RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: Flemming on Wednesday 15 July 20 09:00 BST (UK)
-
The latest LostCousins newsletter says that Ancestry plans to delete all matches less than 8cM in order to remove false ones.
And insodoing, they'll be clearing off thousands of accurate matches. Instead of tinkering with something that isn't broken, why doesn't Ancestry offer something useful like removing the 20cM cut-off or a chromosome browser? What with this, and deleting all messages and folders with their new Messaging system (you have until 31st August to download these), I'm getting a bit hacked off with Ancestry and their 'customer service'.
Peter Calver at LostCousins says there are three ways to protect matches <8cM: add them to a group, add a note to them, send them a message (which is about to be deleted by the new Messaging system so not sure how this will work).
For more info, best see the LostCousins website.
Edit Five of my common ancestors are <8cM; nearly 500 are in groups (thankfully); and more have a manual connection. Can't count the ones with notes, but there are lots. How can Ancestry say these matches are false and, therefore, worthless? I wouldn't have been able to make connections without many of them.
-
That's ridiculous if they do that. I have quite a few that I know the link to and , like you, some in Common Ancestors.
Maybe we should all complain to them.
Thanks for telling us :)
-
Here's the link:
https://www.lostcousins.com/newsletters2/jul20news.htm#Disappearing
-
Maybe we should all complain to them.
Do you think there's any point - will they take any notice?
LostCousins also says their database is now 18 million. Their aim has to be continued growth. Will not showing <8cM matches have any affect on this? I think it's only people they've already snared who it will bother, and they know they won't lose us through it. Cynical lot.
-
It might be worth a message to them, if we all do it.
I'm starting to allocate mine to a nice purple colour group ;D Luckily I do have a fair number already in groups.
PS - I'm till on the 8cms - it could take a while ::)
-
I'll be tied up until covid's gone if I try that. Just have to trust I've searched on all relevant names in the past and added notes to them. It's the new ones coming through we'll miss. I seem to be getting nothing but <8cM at present but some of them have had interesting leads. That will go now.
And the groupings - I've asked for more of those several times, or another way to add sub-groups. That *would* be helpful but no sign of that either. I think they're trying to appeal to the younger, phone-using, one-hit wonders to bump up their revenue and database numbers. LostCousins also says their database is now 18 million and I imagine they want to keep the growth going. Don't mind the rest of us stalwarts who they've snared already. :( :(
-
It might be worth a message to them, if we all do it.
I'm starting to allocate mine to a nice purple colour group ;D Luckily I do have a fair number already in groups.
PS - I'm till on the 8cms - it could take a while ::)
As I see it, it's only 6 cMs - 7cMs you have to go through, though I may be wrong. Start with the 6s!!
2 of my 6cM matches have helped me to break a brick wall down, a few more are common ancestors.
I don't think they will take any notice, however many of us complain. They adamantly refuse to provide a chromosomes browser, in spite of pleas.
Going to find a nice unused colour to allocate to all of mine, will have to continue adding until the cut off date. Thank goodness for the filters, enabling us to find them all without too much trouble.
Margaret
-
Thanks for the clarification, Margaret. I read it as 8 and below! I was doing a grocery delivery list at the time :-X
I chose a nice purple -magenta colour. I'm running out of colours though as some of them are very close. Surely they could use a Pantone colour:
https://www.pantone-colours.com/
:)
-
They've done this before. Its not sure whether using the star will count. I think thats what i used last time. Think of all the space saving for them and will quicken things up. I've made a few good links in the past with these low cms like to my family in 1700's. My mother has loads of matches in this range and its going to take ages to mark them and if you've got loads of kits its time consuming.
-
I have 5 'Common Ancestor' matches at 6 cM. They are 3 x 5th cousins and 2 x 4th cousins once removed and 4 'Common Ancestor' matches at 7 cM. They are 1 x half 6th cousin, 1 x 5th cousin once removed, 1 x 5th cousin and one as close as 3rd cousin once removed.
Although I haven't broken down any brick walls with these matches, they have all supported the paper trail.
One of my objects for doing a DNA test was to try to identify my 3 x great grandfather. If he had children with another woman, any living descendants of my generation would by my half 4th cousins, If not, but if any of his siblings had descendants they would be my 5th cousins. The match, if there is one, could well be 6 - 7 cM.
-
Roberts Estes latest blog-will it help ? :-\
[New post] Ancestry to Remove DNA Matches Soon – Preservation Strategies with Detailed Instructions
Kim
Edit
Sorry cannot get the URL to transfer :(
-
Roberts Estes latest blog-will it help ? :-\
[New post] Ancestry to Remove DNA Matches Soon – Preservation Strategies with Detailed Instructions
Kim
Edit
Sorry cannot get the URL to transfer :(
https://dna-explained.com/
-
Roberts Estes latest blog-will it help ? :-\
[New post] Ancestry to Remove DNA Matches Soon – Preservation Strategies with Detailed Instructions
Kim
Edit
Sorry cannot get the URL to transfer :(
https://dna-explained.com/
This article says
'Remember, the only matches in jeopardy are the ones from 6 to 8 cM inclusive'
I thought only 6 and 7 were going.
