being able to find the correct Thomas, Davies, Rees or Griffiths. The chance of identifying the correct cousin in any other way is remote.
As I have said in an earlier posting to this thread, getting a first cousin to take the test had enabled me to say with certainty that any shared match that also is shared with my cousin halves the number of potential ancestors within whom there is a common progenitor.
I have also met another "cousin" with whom we both share DNA. None of us can find the missing link despite each having ancestors living within a mile of each other on the B4337 between Llanybydder and Llansawel. Perhaps a grandparent had a wandering eye?
I have now persuaded a first cousin on my paternal line to submit a test and am really looking forward to finding common matches amongst the 12,500 matches (and rising daily).
Also, consider loading your results to FamilyTreeDNA. It's free and can only increase the admittedly slim chances of finding a living, breathing distant cousin. The site provides all the instructions need to complete the load and it then takes about a day to complete the initial matching and indexing of your results.
-
Funnily enough, Diplodicus, I'm starting to feel a bit more optimistic since this morning already! With the help of Gedmatch, I have now found an albeit low, but nevertheless still a match with my fourth cousin and have also rounded up a group of suspects for another line who share my paternal surname. The wheels obviously grind slow, and it's going to take work, but I do feel much better. Thanks for the encouragement and advice!
-
;D Since my posting yesterday, I have discovered that the group of people who shared my paternal surname are absolutely nothing to do with that line, and it looks like their link to me goes back to an immigrant from the UK in the 1690s, known only by their surname. I'm thinking that if that is the level of closeness we are talking about for this amount of cms, I won't be wasting so much time on the computer from now on!
-
If you investigated their tree you may find it doesn't stack up and the only lines that have been worked back are the ones which support their theory. Or more likely a founding father with the "right" surname has been worked forward and some forenames discovered which fit. No matter that any number of people by the same surname will have migrated between the two countries in the centuries since.
Distant matches could be real or could be spurious, I wouldn't waste too much time on them if a candidate MRCA can't be found the appropriate number of generations back.
Jane :-)
-
You're right Familydar, there's no point in even trying to go that far back. As you say, even if people have a long tree line (which most certainly do not) it's not reliable. I suppose it must be everybody's dream to find a DNA match with somebody who can reliably trace their line back to someone in a social level that is more likely to have documentation available. So having somebody in your family who had actually sunk down the social scale would actually be a good thing, for genealogical purposes!! Ah well.
Incidentally, (looking at your surname interests) where are your Hills from? My patrilineal line is Hill and they come originally (turn of eighteen and nineteenth century) from Worfield in Shropshire.
-
Hi Winterbloom21, my HILLs were in Somerset in the 1700s. My earliest direct HILL ancestor was Edward born around 1786 in Axbridge. His daughter married a LINTON. Subsequent HILL generations seemed to gravitate towards Bristol but other than my direct line I've not traced them any further forward than the mid-1800s. Where I have occupations they seem to have been mainly carpenters. All run-of-the-mill forenames except possibly Soloman. It's not inconceivable that they headed north but I have no evidence to suggest that they did.
I have an ancestor tree online at GEDmatch, I can pm you the gedcom number if you consider it worth having a browse.
best wishes
Jane :-)
-
Why not? Yes please, a pm would be good. As you say, it doesn't look like we're talking about the same family (my gggrandfather was an Edward Hill as well) but you never know, do you? My Edward was born in around 1825 (from memory) in Tettenhall, Wolverhampton and his father William about 1785 in Worfield,Shrops. I think William's Dad was an Edward, too. Must be a popular Hill name!
Best wishes
Siobhán (which is, as it happens, the Irish version of 'Jane'!)
-
Just received my results from Ancestry.com. Is this supposed to be funny?
They came up with 41% Irish, this could be possible from my mother's side.
Then 29% English, most unlikely.
And 30% not identified!
My father was 100% Danish. I am tall, blue-eyed and blond haired, does that sound Scandinavian
or not. What a waste of $180, don't get caught up in this nonsense.
-
I beg to disagree that it is all nonsense
In four hours time, I am meeting up with four third or fourth cousins for the first time, all found through Ancestry's DNA product. I am also in touch with some of my Scots cousins. Amongst them all, one is in Moscow, one in Hawaii and one in Georgia (USA) who is descended from African slaves.
I'm sorry that it hasn't been as interesting for you, Wendy.
May I ask what you expected Ancestry DNA to tell you? Sometimes, I feel it poses more questions than it provides answers.
