RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: melba_schmelba on Monday 03 June 19 12:33 BST (UK)
-
I've suspected this might be the case for a while so I thought I'd settle it and go through and count -of my top 50 matches, 18 of those, approximately 1/3 have no trees! This might go some way to explaining why people find a lot less matches than they expect, and goes to show the limitations of searching by surname, or common ancestors. Even those that do have trees, are more often than not unlinked or have less than 100 people so only go up to grandparent or great great grandparent level, probably only on certain lines, so still might not show up anything useful with a surname search. It gets very frustrating when you have a whole group of shared matches, and nearly all have no trees, and any that do aren't useful. I wonder if there's someway Ancestry can get through to people better the importance of adding at least your immediate ancestral line in finding relatives?
-
I've come across people who have not invested in certs!...but rely on DNA matches/info. from books etc. & ones which have trees, have copied wrong info. from hints!
I found someone who'd actually done DNA, had a tree but had included my family from hints!...
I sorted her family out for her (at my cost) on SP (scotlandspeople)!
The people from my family had same forenames/surnames/circa dates as her lot although 2 very different islands in Scotland but on a map probably look closer than they are.
She'd looked at census transcriptions & assumed mine to be hers but had no certs. i.e. births/marriages & relying on free info!
A few certs. from SP was the simple solution for minimal cost.
The woman was thankful of my help to put her on the right road (to the isles) ;)
I haven't gone the DNA route yet but thanks to your post a few days ago with the Anc offer, I ordered a kit having pondered it for a number of yrs!
Annie
-
I think part of the problem is why they got the test in the first place- it may have been curiosity about their geographical ancestry (the part of the test that provides vague and potentially changing information about "your ancestors came from Europe!") or it may have been a gift from someone else. They may have no interest in pursuing the finer details or assisting others.
One thing I'm glad Ancestry changed is making a note on the match for whether or not they have an unattached tree (you used to have to go into their profile to find out) and, further to that, a suggestion I made of having an option to filter out those who don't have trees. It's annoying sometimes, especially when they are close matches and you want to know where they fit in, but if you've got thousands of matches you don't want to keep scrolling down page after page of "no tree" "no tree" "no tree" if there's no way you can figure out who they are.
-
Hi
I took the test to find out my ethnicity was worried about giving out personal info so didn't immediately attach it to a tree.
When I came to take the plunge I found myself in trouble.
I was aiming to do one tree for each of my great grandparents. I've started on 3 of them ,lots of people,lots of hints.Not to blow my own trumpet but I think I've done a good job.
Then I tried to attach the DNA.
I tried my maternal great grandfather Mobberly ,trouble is when I tried to attach it ,it brought the first person I typed in on that tree and insisted it was me .This is a guy born in the 1730's .
I can't change it.
I can't add it to other trees.
I can't do a separate DNA tree with all the surnames on.
I can't put the problem right.
It is now absolutely useless.
It's not always the person who took the test's fault .
Sometimes Ancestry says No!
Glad to get that off my chest
But really quite a few people get in touch over my Ancestry tree without it.
And if i'm being honest ,most of them I have nothing to say too.They are 5th /6th cousins we know of no one we both know.I give them some extra info ,I mostly get nothing back.Be thankful your top 50 matches haven't got in touch.
My score is 11/50.The top 2 I already know ,no 3 I can work out from his surname and the rest are 4-6th cousins.I like to help but it's all there on my tree.As I said I've done a large tree and some connections are so far apart I just have nothing to share. I cringe when they get in touch.I don't want to be nasty ,it's not personal but what can say?
Really ideas appreciated because I'd really like to say something nice.
Ciderdrinker
-
Ciderdrinker, Suggestions for you to sort your problem out.
1. Download all 3 trees via gedcom to a family tree programme ftp - there are plenty of free ones if you haven't got one already.
2. Combine them into one tree, by adding them to the same file in your ftp
3. Add a pseudonym if required for you and your parents, attach everybody in the right order, so that you have one complete family tree.
4. Upload this via gedcom to Ancestry
5. Attach your DNA results to you
6. Build up the missing quarter of your tree.
7. Re-add if necessary any attached ancestry records.
Hope this helps. Attaching your DNA to only one quarter of your tree is not going to be very productive, even if you had managed to attach your results to your grandmother's name.