-
That's ridiculous if they do that. I have quite a few that I know the link to and , like you, some in Common Ancestors.
Maybe we should all complain to them.
Thanks for telling us :)
What is the justification? I have about 15 common ancestors from 6-7 cM on all my accounts, most of which I can tell are real matches because they are close relatives of other people who match at a higher level. Where exactly can we complain to? There are the ancestry forums and blogs perhaps. The workaround of marking current matches, obviously won't help for any future matches who will just disappear into the ether.
-
What is the justification?
Roberta's blog explains some of that. Blunt instrument to sort their platform issues. Didn't know they'd sent cease and desist orders to people using third party analysis tools. At Roberta points out, if Ancestry themselves provided the tools, people wouldn't need to use third parties.
An 18 million database bully they have become.
-
What is the justification?
Roberta's blog explains some of that. Blunt instrument to sort their platform issues. Didn't know they'd sent cease and desist orders to people using third party analysis tools. At Roberta points out, if Ancestry themselves provided the tools, people wouldn't need to use third parties.
An 18 million database bully they have become.
Basically short sighted money grubbing behaviour as far as I can see! God knows how many subscriptions they have that people sign up to monthly and just forget and let go on for years, make millions from that no doubt! The only plus point is it might encourage people to download the DNA and upload to other sites that do allow proper analysis, i.e. GEDMATCH and MyHeritage and might eventually bite Ancestry on the arse when people see 23andme and MyHeritage more favourably because of better analysis tools and just buy tests straight from them.
-
Roberts Estes latest blog-will it help ? :-\
[New post] Ancestry to Remove DNA Matches Soon – Preservation Strategies with Detailed Instructions
Kim
Edit
Sorry cannot get the URL to transfer :(
https://dna-explained.com/
This article says
'Remember, the only matches in jeopardy are the ones from 6 to 8 cM inclusive'
I thought only 6 and 7 were going.
We may have to wait to see which ones go. Roberta Estes says that she didn't listen to the conference call.
Peter Calver did listen to it, and he reports that matches under 8 cMs will be removed, indicating to me that 8 cMs and over will remain, though I may have interpreted wrongly.
Ancestry hasn't made an announcement to Joe Public yet, that I know of. When they do, it may become clearer.
Regards Margaret
-
Oh that's annoying!
I've found some useful matches in the lower numbers.
So is putting them in a colour coded group enough to 'keep them'?
Lisa
-
Oh that's annoying!
I've found some useful matches in the lower numbers.
So is putting them in a colour coded group enough to 'keep them'?
Lisa
I half suspect that is some manipulation to try and dampen down resistance to the change, who knows whether it will actually 'save' matches. And of course it won't help people who don't know about it who will then lose many possible crucial matches for helping to trace their trees, and new DNA users after the change who will never see them.
-
The latest LostCousins newsletter says that Ancestry plans to delete all matches less than 8cM in order to remove false ones.
And insodoing, they'll be clearing off thousands of accurate matches. Instead of tinkering with something that isn't broken, why doesn't Ancestry offer something useful like removing the 20cM cut-off or a chromosome browser? What with this, and deleting all messages and folders with their new Messaging system (you have until 31st August to download these), I'm getting a bit hacked off with Ancestry and their 'customer service'.
Peter Calver at LostCousins says there are three ways to protect matches <8cM: add them to a group, add a note to them, send them a message (which is about to be deleted by the new Messaging system so not sure how this will work).
For more info, best see the LostCousins website.
Edit Five of my common ancestors are <8cM; nearly 500 are in groups (thankfully); and more have a manual connection. Can't count the ones with notes, but there are lots. How can Ancestry say these matches are false and, therefore, worthless? I wouldn't have been able to make connections without many of them.
I've not been keeping up, what are they doing to the messaging system?
-
Are old messages going to be deleted?. I noticed it had changed a few weeks ago, but I still have messages going back to 2009, but horrendously difficult to find now. And you can't put a subject line in a message any more. It now looks like a string of texts on my phone, a whole conversation when I only want to see the latest message.
I may be off Rootschat for the next two weeks while I attend to grouping all my 6 and 7 cM matches.
-
that is very annoying, I have managed to link lots below 8cm into my tree.
-
Are old messages going to be deleted?. I noticed it had changed a few weeks ago, but I still have messages going back to 2009, but horrendously difficult to find now. And you can't put a subject line in a message any more. It now looks like a string of texts on my phone, a whole conversation when I only want to see the latest message.