-
It's the 30% that I'm not satisfied with, that's all my Scandinavian blood not recognized. Why is that? Is Scandinavian (Danish) that hard to recognize? 30% they have no idea about! It seems like
pretty faulty "science" to me.
-
hi wendyridler
Can I suggest that you upload your results to GEDMatch and FTDNA as well. I don't think the former has any ethnicity tools but FTDNA does and they use different groupings from Ancestry. Basic data upload is free to both but there's a one-off fee (apparently $19) to be able to access the ethnicity tools in FTDNA (they call it "myOrigins").
There has been discussion elsewhere about the way FTDNA origins/ethnicities seem to have changed over time, by which I mean that when I first got my results my percentages were different from how they stand now. I think this is because the database has grown so previously unknown ethnicities have been firmed up a bit and possibly they are also using different algorithms now. Perhaps Ancestry hasn't had enough Scandinavian people test to be able to identify Scandi roots with certainty. There's no harm in you contacting Ancestry to ask for an explanation. There may well be something in their DNA wiki but as I'm not a subscriber I'm only guessing at this.
If, as well as your ethnic origins, you are looking to identify distant cousins, the more places you upload your data, the more likely you are to get new matches with people who tested with different companies.
regards
Jane :-)
-
hi wendyridler
Can I suggest that you upload your results to GEDMatch and FTDNA as well. I don't think the former has any ethnicity tools but FTDNA does and they use different groupings from Ancestry. Basic data upload is free to both but there's a one-off fee (apparently $19) to be able to access the ethnicity tools in FTDNA (they call it "myOrigins").
Gedmatch has admixture calculators. It has SEVERAL and it is free.
Some of your Danish could be showing as English Wendy. After all, where were the Angles from?
-
"Gedmatch has admixture calculators"
Thanks hurworth, something I didn't realise.
Jane :)
-
I got my DNA done a few years ago. I have mislaid the results and don't know how to get them again.
All the suggested matches weren't matches, and I don't even match with my 3rd cousin, and we know we are related.
I really don't understand this DNA stuff - perhaps someone could explain in simple english what it's all about.
Regards
Jan
-
Do you know what company that you used? Might you have an old e-mail from them with further information?
There are lots of websites that explain it pretty simply. This one is pretty good - http://www.dna-testing-adviser.com/Autosomal-DNA-Testing.html
-
i too was disappointed with ancestry not only did the price escalate rapidly due to postage ect but the results were vague . Lumping 23% of the dna between Ireland , Scotland ( Celtic ) with France is a joke there needs to be a clear differential or were we Celts living in France !
We had only one 4th cousin match in the USA which i followed up and got a resounding not connected .
With the 23% attributed to Ireland of which we have no history i am wondering about the test being processed there .
-
Actually, the Celts did live in France. Julius Caesar defeated the great Celtic chieftain Versingetorix and completed ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. It marked the end of the great celtic era throughout central and western Europe.
-
I am also becoming extremely sceptical about Ancestry's DNA service. I submitted a test sample back in February, with few or no results.
A second cousin known to me through common family research received his results about six weeks ago. GedMatch almost immediately showed him as the closest available match to me but Ancestry still hasn't noticed a relationship.
Keith
-
Have you linked your family tree to your ancestry dna test Keitht?
-
No, that one had passed me by. I will need to look into how to do so. Thanks for the thought.
Keith
-
With the 23% attributed to Ireland of which we have no history i am wondering about the test being processed there .
The Ireland address is purely administrative. No tests are processed here. They are sent to the US.
-
Keith here is the help on ancestry
https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/ka215000000MU35AAG/Attaching-AncestryDNA-Test-Results-to-an-Ancestry-Member-Tree-1460090082987
No, that one had passed me by. I will need to look into how to do so. Thanks for the thought.
Keith
-
For all those who are struggling understanding their DNA test results there are loads of blogs with help online, plus several Facebook groups with plenty of help and advice.
I am always happy to help, DNA is a magnificent tool for family history research, certainly overwhelming at the beginning, and after that loads of hard work researching trees to try and find your matches - most are not the instant "green leaf" that we all live in hope of.
The ISOGG site is the "bible" of genetic DNA
https://isogg.org/wiki/Portal:Autosomal_DNA
cheers,
Sharon
-
Keith here is the help on ancestry
https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/ka215000000MU35AAG/Attaching-AncestryDNA-Test-Results-to-an-Ancestry-Member-Tree-1460090082987
No, that one had passed me by. I will need to look into how to do so. Thanks for the thought.
Keith
-
Ok, that didn't quite go to plan.