Regards Margaret
-
Thanks for that Margaret
Ciderdrinker
-
One serious and continuous reply and that is my Nephew
3 4 pages of people with no trees.. totally useless.
xin
-
There is one 'bright side' about all this - I share the frustrations of DNA matches often having done very little research.
I have an 'unattached' tree myself, as I have always wanted to keep my tree Private and opening it to attach to DNA requires me to make it Public, so far as I can see.
However, many Rootschatters have been researching family history for some time.
I would not class myself amongst the 'experts' here (whose insights often amaze me), but I am quite competent to use Ancestry/FindmyPast/FamilySearch and the GRO to follow (or make a good shot at following) other people's family history.
So at least I can congratulate myself on a level of expertise which otherwise we would all here take for granted.
I do find, though, when I demonstrate this slight expertise to inexperienced DNA matches, that they can get quite overwhelmed by the level of information which is readily available online from censuses and other documents in a relatively short time. So I research their families for them, and then they go very quiet indeed (ie silent), when I tell them what I've tracked down.
-
IgorStrav.
You can attach a private tree to your DNA results if you want to, but it isn't particularly helpful to any of your matches. Make it searchable, so that others can at least others see surnames and places
I would rather keep mine private, so have made my main tree both private and unsearchable.
I have attached a direct ancestor only tree to my DNA results - no attached records or sources.
As I am the one who makes contact with others, this works well for me, but it doesn't work all that well for other matches looking at my tree, but it's the best I can do.
Regards Margaret
-
You're lucky it's as high as a 1/3. I go down pages and pages of "No trees" and many of the unlinked trees when I investigate have 3 or fewer people - all private of course.
-
Sometimes no tree people have a friendly profile picture
Which encourages me to send them a note of what im looking for and why and they may at least tell me where their grandparents come from .
Adoptees often dont have trees or only know mithers name and dont know if still living
so they usually appreciate contact
-
IgorStrav.
You can attach a private tree to your DNA results if you want to, but it isn't particularly helpful to any of your matches. Make it searchable, so that others can at least others see surnames and places
I would rather keep mine private, so have made my main tree both private and unsearchable.
I have attached a direct ancestor only tree to my DNA results - no attached records or sources.
As I am the one who makes contact with others, this works well for me, but it doesn't work all that well for other matches looking at my tree, but it's the best I can do.
Regards Margaret
Oh it is helpful Margaret. My trees are private but searchable and link to each of my parent's DNA. As I found with many of my common ancestor links, it is often my trees that have been used to make those links for me and others to see.
-
From my top 50 there are 26 with public linked trees, 8 with unlinked trees and 2 with private trees. So I have 72% with trees.
-
My top 50 -
18 public decent sized tree.
9 private tree
9 unlinked tree
14 no tree or very very small tree, 1 or 3 person tree
Percentage same as Craclyn's.
24 connection found, 26 no connection found.
With their improved DNA matching with common ancestors I have a lot more confirmed matches (within the bounds of Ancestry having no chromosome browser).
Regards Margaret
-
IgorStrav.
You can attach a private tree to your DNA results if you want to, but it isn't particularly helpful to any of your matches. Make it searchable, so that others can at least others see surnames and places
I would rather keep mine private, so have made my main tree both private and unsearchable.
I have attached a direct ancestor only tree to my DNA results - no attached records or sources.
As I am the one who makes contact with others, this works well for me, but it doesn't work all that well for other matches looking at my tree, but it's the best I can do.
Regards Margaret
Oh it is helpful Margaret. My trees are private but searchable and link to each of my parent's DNA. As I found with many of my common ancestor links, it is often my trees that have been used to make those links for me and others to see.
Point taken, Melba. With the new common ancestor link, private trees, as long as they are searchable, are useful to all those with possible 'common ancestors'. But to me, looking at fairly close matches with a private tree and no common ancestor, they aren't much good at all.
There again, I think that the direct ancestor only tree which I have attached to my results is of limited use to others, as the connection is often to be found by tracing the siblings.
If I matched with either of your parents at 5th to 8th cousin level for example with no common ancestor suggested by Ancestry, their tree would be of no use to me whatsoever, unless perhaps I could identify a likely surname or place of interest by searching. My tree would be of little use to you unless we both had the same direct ancestor or place, which you could readily see.
If we were connected the generation before a brick wall, the only way of identifying MRCA would be if both of us had full, well searched, well sourced public trees attached to our DNA, with siblings, half siblings, nieces etc included - as wide a tree as possible. But we are both DNA enthusiasts, we would work our way around this if the evidence was compelling enough. Others with less enthusiasm might give up at the first hurdle.