I may be off Rootschat for the next two weeks while I attend to grouping all my 6 and 7 cM matches.
my 'old' messages disappeared some time ago.
I have recently sent a couple of messages via the contact button on the dna match page and that allowed me to put a subject line, but I just looked at sending a msg from the 'message center' and that doesn't have a subject line.
Also it shows 'read' and a time underneath the msgs I have recently sent, but I am the one who has read it at the time quoted.
Nowhere near as good as before when it seemed more like an email system within ancestry.
-
I've not been keeping up, what are they doing to the messaging system?
Here's a link to the thread about changes to messages. More of 'not broke but let's fix it and irritate people anyway.'
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=834405.new;topicseen#new
-
I've not been keeping up, what are they doing to the messaging system?
Here's a link to the thread about changes to messages. More of 'not broke but let's fix it and irritate people anyway.'
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=834405.new;topicseen#new
There is so much on the site that DOES need fixed yet they're tinkering with stuff that doesn't.
-
As an aside, but on this same topic, is there a way you can find how many matches you have at a given cm level, in this case, from 6 - 7 cm. I understand you can seperate those matches, using the shared DNA tab, but it doesnt tell you how many there are ( seems endless, if I page down!).
I have >40,000 matches (?? down to the 6cm/5cm interface, I assume), of which 405 are 4th cousin or closer. I have spent quite a long time today grouping the matches at 7-7cm, but the list seems endless, so wondering is it really worth doing!!! I would assume the 6-6cm list will be even longer!
Oh well, back to my list - I will have RSI after this, for definite!
Jane
-
A popup now appears on Ancestry with the following info and whitepaper link
https://www.ancestrycdn.com/support/us/2020/07/2020whitepaper.pdf
Updates coming soon to DNA matches
As Ancestry continues to improve the accuracy of our DNA matching algorithms, we’ll be changing the way we calculate the amount of DNA you share with your matches (read our Matching White Paper). Here’s what these changes will mean for you.
More accurate number of shared segments
The DNA you share with a match is distributed across segments - short segments, long segments, or some combination of both. Our updated matching algorithm may reduce the estimated number of segments you share with some of your DNA matches. This doesn’t change the estimated total amount of shared DNA (measured in centimorgans/cM) or the predicted relationship to your matches.
See the length of your longest shared segment
The length of the longest segment you and a DNA match have in common can help determine if you’re actually related. The longer the segment, the more likely you’re related. Segment length is also the easiest way to evaluate the difference between multiple matches that all show the same estimated relationship. Our updated matching algorithm can show you the length of the longest segment you share with your matches.
Distant DNA matches must share 8 cM or higher
Our updated matching algorithm will increase the likelihood you are actually related to your very distant matches. As a result, you’ll no longer see matches (or be matched to people) that share less than 8 cM with you - unless you have added a note about them, added them to a custom group or have messaged them. These changes to the matching algorithm will reduce the total number of DNA matches you have and the number of new matches you will receive. It may also affect the number of ThruLines you may see.
FAQs
What changes will I see in my DNA matches?
You may see the number of segments you share with your DNA matches change. You will be able to see the length of the longest segment you share with your DNA matches. Very distant matches - those you share less than 8 cM of DNA with - will no longer appear in your DNA match list or in ThruLines™ unless you have added a note about them, added them to a group or have messaged them.
Why are you making these changes to DNA matches?
We’re continually working to find improved ways to make family history discoveries through DNA. We’ve updated our matching algorithm, which will improve the accuracy and quality of your DNA matches.
Are my matches more accurate now?
Yes. Although individual results may vary, more data and improved algorithms mean that we can better detect who you’re more likely to be related to.
When will you be making these changes to DNA matches?
These updates to DNA matches will happen in the beginning of August.
Will there be a way to save or download information about matches that share less than 8 cM of DNA with me?
There will not be a way to download information about these matches before the changes to our matching algorithm take place. If you have added a note about a match, added them to a group or messaged them, these matches will remain.
Does this change my ethnicity estimate or communities?
No, this update is for DNA matches only.
Will I get this update if I’m still waiting for my DNA results?
Yes. All AncestryDNA customers will get this update.
How do I see new DNA matches based on the new algorithm?
To see a list of new DNA matches, select “View All DNA Matches” from your DNA homepage, then select the “Unviewed” filter.
Can I see the notes for matches that have been removed from my list?
Matches that you share less than 8 cM of DNA with and have added a note about will remain in your DNA match list, so you will continue to be able to see notes you have added about them.
Can I see the messages I exchanged with a DNA match who has been removed from my list?
Matches that you share less than 8 cM of DNA with and have messaged will remain in your DNA match list, so you can continue to message those matches and see past messages.