Thanks sbunter for the help. When I checked, my dna was in fact linked to our tree. It offers three "probable" matches, two of which I know to be accurate, together with 66 fourth to eighth cousins, most of which appear, as others have said, to be little more than the usual Ancestry hints. What it does not show is my connection to the second cousin, who reports that his tree does not show a connection to me.. We are both somewhat puzzled.
Keith
-
I am understanding that you both have a match to each other but your green leaf is not showing??
Green leaves are a bit come and go, my Aunt should have 15 but is only showing 4. I use the notes field to write LEAF and the shared ancestor so that I can easily see the connection.
As they have 4 million tests to process I think the leaves can take a while to populate,
hope this helps,
Sharon
Ok, that didn't quite go to plan.
Thanks sbunter for the help. When I checked, my dna was in fact linked to our tree. It offers three "probable" matches, two of which I know to be accurate, together with 66 fourth to eighth cousins, most of which appear, as others have said, to be little more than the usual Ancestry hints. What it does not show is my connection to the second cousin, who reports that his tree does not show a connection to me.. We are both somewhat puzzled.
Keith
-
Yes, we have matches to each other, of which we have been aware for several years and which are confirmed by Gedmatch, yet Ancestry doesn't even flag us up to each other, despite the fact that we are each listed on the other's tree.
Keith
-
Call Ancestry and ask them.
They know how their system works and will give you an explanation I should think.
Yes, we have matches to each other, of which we have been aware for several years and which are confirmed by Gedmatch, yet Ancestry doesn't even flag us up to each other, despite the fact that we are each listed on the other's tree.
Keith
-
Sharon,
I may ultimately do that but for the moment we are both hanging on to see how long it takes for Ancestry to recognise the match. It just amuses me that they can find a load of apparently nebulous matches between me and almost anyone with English and some Scandinavian DNA but can't see a match which Gedmatch demonstrates to be very strong indeed.
Keith
-
Can you explain what you mean here Keith? Can you give details?
You DNA matches are above 90% accurate. Yes, Ancestry use an algorithm to attempt to make the matching more accurate which sometimes filters out definite matches, but all your 4th-6th cousins WILL be cousins, it's a matter of working yours and their trees to find the connection - I spend all day every day doing this, with the help of GEDmatch to find which cousins share the same DNA segment, and therefore the same ancestor. Yes, many have no trees, many have private trees,
and many have inaccurate trees, or trees to small to work with, but there will be enough of your matches that do have trees to keep you busy.
cheers,
Sharon
PS If you are both "hanging" on for your LEAF - you may be waiting a terribly long time for what? It may well be the details in your trees that for some reason Ancestry thinks doesn't match, or there may be a glitch - call their support - that's what they are there for.
Sharon,
I may ultimately do that but for the moment we are both hanging on to see how long it takes for Ancestry to recognise the match. It just amuses me that they can find a load of apparently nebulous matches between me and almost anyone with English and some Scandinavian DNA but can't see a match which Gedmatch demonstrates to be very strong indeed.
Keith
-
Sharon,
I need to learn a lot more about DNA before I can answer your question but I do know what you mean about inaccurate trees because I found one which showed a close match to me but when I examined the tree it was based on a series of errors. In many instances I was able to find the entries the tree owner should have entered and I offered her some of them, at which point she broke contact but I still maintain that it's hard to have several children in the fifteen years after your death, a condition which she admitted had been puzzling her.
As to the match with my cousin, neither of us is particularly bothered. The relationship is well documented and has been attested to by other family members. We have been in contact and sharing research results for about five years now with considerable success.
Keith
-
Yes, lots of that, just move on to the next match :)
I build trees for my matches online so I can try and get to the connection.
I have about 40 trees going at the moment...lol
When I said details from GEDmatch - I meant the one-one match on GEDmatch total shared cM and snps, assuming that both kit numbers begin with A's - this is the important bit :)
Sharon,
I need to learn a lot more about DNA before I can answer your question but I do know what you mean about inaccurate trees <snipped>
Keith
-
What is the significance of the 'A' sbunter?
-
On GEDmatch the letters in front are significant:
AncestryDNA kit numbers start with 'A'
23andMe kit numbers start with 'M'
Family Tree DNA kit numbers start with 'T'
MyHeritageDNA kit numbers start with 'H'
WeGene kit numbers start with 'W'
GenetiConcept kit numbers start with 'E'
Genes for Good kit numbers start with 'G'
Generic or custom kits start with 'Z'
Taken from http://www.genie1.com.au/blog/78-tips-for-using-gedmatch
cheers,
Sharon
What is the significance of the 'A' sbunter?