Confronted with a private tree, I skip past it most of the time, but as you say, they are becoming more helpful. :)
Regards Margaret
-
IgorStrav.
You can attach a private tree to your DNA results if you want to, but it isn't particularly helpful to any of your matches. Make it searchable, so that others can at least others see surnames and places
I would rather keep mine private, so have made my main tree both private and unsearchable.
I have attached a direct ancestor only tree to my DNA results - no attached records or sources.
As I am the one who makes contact with others, this works well for me, but it doesn't work all that well for other matches looking at my tree, but it's the best I can do.
Regards Margaret
Hi Margaret
My tree is Private but searchable. I can see no way of 'attaching' it to my DNA results without making it Public.
When I first received my DNA results, I made the tree Public for a period to see if I would be included in any DNA circles. This did not happen, and so after 3 months I made it Private again. During that time I was not contacted by any DNA matches.
I have a number of DNA matches who have Public Trees, some with many people on them. There are a great number of matches where I can see no connection, despite the number of names on their tree.
So I've concluded that anyone interested in contacting me will probably do so, with or without a Public Tree.
I've had no approaches from any DNA matches since my results were available last year - all the contacts have been via me approaching other people.
And some of them I've done quite extensive trees for.
Not complaining - it is as it is.
-
IgorStrav, You can attach your DNA results to a private searchable tree. This will then give you access to Common Ancestors and ThruLines. Your matches would be able to see limited information about a person in your tree who is part of the chain in their ThruLines but would not be able to see parents, children or sources.
-
IgorStrav, You can attach your DNA results to a private searchable tree. This will then give you access to Common Ancestors and ThruLines. Your matches would be able to see limited information about a person in your tree who is part of the chain in their ThruLines but would not be able to see parents, children or sources.
Thanks, Cracklyn. I already have access to Common Ancestors and ThruLines - so I assume that matches can already see the limited Tree information you mention.
When I open my DNA page, I see a prompt suggesting I 'update my Tree Privacy Settings', and when I look at these it confirms my tree is Private but Searchable.
It's just that I don't recall having been asked to 'attach' a tree to the DNA results.
-
IgorStrav.
You can attach a private tree to your DNA results if you want to, but it isn't particularly helpful to any of your matches. Make it searchable, so that others can at least others see surnames and places
I would rather keep mine private, so have made my main tree both private and unsearchable.
I have attached a direct ancestor only tree to my DNA results - no attached records or sources.
As I am the one who makes contact with others, this works well for me, but it doesn't work all that well for other matches looking at my tree, but it's the best I can do.
Regards Margaret
Hi Margaret
My tree is Private but searchable. I can see no way of 'attaching' it to my DNA results without making it Public.
When I first received my DNA results, I made the tree Public for a period to see if I would be included in any DNA circles. This did not happen, and so after 3 months I made it Private again. During that time I was not contacted by any DNA matches.
I have a number of DNA matches who have Public Trees, some with many people on them. There are a great number of matches where I can see no connection, despite the number of names on their tree.
So I've concluded that anyone interested in contacting me will probably do so, with or without a Public Tree.
I've had no approaches from any DNA matches since my results were available last year - all the contacts have been via me approaching other people.
And some of them I've done quite extensive trees for.
Not complaining - it is as it is.
Yes it is perfectly possible to attach a private tree to your results so you are correctly linked to other people and you should then get many common ancestor matches. Go to your main DNA page. Click settings in the top right. Scroll down - there should be a heading 'Family Tree linking'. You should then be able to select a tree from there that is either on your account on another account that you have full access to. You also select who you, or the person whose DNA you are managing is in that tree.
-
You must have made the attachment at some stage. Probably when you activated your kit. It asks you if you want to connect your result. You select the tree then select the profile in the tree.
-
Well, there you go - thanks very much for all the advice.
Melba_schmelba I can see that I indeed have linked my Private Tree to my DNA results.
I am also getting Thru-Lines and Common Ancestors.
I've also done a lot of work on my matches using common matches to sort into groups although many of the groups remain very mysterious!
Not at all sure that making the tree Public would produce any more results (or replies!)
-
Not at all sure that making the tree Public would produce any more results (or replies!)
I doubt if you will ever know the answer to that.
My personal approach is that I prioritise follow up of matches that have public trees. If a match has a private tree they get bumped to the bottom of my follow up list and when I do follow them up then I will attempt to do it myself without making contact. I talk to the low hanging fruits first.