Will this change affect my Thrulines™?
Since your ThruLines™ rely on DNA matches, you may see some changes.
Does this update change how you report the amount of segments shared between two individuals?
You may see the number of shared segments between you and your matches change. Read more about how we estimate the number of shared segments.
Have you changed the amount of shared DNA needed to determine a match?
Yes, we've changed the amount of DNA you need to share to be considered a match with another individual to 8 cM.
Will my DNA match list change again?
Your DNA match list will continue to change as the science behind DNA matching continues to advance, and more people take DNA tests.
-
Based on the new matches I have received in the last two months, I estimate that when Ancestry do change to matching only 8cM and above, I will lose approximately 70% of my matches. So they may have the largest database but will only show a fraction of your matches.
-
I have been baffled by one of my aunt's matches. It is a 5-8th cousin match, so estimated 5th-8th cousin 6cm across 1 segment, but with two shared matches!
One of the shared matches is 130cm across 6 segments and and the other is 30 across 1 segment.
Please explain Ancestry...
-
At the top of page when I logged in this morning
"Updates coming soon to DNA matches
We’re making changes that will improve the accuracy and quality of your DNA matches."
At the same time they've tinkered with my thrulines. Added loads of potential ancestors.
They've given me a potential 5 x great grandfather dates: 1792 - 1871 and says I have DNA match.
The trouble is my 4 x great grandfather, the supposed son of this man was born in 1757. Fortunately they haven't removed my real 5 x great grandfather. I do have a DNA match with descendants of the man they suggest, he is the son of one of my 4 x great grandfather's siblings. There is another suggestion on another line which they have obviously got from a plethora of incorrect trees where someone decided my 4 x great grandfather fathered his first child in wedlock at age 6 or 7 and a pre-marital one a couple of years earlier.
Presumably another change to "improve accuracy".
-
Our updated matching algorithm can show you the length of the longest segment you share with your matches.
But not which chromosome it's on ::) ::)
-
At the top of page when I logged in this morning
"Updates coming soon to DNA matches
We’re making changes that will improve the accuracy and quality of your DNA matches."
At the same time they've tinkered with my thrulines. Added loads of potential ancestors.
They've given me a potential 5 x great grandfather dates: 1792 - 1871 and says I have DNA match.
The trouble is my 4 x great grandfather, the supposed son of this man was born in 1757. Fortunately they haven't removed my real 5 x great grandfather. I do have a DNA match with descendants of the man they suggest, he is the son of one of my 4 x great grandfather's siblings. There is another suggestion on another line which they have obviously got from a plethora of incorrect trees where someone decided my 4 x great grandfather fathered his first child in wedlock at age 6 or 7 and a pre-marital one a couple of years earlier.
Presumably another change to "improve accuracy".
just rechecked the supposed 5 x great grandfather although name was the same, the birth year is 6 years out and birth location is wrong. He is not the William I thought but a totally unrelated one. There is a DNA symbol by this spurious ancestor so I thought it meant I had a match. But I have found the symbol comes from a tree for someone who looks like a genuine descendant of his. I have no DNA match with the tree owner, although she must have tested as several of her lines have been annotated with a DNA symbol. As the surname is uncommon and the location is within 20 miles of my genuine family there may be something a long, long way back. When I have finished my humanitarian rescue mission of my 6 and 7 cM rellies, I might track this line to see if we merge.
This must be an example of the "new accuracy"! ;D
-
At the top of page when I logged in this morning
"Updates coming soon to DNA matches
We’re making changes that will improve the accuracy and quality of your DNA matches."
At the same time they've tinkered with my thrulines. Added loads of potential ancestors.
I posted the whole text of it and the link to the whitepaper on the previous page
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=834432.msg6994574#msg6994574
-
I have been baffled by one of my aunt's matches. It is a 5-8th cousin match, so estimated 5th-8th cousin 6cm across 1 segment, but with two shared matches!
One of the shared matches is 130cm across 6 segments and and the other is 30 across 1 segment.
Please explain Ancestry...
All those numbers are how much they match you or the kit you are looking at. Although the match is 6cM, as long as they match those other matches, which you (or your aunt) also match at 20cM or over, they will show as a shared match.
Re: these changes, after skipping through the Ancestry text that popped up last night, I still can't see any justification for the change, other than - Ancestry management got annoyed about the servers being overused by the genetic affairs and shared clustering app to a lesser extent, and then demanded they reduce server costs. The easiest way to do so is to instantly remove thousands of matches from everybody. They have then written a long winded whitepaper with lots of dubious formulas to try and justify it ::).
-
At the top of page when I logged in this morning
"Updates coming soon to DNA matches
We’re making changes that will improve the accuracy and quality of your DNA matches."