-
On GEDmatch the letters in front are significant:
AncestryDNA kit numbers start with 'A'
23andMe kit numbers start with 'M'
Family Tree DNA kit numbers start with 'T'
MyHeritageDNA kit numbers start with 'H'
WeGene kit numbers start with 'W'
GenetiConcept kit numbers start with 'E'
Genes for Good kit numbers start with 'G'
Generic or custom kits start with 'Z'
Taken from http://www.genie1.com.au/blog/78-tips-for-using-gedmatch
cheers,
Sharon
What is the significance of the 'A' sbunter?
-
Thank you sbunter
-
Yes, we have matches to each other, of which we have been aware for several years and which are confirmed by Gedmatch, yet Ancestry doesn't even flag us up to each other, despite the fact that we are each listed on the other's tree.
Keith
Keith - have a read of this article by Roberta Estes. The fact that they're not recognising the match between you and your relative might have something to do with Timber.
https://dna-explained.com/2015/11/06/ancestrys-new-amount-of-shared-dna-what-does-it-really-mean/
-
Keith, can you qualify please, do you mean that you don't match each other on Ancestry or you match each other and don't have a green leaf?
Yes, we have matches to each other, of which we have been aware for several years and which are confirmed by Gedmatch, yet Ancestry doesn't even flag us up to each other, despite the fact that we are each listed on the other's tree.
Keith
Keith - have a read of this article by Roberta Estes. The fact that they're not recognising the match between you and your relative might have something to do with Timber.
https://dna-explained.com/2015/11/06/ancestrys-new-amount-of-shared-dna-what-does-it-really-mean/
-
Hi folks,
Sorry for the tardy reply. Been away for a couple of days. I need to go through what you are all offering. When I've done that I'll come back with my thoughts.
Keith
-
I also found my results disappointing. I don't think they test at all -- just check out your Family Tree. Even worse, is Heritage. Their DNA test result listed me as Spanish and Asian. I am actually English and Welsh.
-
Just to redress the balance a bit...
I have found my Ancestry DNA experience to be really interesting. I agree that there are restrictions on the way they report "Shared Matches" and I presume that this is an attempt to simplify what are difficult concepts (SNPs. centimorgans, etc). Getting both a paternal and a maternal cousin to test was very useful for those matches where they were one of the shared list. It directed the search to one half of my tree or the other.
I have over 360 shared matches (so far) and few of them are with only my close family. I attribute the volume to two things: most of my paternal line is Irish and since most tests are performed on people in the US, I am likely to find many distant cousins who fled the famine and deprivation of the catholic population. My mother's side is all Welsh and again there was a mass migration from agricultural South Wales to the US and on to Utah where the Mormon faith attracted people long-used to religious non-conformism. Much nineteenth century US coal was dug out by the blood of the men of "The Land of My Fathers" (or in my case "Mothers").
I have also uploaded my results to Familytreedna.com and Gedmatch. There are some good matches there but I daren't start yet another activity stream; I'm already out-of-control with all the contacts available to me.
Whilst I acknowledge the benefit of my particular ancestral pedigree I don't think that this makes my experience particularly unusual. My two children's mother was born in Poland and looking at their results, there are plenty of shared matches from that side of the family. Most of these are Polish emigrees to the US but there are lots of them. I look forward to finding more shares as and when Ancestry's marketing momentum pushes them further into mainland Europe.
-
One of my sons who lives in USA had an Ancestry DNA test, courtesy of a birthday present from his partner. He said most matches were too distant to bother about, but there were two women who were fairly close. One was his 2/3rd cousin and the other 3/4th cousin - not sure why those are a bit vague. Anyway both are on Ancestry and he contacted the 2/3rd one but got no response, so he then contacted the 3/4th cousin. She replied and gave him a list of surnames in her family tree, but not one matched any of the surnames in my tree. I gave my son the details of two of my g.g.uncles who emigrated to Boston, USA in 1870s/80s to see if the woman recognised any of the names but he's not had any response - so a bit disappointing really.
-
A third cousin can be a long, long way back. I found a third cousin (who I now have had the pleasure of meeting) and our common ancestor was born in 1790!
Estimated relationships are based on the length of a shared length of DNA. They're always 2/3 or 3/4 or 5/8.
-
A third cousin can be a long, long way back.