-
Not at all sure that making the tree Public would produce any more results (or replies!)
As Craclyn says, you will never know, but you can guess.
When I first got my DNA results back my tree was private. I soon realised the limitations of private trees for other researchers, so made my tree public.
After a while I realised that my tree was being copied word for word by all and sundry. I don't mind sharing my research, because they aren't just my ancestors, but everyones. But none of them had made any efforts to back up my research. No attached records or sources, just the names and dates copied over, sometimes to the right person in their tree, sometimes not.
I then changed to a direct ancestor only tree, keeping my very much bigger tree private. I will give access to anybody who contacts me with a reason for access.
During all three different phases I have still only been contacted first by one person at Ancestry. I must have contacted well over 100 matches, if not many more, in that time.
I think that my tree is of interest to the greater genealogical community, who sometimes/often use it irresponsibly and indiscriminately, but of little interest to the majority of my DNA matches.
But other peoples trees are of interest to me as a DNA match and also for clues as a non DNA match (not as proof of anything).
Regards Margaret
-
But other peoples trees are of interest to me as a DNA match and also for clues as a non DNA match (not as proof of anything).
Regards Margaret
Yes, I agree, Margaret.
Given the lack of response from the DNA matches I've contacted, I've also been trying other measures.
If I'm given an 'Ancestry tree hint', allegedly for one of my ancestors, I check the DNA status of the tree owner just to see whether they are, indeed, a connection.
So far most of them are 'either not a DNA match, or have not taken a DNA test'
Whilst I am of course careful of other people's privacy, and I know that someone may not be a DNA match but still a remote relative, it would be really helpful to know if they've not taken a DNA test!
-
If you have your DNA result connected to a tree with only direct ancestors then you are missing out on most of the powerful functionality in Common Ancestors as you do not have many hooks for the system to pick up in its attempts build a chain from you to your match.
-
If you have your DNA result connected to a tree with only direct ancestors then you are missing out on most of the powerful functionality in Common Ancestors as you do not have many hooks for the system to pick up in its attempts build a chain from you to your match.
You may be right, though I don't think so. I currently have 65 common ancestor hints. They are mostly correct or likely to be correct - I have only found two that are ludicrous, others need confirming, many I found before this new beta mode.
Common ancestor hints are cobbled together from lots of different trees, some public, some private, they don't just depend on your tree.
I might try an experiment, attach a fuller tree, but not quite as full as my main tree, which covers all my grandaughter's ancestors. See if I get different common ancestor hints.
There are pros and cons to any tree attached to DNA results, but at least I've got a tree attached.
Regards Margaret
-
Just one other thing re DNA matches' trees.
I've just been looking at one which has - apparently - nearly 5000 people in it.
I have a low cM match of 21, so evidently this would be a relatively remote cousin
DNA painter says
58.00%
6C 6C1R 5C 6C2R 4C1R 5C1R 7C Half 3C2R 4C2R 5C2R 7C1R 3C3R 4C3R 5C3R 8C or more distant
But with that many people, probably worth a shot and even more so as there are a number of shared matches with this person so it may lead me somewhere else too.
So I look at the tree, evidently some work gone into it.
And the sources?
No sources.
-
My Ancestry tree isn't my main tree (which is entirely private and not on any website). It's mostly direct ancestors only, but with siblings where I think it might be useful. I haven't included sources, although as a lot of these are available on Ancestry I don't see any need to. The lack of visible sources doesn't mean I couldn't, or wouldn't provide them to anyone who was interested enough to ask.
The tree shows exact dates when I have them - which I feel ought to demonstrate that I have seen the original record in some form.
I do find it surprising that there are so many people apparently prepared to fork out for a DNA test, who bother to put a nice photo of themselves up there with it, but have no tree at all, linked or unlinked.
One match is someone who I know from elsewhere has been researching extensively for years, but their DNA test has a tree of just 4 people linked to it. Thrulines doesn't work with that tree.
Another close match has no tree linked, but other matches and hunting around tells me who our common ancestors are - and also shows me that this person does in fact have a good public tree on Ancestry, on a separate account. I'm baffled.
-
Like sugarfizzle and Gallium, I have linked a small direct ancestors tree to my DNA results on Ancestry.