At the same time they've tinkered with my thrulines. Added loads of potential ancestors.
I posted the whole text of it and the link to the whitepaper on the previous page
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=834432.msg6994574#msg6994574
I know that.
The point I was making was that they claim changes are to improve accuracy and quality of DNA matches.
And at the same time they are introducing things in thrulines that are demonstrably totally inaccurate. Supposed grandfathers fathering children born decades before they themselves were born.
But you chose to cut off the main point of my post.
-
I didn't get a popup . I'm not best pleased with those potentials at the bottom of ThruLines, Quite a few of them i looked at many years ago and discounted. others are just plain daft!
Is there any way of deleting them?
Added - I seem not to have got the popup as i don't usually logout. I just did to test and a blue bar appeared at the top.
-
I can't see any way of deleting them. And if it was just a hint where I am missing a pair of n x great grandparents it wouldn't be so bad. But one potential pair are in addition to the perfectly good pair I have which fit the evidence much better than Ancestry's suggestion.
I have noticed a couple of trees I have looked at in the last couple of days have alternative parents popping up. Far more occurrences than I would have expected if the tree owner just wasn't sure. perhaps this is how it happens. Also I have seen trees where a father and son have the same name (quite common) and the same fragment of ancestors has been added to both, so the son appears to marry his mother. I messaged one such tree owner as the ancestors were shared with me, and he said it just suddenly happened and he couldn't correct it.
-
At the top of page when I logged in this morning
"Updates coming soon to DNA matches
We’re making changes that will improve the accuracy and quality of your DNA matches."
At the same time they've tinkered with my thrulines. Added loads of potential ancestors.
I posted the whole text of it and the link to the whitepaper on the previous page
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=834432.msg6994574#msg6994574
I know that.
The point I was making was that they claim changes are to improve accuracy and quality of DNA matches.
And at the same time they are introducing things in thrulines that are demonstrably totally inaccurate. Supposed grandfathers fathering children born decades before they themselves were born.
But you chose to cut off the main point of my post.
Oh, it wasn't meant to highlight an omission on your part, just alerting others that they could read it here. I didn't reply to the rest of your quote as I saw you had replied to it yourself and hadn't yet read that. :-[
-
I've just got alerted to this from The DNA Geek, and found it very useful - especially on checking Thrulines,etc (I like visual explanations)
https://thednageek.com/ancestrydnas-2020-matching-white-paper/
-
I've just got alerted to this from The DNA Geek, and found it very useful - especially on checking Thrulines,etc (I like visual explanations)
https://thednageek.com/ancestrydnas-2020-matching-white-paper/
Came here to post that link myself.
Worth noting that neither DNA geek nor Peter Calver are suggesting that we go through our whole 6 - 8 cMs matches, there are perhaps way too many to go through for most of us, especially for those that manage multiple DNA accounts.
Both suggest a more targeted approach, both have different suggestions as to how to achieve the target.
Regards Margaret
-
I've just got alerted to this from The DNA Geek, and found it very useful - especially on checking Thrulines,etc (I like visual explanations)
https://thednageek.com/ancestrydnas-2020-matching-white-paper/
In his strategy for triaging his low matches he shows a screen shot of the "Shared DNA" filter - he has entered 6 - 8. I.e he is including 8cM. There still seems to be confusion as to whether we will lose the matches at 8 cM as well as 6 and 7.
As I read the message from Ancestry it will only be 6 and 7
-
I've just got alerted to this from The DNA Geek, and found it very useful - especially on checking Thrulines,etc (I like visual explanations)
https://thednageek.com/ancestrydnas-2020-matching-white-paper/
In his strategy for triaging his low matches he shows a screen shot of the "Shared DNA" filter - he has entered 6 - 8. I.e he is including 8cM. There still seems to be confusion as to whether we will lose the matches at 8 cM as well as 6 and 7.
As I read the message from Ancestry it will only be 6 and 7
As I see it, under 8 cMs does not include 8 cMs, but it does include 7.9 cMs.
Look at your close cousin matches, cut off point 20 cMs. My first few 5th to 8th cousins are also recorded as 20 cMs, presumably rounded up from 19.9 cMs.
Similarly with the more distant cousins - the 8s will be preserved, the 7.9s and lower will disappear.
Regards Margaret
-
I hope so, I have enough to check with 6's and 7's without the 8's too.
My strategy so far:
Restrict to 6 and 7 cM with the shared DNA filter.
Then search for all my ancestral surnames. The problem is some have several variant spellings ( A disadvantage when you have some uncommon surnames - whoever mis-spelt Smith or Brown?)
Ticking "include similar surnames" brings up so many completely wrong variants, I have had to search for common variants separately. This doesn't bring up many as I regularly run this type of search anyway. If there are common ancestors I had the new match to relevant group. I also have a general group for 4th cousins and closer I haven't yet identified the right branch.