3rd cousins have 2xg.grandparents in common and my sons 2xg.grandparents were born in the mid 1800s. If the woman and my son share a g.g.grandparent, then I have all my sons g.g.grandparents on my tree as, naturally, they are only my g.grandparents. Likewise if one of the woman is a 3/4th cousin I have my sons 3 and 4 x g.grandparents on my tree.
Perhaps you are young, but although mid 1800s sounds a long time ago, my mother was born in 1911 and her grandparents were born in the mid 1800s. As she was next to the youngest of 10 children my mum didn't know her grandparents as they died not long before she was born, but her older siblings knew them and used to talk about them, so my mum was also able to talk about them to me.
-
Hi, I am a biologist and unfortunately the problem lies in the way these companies do the tests and the levels at which they investigate. For example, none of us are really English, or British: we all came West, so a proper analysis would find which part of Europe we originated from etc. I think it is all a bit hit and miss and the DNA can't really tell everything at this level. It's a shame when we get different results from different companies and agree, it's the algorithms etc that they use.
-
I also found my results disappointing. I don't think they test at all -- just check out your Family Tree.
I, and probably thousands of others, had/have no family tree attached to their results, so that theory is just not possible.
-
"Disappointment" implies a result that did not meet the expectations of the customer even if these expectations were unrealistic. I feel that Ancestry Inc. can be held to blame for inflating expectations of potential customers for their DNA testing.
It's all very well for us nerds to understand what constitutes a reasonable expectation but that isn't how it's promoted. The adverts suggest that the results of DNA test will indundate the customer with loads of relations. In a nerdy way it's true (a gene match is likely to be a far distant relation) but not in any way that is meaningful to the occasional genealogist or the simply curious individual who has never before considered his or her ancestry.
I think we will continue to hear of such disappointments for as long as Ancestry promotes their DNA testing in the way that they do.
-
My parents have both recently done Ancestry DNA tests and I am the one who updates and researches my maternal line on Ancestry. We got two hints (one of which was rubbish, the other is a private tree) and 60 odd cousin matches.
The biggest problem I've had, after people simply not responding, is that a lot of the trees don't go far enough to show me the mutual ancestor. HOWEVER I have, with some investigation of the trees, found a few mutual ancestors quite far back, which has been a wonderful feeling because it feels like vindication that the research has been correctly done and the paperwork might be accurate. Even better, I believe I might be not far off proving the father of my illegitimate great great grandmother as I've got an ancestral match on her paternal father's line.
When the topic of DNA tests first came up I was sceptical of it- for one thing, I thought if someone said "your ancestors came from the middle east six million years ago" you wouldn't be able to prove you weren't being ripped off, but secondly if the results came back with "you have Scottish ancestry" I didn't like the idea that someone might grab the first possible Scottish ancestor they came across using that DNA as proof instead of other evidence. Since doing the test, I've found that with investigation things can be discovered and it has its uses.
I share my 7th great grandparents, Robert TREWARTHA and Ann RALPH with one result. I share my 6th great grandparents Peter BULMER and Elizabeth PIG with another result. My potential 8th great grandparents Nicholas UGLOW and Elizabeth SHORT with another result. My 5th great grandparents Alexander NELSON and Jane HUTCHINSON with another result...
... but those matches came because of poking around with the trees of my matches and looking for the links. Ancestry didn't supply them for me. It's unfortunate, but genealogy always has been a game of finding things out for ourselves.
I'm very much looking forward to narrowing down the guilty party who got my 3rd great grandmother pregnant and hope that with DNA we can at least get it down to one of four brothers.
Hi Ayashi, I am not sure if this is the right placeto reply to your message, re Ancestry DNA test, disappointing result, but I did a ydna test for my brother in 2009. I havent had a good result as yet. It was familytreedna. Our nephew had onedone for him as well. the nephew matched a hundred per ent, but we didnt match anyone in the PLACE family. My Gt GF had two brothers. Two decendants one from ech brother had a ydna test done. That is the maleChromosone just the male line. We didnt match either,so there is an oopseither from one of my Gt GM or maybe a sister of my 2nd great grandfather. Could be my GT GF wasthe oops. I cantget anyone else in another line but from my GT GF lot to do a test to see if they too match ours but not the Place line. The Place line only match as far as 1600, so who kows if they would match further back. With the Ancestry test, I understood it was more a haplogroup match, nomadic, where you come from rather than a genetic match.A male has his mothers and fathers dna, whereas a woman only the female line. Ancestry has an ad, where females comeon and say they had their DNA done and found their grandfather, as far as I know that couldnt be, could it as his female line would be his mothers dna, whereas the daughters would be her mothers. Something like that. So most of the matches at least the distanct ones would be more nomadic or somewhere on a very large tree over hundreds of years. I have found that most folk who did have a similar match, were not interested unless it was found they were definitely on your line. I think that is a shame as if yu do have a match, even distantly, same name, you are still family. We couldnt find the same name match and not even a different name match to other Place families. Not impresed as the very first test back the 12 marker, was inconclusive. that put me off big time. I did do a familyfinder, but they ask you for family names. I think they go looking for people with the same name. then give you a match. I had a lady get in touch in America who had a Place relative,but my brother who is my natural brother did not have a Place relative in the US, from the ydna test. So where did mine come from. I am female the nephew looks like my dad and is 100 per cent same as my brothers dna, enough to put you off isn't it? A lot of folk have success, but you need others with the same name to take the test, if none does then you wont get a match. More folk are taking the ydna test. Dont think ancestry have that test do they?