These are my reasons (in no particular order) for this; 1) I don't have my data on a GEDCOM so I had to enter everything manually 2) I have entered direct ancestors for about 6 generations which should encompass all or nearly all my 4th or nearer cousins 3) If a cousin doesn't recognise any of the surnames, they almost certainly haven't done much research or aren't very interested so won't be able to help much 4) I don't like the ease of the hints system on Ancestry whereby any one can acquire the wrong ancestors if they're not careful, leading to lots of erroneous trees being on Ancestry. 6) Many of my ancestors had fairly unusual names (no John Smiths or Mary Joneses) so I don't have to distinguish different families like others might. 7) I can always go back later and add more info.
-
I did a DNA test about a year ago hoping it might lead to finding out about my grandmother and possible links to her parents. My top match has no tree and I have sent 2 emails and no reply. My second top match has 13 people on a tree and is managed by someone. I have received a reply to an email sent and hopefully we will work out our connection. One person has sent me an email stating we have a connection. The person has over 16,000 in their tree and addressed their message to me as Hi Elizabeth Can you please look at my tree and let me know where you fit in. My name is not Elizabeth therefore not a high priority in replying.
On a positive note a success story with DNA for my husband in the next few weeks. He has sent a kit away and we are waiting for the results which are likely to have an impact on his family. He supports me with my interest in family history but does not do anything apart from listen to what I tell him. A request was made for him to take a test which he willingly agreed to and we are waiting for the results to come through. Using some very good trees put together by several people and one that I have recently put together for him with the basics of his ancestors, is going to go a long way in working out the relationship.
-
I have not counted the number of my matches whose trees are fairly useless or non existent but 1/3 is about what I had estimated. (I suspected DNA test gifts and 6 months free membership to be the reason for most of these).
However despite little or no public information, Ancestry does tell you who shares the same matches so you can often find someone in the shared matches with more information and sometimes you can find someone who you have in your own tree.
I have been using the colour groups to link people together. Some I do know who they are and can name the right family as there are known people in their tree, but I have at least 9 groups for which I have not yet worked out which family they belong to (though I do have some ideas). However they all match up to at least one other person in the same group.
Using the colours to group people I have been able to assign most of my 429 x 4th cousin or less to a family or group despite many of them not having trees. Only 2 of them are my known 2nd cousins everyone else is further away.
I got my results at the end of January and it has taken me all this time to work through the "closer" cousins and part way into the 5th-8th cousins (those few who have shared matches).
One thing I now realise is that I am going to have to come down my side branches a lot further than have so far done, as some of my matches go back to 4th, 5th or even 6th gt grandparents born in 1700s.
The scary bit is when you see the total number of matches. I think mine is over 50 thousand.
Cheers
-
I just did a quick survey of the first 10 matches in my new matches from the last 7 days:
5 no trees
4 unlinked trees
1 tree of 4,500 people.
Most have less than 10 cM shared DNA so I am not expecting to see any shared matches.
That is where the common ancestor thing is very useful. I just found one with only 7 cM DNA and surprisingly one shared match (to someone who shares my 3x gt grandparents). The only snag is that I think the common ancestor in the tree of my 7cM cousin is wrong and our shared ancestor is not my 4th gt grandparents as stated, but probably either my 5th or possibly 6th gt grandparents. Depending on whose research you believe. I have quite a lot of faith in those who, like me, did their initial research from parish records pre Ancestry.
Cheers
Linda
-
Just looked at my new matches in last 7 days. One has a tree with 111,899 people, but no common ancestor match!
-
Just looked at my new matches in last 7 days. One has a tree with 111,899 people, but no common ancestor match!
Yes. This sort of thing is very hard to believe......
-
Just looked at my new matches in last 7 days. One has a tree with 111,899 people, but no common ancestor match!
Yes. This sort of thing is very hard to believe......
But she is descended from Alfred the Great, and although my tree doesn't go back that far, my ancestors are from Wantage area (King Alfred's birthplace) so a possibility he was our common ancestor ;D ;D ;D
-
Just looked at my new matches in last 7 days. One has a tree with 111,899 people, but no common ancestor match!
Yes. This sort of thing is very hard to believe......
But she is descended from Alfred the Great, and although my tree doesn't go back that far, my ancestors are from Wantage area (King Alfred's birthplace) so a possibility he was our common ancestor ;D ;D ;D
Aha - but Lizzie, I thought you'd already established your connection to Adam and Eve (or alternatively that wonderful woman in Africa somewhere way back when), helped by some Rootschatters here? Not got round to putting all the generations on your tree, evidently.