Next I search on location. Most of my ancestors are from small villages and didn't move much until late 19th century. I group these with a general location group to look at later. There was so much intermarriage that one of the surnames may be connected even if not my direct ancestor.
The problem with both these searches is that it seems to only pick up linked trees. Most unlinked trees I've looked are small (less than 5 people) and not much use, but some are much larger and contain useful information. perhaps the person just forgot to link them. I have unlinked mine briefly while I did major work on it, but did remember to relink.
Has anyone any further ideas for Operation "Rescue my Rellies"?
-
I sent a message to DNA Geek to query using 6 - 8
and here is the reply
"AncestryDNA rounds the number they show us on the screen. Some matches that show as “8 cM” are safe because they’re 8.0 or higher, but some are, for example, 7.6 cM and scheduled to disappear. Since we can’t see where the list transitions from 8.000 to 7.999, I’m preserving everything that shows as 8 cM. I’ve added a paragraph to the post explaining why I’m using 8."
This very worrying, that the site uses mathematical rules of rounding rather than just cutting off decimal places (7 point anything becomes 7). This would mean about half the matches showing at 8 would really be just under 8 and for the chop.
-
On facebook maths problems - posters always moan about 'old' maths and 'new' maths, and the rules involved (Podemas - the rules of operations etc), and those who know maths of course say maths is maths ( or math, if you are american), and there only ever is one right answer, which ever way, and whenever, you learned maths! However, Ancestry seems to have its own wee version here!
Honestly, I remember back a few itterations ago of the DNA screens ,when on a screen that told you about a matches DNA in more detail, it told you more exactly the match figure (eg 19.5). and the dependability of the match (eg high/low/medium), and what that meant (eg nearly 100% likely to be a true match). Not all changes have been for the better! Especially when at one time it is under a border line (eg 20), but sometimes over it. Crazy.
How can a value measured to be under 8.0* be classed at other times as 8 or over 8!
* indcating 'recurring', that is as many 0's as you like!!
Ah well back to checking my 8's now. I an happy (relatively) with 7's, but decided to deal with 8's before tackling 6's, as there will be even more 6's..... Ahh
Jane
-
It's not measured in integers but fractions but they display them as integers - thus 7.5-7.9999999999999 will be rounded to 8 and 7.4 is likely to be rounded down to 7.
I've come across it in the 20cM matches.
PS - it's quite common
-
Which of course means half the matches recorded as 8 will go as they are actually 7.5 to 7.99999.
-
Yep and there must be a few 5.5 to 5.99999999 (recurring) that have been hiding too ;D
-
I know it is quite common, but that does not make it right.
If a given match is classified as having 8cM of DNA matching, under normal understanding, you would read 8 to represent anything from 8 exactly to 8.9999 etc., but not to be under 8, that should be 'lumped in the 7cM slot!
Unless they expain it somewhere obvious, that customers can see, then you don't expect that Cm's will be rounded up or down to the nearest whole number, as in 7 actually representing 6.501 to 7.500 etc..
Well at least I would not expect that!
However, you cant argue the point with Ancestry ( well, not expectiong to win the argument anyway), so better get back to the day job!
That is tagging my vulnerable matches!
-
On facebook maths problems - posters always moan about 'old' maths and 'new' maths, and the rules involved (Podemas - the rules of operations etc), and those who know maths of course say maths is maths ( or math, if you are american), and there only ever is one right answer, which ever way, and whenever, you learned maths! However, Ancestry seems to have its own wee version here!
Honestly, I remember back a few itterations ago of the DNA screens ,when on a screen that told you about a matches DNA in more detail, it told you more exactly the match figure (eg 19.5). and the dependability of the match (eg high/low/medium), and what that meant (eg nearly 100% likely to be a true match). Not all changes have been for the better! Especially when at one time it is under a border line (eg 20), but sometimes over it. Crazy.
How can a value measured to be under 8.0* be classed at other times as 8 or over 8!
* indcating 'recurring', that is as many 0's as you like!!
Ah well back to checking my 8's now. I an happy (relatively) with 7's, but decided to deal with 8's before tackling 6's, as there will be even more 6's..... Ahh
Jane
I keep a record of my matches on a spreadsheet when I know how they are related from back when Ancestry included decimal places.
I have a 4C1R (PV) who matches me at 20.1cM and is included in my 4th-6th cousins but now shows just as 20cM, whereas another 4C1R, MS matches me at exactly 20cM and is included in my distant cousins.
Therefore, the when Ancestry delete those who match 6-7cM any at 8cM should remain as they would actually match 8.1cM or more, whereas those who are 6-7cM would only match up to 7cM exactly.
-
Hope that's how it goes!!