-
I was attracted to the headline of this thread because I have just had my own very eagerly awaited DNA results back and am feeling an awful sense of anti-climax. If it wasn't for the fact that I personally know my top two matches, I'd be tempted to think they'd got the kit boxes mixed up!
I know it's early days yet, but I haven't been able to find a single surname that matches to my father's side of the family amongst the long lists of 'cousins'. But what concerns me more is that I haven't been matched with someone whom I know is a fourth cousin of mine, and neither am I matched to any of the other people in that line that she has been matched with. Fortunately for me, I have a cousin in law who is much better versed and experienced in this field than I am (it wouldn't be hard!) and she is holding my virtual hand and helping me through it, but unless I find a match soon, I'm going to be worrying about a suspected extra marital event!
I take the point made earlier, that it is more helpful if you come from a more mixed ancestry. Mine has come back 96 per cent British Isles with a smidgeon of Western Europe, which doesn't apparently help.
hello Winterbloom,
Your DNA attempts read like my brothers did for a familytreedna test. His doesnt match the two descendants of two of our GT GF brothers. They match other PLACE family members back to 1600, but cant find a common relationship on our family tree back to any of those back to 1600. There are one or two family facial traits for the children of the second marriage of my GT GF, ie gap between the front teeth, I had that before I closed it up and a son did, that makes me think there is an oops about the time of the birth of my GT GF. I had a ydna test done for my brother a 67 marker but the first 12 marker came bak inconclusive, then a fortnight lager we recei ed the results it was a r1b1b2 whereas the others in our family who tested was a R1a1 group. Disappointed and still a sceptic.
-
Hi, I am a biologist and unfortunately the problem lies in the way these companies do the tests and the levels at which they investigate. For example, none of us are really English, or British: we all came West, so a proper analysis would find which part of Europe we originated from etc. I think it is all a bit hit and miss and the DNA can't really tell everything at this level. It's a shame when we get different results from different companies and agree, it's the algorithms etc that they use.
Hi Gaynorf, asa Biologist, do you have a preference of the various companies. Who would you suggest. I wouldnt mind retesting my rothhers ydna with another company. I had him tested with Familytreedna, disappointing result as I know we share the same father and I am prettys ure my tree is correct back to at least my GT GF at that point two brothers descnedants of my GT GF have tested have correctly match woth others of the same name. We at the moment donot match anyone with the same name.
Thanks for your opinion. if that is allowed of course.
-
"Disappointment" implies a result that did not meet the expectations of the customer even if these expectations were unrealistic. I feel that Ancestry Inc. can be held to blame for inflating expectations of potential customers for their DNA testing.
It's all very well for us nerds to understand what constitutes a reasonable expectation but that isn't how it's promoted. The adverts suggest that the results of DNA test will indundate the customer with loads of relations. In a nerdy way it's true (a gene match is likely to be a far distant relation) but not in any way that is meaningful to the occasional genealogist or the simply curious individual who has never before considered his or her ancestry.
I think we will continue to hear of such disappointments for as long as Ancestry promotes their DNA testing in the way that they do.
I have really liked the calm measured way you have approached this subject. I agree its the sales pitch that has soured it for a lot
Why am I testing?
1. Curiosity
2. To check a family myth ( 1 busted 1 still to be confirmed/busted)
3. To break down brickwalls ( 1 at least )
4. To check if my paperwork is correct
5. YDNA to confirm paternal background
I have no expectation that DNA testing will solve world hunger or find the exact pinpoint match to unlock why my GGgrandfather is hard to pin down. I dont hold steadfast views that my father is my father or his father is his. I am open to all of that.