On a related issue,matches in the 3 lowest cM levels (6-8), are not necessarily very distant ancestors. I have a 3rd cousin 1x removed with just 6 cM matching. Also a second cousin 2x removed. They are my lowest two common ancestor matches! I have 4th Cousins and 3rd Cousins 2x removed in this band too! Quite easy to trace through the mainly Scottish records that are involved in tracing the connections! Once you find a surname to look for!
-
I keep a record of my matches on a spreadsheet when I know how they are related from back when Ancestry included decimal places.
I have a 4C1R (PV) who matches me at 20.1cM and is included in my 4th-6th cousins but now shows just as 20cM, whereas another 4C1R, MS matches me at exactly 20cM and is included in my distant cousins.
Therefore, the when Ancestry delete those who match 6-7cM any at 8cM should remain as they would actually match 8.1cM or more, whereas those who are 6-7cM would only match up to 7cM exactly.
Did you have you any just below an integer. e.g 19.9 ? If so, were they rounded up to 20 or just dec places just chopped so they would become 19?
-
Did you have you any just below an integer. e.g 19.9 ? If so, were they rounded up to 20 or just dec places just chopped so they would become 19?
Actually, I've just done some further checking and it is a worry, I do have a 19.7cM which is rounded up to 20cM so we may lose some of the 8cMs.
ADDED: a 19.4cM has been rounded down to 19cM
-
The commonest method of rounding is
.5 - .9 = round up
.4 and below= round down
(including the .999999 and .000000001 recurring)
-
The commonest method of rounding is
.5 - .9 = round up
.4 and below= round down
(including the .999999 and .000000001 recurring)
Yes, as I said in reply 43 we're going to lose the half of the 8's which are really in the range 7.5 to 7.9. And what improvements are we going to get in exchange?
Length of longest segment! Most of my matches are one segment only, so unless something odd happens the total match is going to be the same as the longest segment. We won't know which chromosome or where on that chromosome - so not really much use.
-
Maybe we should stop worrying and get our fingers working with the colour codes
;D
-
been doing that - run out of colours. ;D
-
Most of my 6 or 7 cM common ancestor matches are 6th cousins or 5th cousins once removed. However, one 4th cousin is only a 6 cM match
-
Bit confused here, having checked my most common family surnames (about 20, back to at least 3rd great grand parent level, I have a few duplicates/triplicates among those names), in the 8-6 cM ranges, and tagged them, I moved on to matches to my common ancestors, within those ranges, which I thought I read as a sensible job to do.
However, when I look at my common ancestors, our matches stop at 20 cM. Have I misunderstood, this suggestion - I thought I was going to tag 6-8cM matches to my common ancestors - but how do you find them??
-
This is Blaine Bettingers blog re this
https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2020/07/17/losing-distant-matches-at-ancestrydna/
Kim
-
I may have missed something and apologies if I have.
Ancestry say that to stop them being ELIMINATED I should tag, group, message or add a note to any 6-7cM DNA matches that interest me.
After Ancestry have brought in their changes I will possibly revisit these small matches. They should still be in my match list. But are they still in the match's match list? If not, and I message the person concerned, and if they are one of the small percentage of people who might actually reply, might their reply say something along the lines of "what DNA match?".
I'm hoping that Ancestry are using the word eliminated when what they mean is hidden, ie the match drops off the match list but if you click on the userid it shows that there is a small DNA match. I guess we won't find out till after the event.
Jane :-)
-
I am pretty sure I have read, in comments above somewhere, that if you mark a match, so it doesnt disappear ( ie colour code it or add notes etc.) then, not only does it stay in your match list, but you stay in the matches list too!
-
Hope so. Thanks Janethepain
-
OK if you tag them they will stay, but do you have time to check them all and add them to a group before August? I have thousands and have been working on them for several hours a day, but hardly made any inroads on them
-
I look after three accounts and have already looked at every single distant person to see if we have a shared match - green dot added - with the changes coming all I have done is put a coloured dot next to those with a common ancestor or if I've added a note - am I going through all 6cm, 7cm and possibly 8cm again? - no way as I can't be bothered!
Could they not have deleted 6cm and 7cm for people who haven't been on ancestry for months and leave those who are on way too much keep theirs?
-
If you just tag the ones with public linked trees there are not so many. And if you discount those with just 2 or 3 three people, for example, then there are a lot less.
-
If you just tag the ones with public linked trees there are not so many. And if you discount those with just 2 or 3 three people, for example, then there are a lot less.
:D
That's what I'm doing but adding some larger unlinked ones that look possible
-
Ok I will too ;)
-
Just to confirm, I should tag 6-8 cM matches if they have surnames in their tree which may be relevant to my research. I did message a couple of private very large tree holders just in case! There are several trees of interest to me with no direct ancestor but they do have ancestors with the same surnames as mine same location but in the 1700's. I should keep those?