I use my 2nd cousins to confirm paperwork and connections. I dont expect 2nd cousins to match at Ggrandparent level. I am wise enough to recognise the match can be further back. ie if I see a 2nd-4th cousin match I dont get upset if I cant find the match.
Just as I only use 5th cousins to name check. If there is no recognisable names then so be it. I am indeed spoiled for choice. 1600 matches and counting after 1 year. Many more to come from October when the YDNA test results are in.
Am I disappointed to have 1600 matches out of '' 50 million tests sold'' . No. I am excited to find the matches to them ;)
On to the non-response. Its annoying but its to be expected. But its made up by the responses I do get. Sunshine and lollipops.
I have said this elsewhere but I am playing the long game. This is for the next 20 years. Testing will be more precise, it will get better and more matches will appear. Its not the matches today that excite me its the matches that turn up tomorrow.
Good luck everyone and dont look for the secret of life at Ancestry or FTDNA :)
-
I am sure a lot of you will know of the really useful ISOGG site...
https://isogg.org/ (https://isogg.org/)
... already but it led me to this blog entry that, I feel, deals nicely with the whole topic of "Ethnicity Estimates"...
http://britishgenes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/confusion-and-joy-from-ancestrydna-test.html (http://britishgenes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/confusion-and-joy-from-ancestrydna-test.html)
-
I too was initially disappointed with what the Ancestry DNA test. I'm not sure what I expected, what information I thought I'd get. So I just let the results sit there for months and did nothing. Then just recently, I decided to put a bit of work into it, so I started contacting people that turned up as matches. I particularly wanted to find out more about my Irish g-grandfather, but due to his name I didn't have high hopes... John Murphy. :o
In the last week, thanks to linking with a DNA match, I have gone back two more generations on this family, found out where John's brother died, found immigration records and best of all, made a new international friend who is as excited as I am at discovering our link.
There are disappointments - people who seem to be good matches who have no tree or don't respond to your messages.
I have just this last week tested my Mum to focus my results a bit more.
-
Part 1 of 2
Just like regular genealogical research, the expectations of many genetic genealogists is just too high. The atDNA testing companies (Ancestry.com, 23andme and FTDNA Family Finder) is really good for those just starting out and want to use technology to find relatives - which is it does well in many scenarios. If you have very recent adoption (or suspect one) - then atDNA testing can be extremely useful.
However, these companies that are selling these products are profit making companies just like those companies that sell cars. To expect sales claims to align with reality is just not realistic. On the other hand, these companies are drawing many new generational testers due to technology aspect - who eventually move onto more complex DNA testing and become new skilled genealogical researchers as well.
Since genetic testing is a market driven economy, do not expect that all geographies are covered equally. By far the best coverage are Irish and Scottish testers. Why ? They fit into the science much better: 1) clan names tend to have the primary clan septs with very large living offspring today (unlike the English Brooks surname that proves that living by a brook (stream) just does not mean much for relatedness). Also, those people that English speaking ancient ancestors started using surnames in earnest around 1,000 years which helps a lot. Americans drive most of the testing since we are lack the rich ancestry due to only being a country for just over two centuries. Americans researching DNA also enjoy huge increases in population due the western expansion of migration with plentiful land (and the sad fact that the native population has plummeted to only a few percent of Americans).
Irish ancestors are specially blessed by for genetic testing since Americans have literally ten times the Irish blood flowing in our veins than the entire Republic of Ireland. Canadians and Australian/NZ each have as much Irish blood flowing through their veins as the Republic of Ireland. If you have an English line that may not have immigrated to America, you will struggle much more in finding cousins. The bottom line, anyone who expects that the Czech line is covered just as well as Irish lines just needs to get connected to the reality of the market place and adjust their expectations. Having Czech ancestors in traditional genealogical research is much easier since their surnames are much easier to find (until the names morph into something more English over time).
-
Part 2 of 2
Also, there are those that are trying very hard to convince others that atDNA testing address brick walls. They have a bias of atDNA testing since they started out with atDNA testing. Also, YDNA testing only covers one all male line, so its investment to make progress is much higher but the yields will be much better in the long run. Once you reach back into the 1700s, atDNA matches just fall off the map - yes I know that there can be exceptions but there are definitely technical limitations in atDNA testing. Also, those testing mtDNA - I just do not understand why there is such interest by genealogists who are falling into the hype of being a all female line test. mtDNA has only 16,000 base pairs in its structure and YDNA has 58,000,000 base pairs (only around 20,000,000 can be read currently or is useful for genealogical research). In the battle of sample size, mtDNA just is not relevant unless you want to contribute to the migration of women kind thousands of years ago. There are a handful of exceptions - but this biology just has extreme limitations associated with it.
YDNA remains mainly an investment in the future for most testers. However, a growing number of YDNA testers are making some serious progress. With Big Y testing, we are now regularly getting a new mutation every five generations or so. If you use mutations in complex areas of the YCHR, you can get that down to every four generations and FGC's YElite tests with 30 % more coverage, gets you down to one mutation every three generations. The Chromium enhanced YElite test covers right at twice of much as Big Y (currently too high of cost at $2,950), but YSNP mutations could get down to every two generations.
Throw in YSTR mutations at 67 markers into this mix and you can actually start finding a few combination of YSTRs and YSNPs assigned to a very unique few testers that are now being assigned to actual ancestors on pedigree charts (less than one percent now). For instance, the YSNP mutation Y5610 means that you are direct descendant of King Brian Boru (lived just over 1,000 years ago). We also have five YSNP branches below Y5610 and around ten branches based on a combination of YSNPs and YSTR mutations. That is really starting to make some serious genealogical progress on this very common Irish surname = O'Brien. On the downside, the vast majority of even the R-L226 O'Brien testers are not descendants of King Brian Boru.
Once we figure out how to use the 500 YSTRs being reported with every Big Y test, we will have several mutations assigned to each male ancestor on our pedigree chart in the next ten years. Unfortunately, this will require ten to one hundred times the current testers to sort out, IT costs and software tools will far exceed the costs of the actual DNA testing and much of the analysis will no longer be possible via manual analysis (requiring very complex software to sort out). But the long term promise of YDNA testing is nothing less revolutionary. However, this kind of progress will not be found by all. Those that have prolific numbers of offspring will get there first. Those that are very genetically isolated will get there first. Those with ancestors in western Europe will get there sooner due to the market driven aspect.
-
Part 1 of 2
...Since genetic testing is a market driven economy, do not expect that all geographies are covered equally. By far the best coverage are Irish and Scottish testers. Why ? They fit into the science much better: 1) clan names tend to have the primary clan septs with very large living offspring today (unlike the English Brooks surname that proves that living by a brook (stream) just does not mean much for relatedness)...
Many English surnames are not much different to the way Irish or Scots surnames evolved, in the sense that many of them also have regional clusters and relatedness, as in a type of 'clan'. To take some from my own tree as an example
Hoyle - West Riding of Yorkshire/ parts of East Lancashire
Bruerton - Parts of Staffordshire/Warwickshire
Metcalf - North Yorkshire and the North East
Holland - Parts of Lancashire
Tuston - Hampshire
Irish ancestors are specially blessed by for genetic testing since Americans have literally ten times the Irish blood flowing in our veins than the entire Republic of Ireland. Canadians and Australian/NZ each have as much Irish blood flowing through their veins as the Republic of Ireland. If you have an English line that may not have immigrated to America, you will struggle much more in finding cousins...
'blood flowing through their veins...'
The Irish diaspora, like any ancient or early industrial diaspora, is more complicated than that and more Irish moved to the UK than to America. Also just as many English migrated to the colonies/USA as did the Irish
Irish, Scots, Welsh and English have been migrating, circulating around the British Isles and intermarrying for thousands of years and basically share the same ethnicity/'blood' and are of very similar cultures. There may well still be clusters of deeply related people from old 'clans' or 'tribes' in cut off rural places like Connacht, the Shetland Islands, Anglesey and Norfolk but this is only a small proportion of each countries overall population.
England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales were not divided by impenetrable walls that prevented the movement of people. Industrialisation, beginning as early as the 17th century, and the British armed forces, meant people from each corner of Britain/Ireland migrated and mingled quite freely.
An example of how far back this goes is an in-law in my own tree.
My gt gt aunt married a man in the North of England with a very distinct 'Irish' name. At first I assumed his family had migrated to work in industry in the 19th century and that they might also have migrated due to the famine (many Irish from famine hit areas migrated to the North of England/Scotland) but on researching his tree, I found that his direct male line had been in this part of England for hundreds of years and that they had intermarried with local English families. His name is Irish but the vast majority of his tree is English. The reverse will be true of an English man who might have migrated to Ireland in say the 1500 or 1600's or even earlier . The history of the people of this little corner of Europe is complex because the people, ancient and modern, moved around and intermarried so often and over thousands of years.