-
youngtug - how many did you tag with public linked trees? I started doing this but deciding whether to continue.
-
Another idea of saving matches, you could use spousal names of ancestral siblings or cousins that you suspect had offspring but that you (or that match) haven't traced a connection to you yet, if you really are a glutton for punishment!
-
I am not counting
-
Starting to get very cross with this. The <8cM matches often hold clues to way-back brick walls. If these are wiped by Ancestry, they'll be restricting how far back in time you can go with DNA. The 'they're false matches' argument simply doesn't cut it given the high number many of us have proven by paper research. >:( >:(
-
Starting to get very cross with this. The <8cM matches often hold clues to way-back brick walls. If these are wiped by Ancestry, they'll be restricting how far back in time you can go with DNA. The 'they're false matches' argument simply doesn't cut it given the high number many of us have proven by paper research. >:( >:(
I agree I don't think it is really going to, or really intended to, help people. It is intended to improve Ancestry's bank balance ::).
Also note this just popped up:
"The Ancestry.co.uk website will undergo scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, 28 July 2020, from approximately 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (BST). During that time, some portions of the site may be unavailable. Thank you for your patience"
-
Looks like the change to remove matches less than 8 has been put back till late August, but other changes still scheduled early or mid August
New message:
More accurate number of shared segments (beginning early August)
See the length of your longest shared segment (beginning mid August)
Distant DNA matches must share 8.0 cM or higher (beginning late August)
-
Gives me more time to save some more matches. There are so many.
-
Nice to see this in the new msg re. the 'removals',
"Based on customer feedback, we are delaying this change until late August so you have time to review and determine if you want to save any very distant matches by sending them a message and/or including them in a note or group".
However it does seem to confirm that the 7s rounded up to 8s will be going too. Too bad we can't tell which they are in the 8s. I don't think any of the pages show the decimal value any more.
-
If they were truly listening to customer feedback, they wouldn't be doing it all. Why can't they allow an opt-in or opt-out system? I can imagine only a fraction of users (i.e. serious researchers) would opt to keep the lower matches. Most people never seem to use the test other than for ethnicity, and others stick with the higher matches. How difficult would it be to keep everyone happy, not just Ancestry themselves?
-
However it does seem to confirm that the 7s rounded up to 8s will be going too. Too bad we can't tell which they are in the 8s. I don't think any of the pages show the decimal value any more.
When I list all my matches they are in order from highest to lowest. Where there are a number of matches with the same number of cM (to nearest whole number), they appear to be in random order - certainly not alphabetical, so I suspect they are ordered by the highest to lowest using the (hidden to us) decimal place.
Using this assumption, when going through my 8s, I have started with the ones at the bottom of my list and worked my way up. Even with 2-3 weeks extension to D-day (disappearance day), I will only have time to check those with a surname or location of interest. But there are still plenty of those.
-
However it does seem to confirm that the 7s rounded up to 8s will be going too. Too bad we can't tell which they are in the 8s. I don't think any of the pages show the decimal value any more.
When I list all my matches they are in order from highest to lowest. Where there are a number of matches with the same number of cM (to nearest whole number), they appear to be in random order - certainly not alphabetical, so I suspect they are ordered by the highest to lowest using the (hidden to us) decimal place.
Using this assumption, when going through my 8s, I have started with the ones at the bottom of my list and worked my way up. Even with 2-3 weeks extension to D-day (disappearance day), I will only have time to check those with a surname or location of interest. But there are still plenty of those.
Yes, I've been doing a search of names, places, counties for public trees on 6 to 8, but when looking at all of the 7s (for example), I never managed to scroll to the end of them, so didn't try the 8s.
I shall have a break for a day or so, as the repetition of the scrolling/clicking soon makes my head swim.
So I'm appreciative of the extra time, even though I'd like the option to keep them all.
-
I’m quite annoyed ancestry are doing this. I’ve confirmed lots of matches in the 6 and 7 cm ranges. We are going to lose so much Valuable matches that could help with confirming branches etc
-
I’m quite annoyed ancestry are doing this. I’ve confirmed lots of matches in the 6 and 7 cm ranges. We are going to lose so much Valuable matches that could help with confirming branches etc
I found a connection to a branch yesterday. I have an unusual surname in my tree, and I always thought that branch should be part of the big picture, but have never been able to prove it. Found a new match yesterday that confirmed it, all of 7cM, by searching on surnames.
Not happy these are being removed. I'll be searching on surnames and locations all the time until Ancestry remove them. :'( :'(
-
My biggest peeve about this whole thing is of a practical nature, no matter how hard you work, ancestry locks out , you have to press the back button, or 'refresh', and bingo you are back at the top of your, say 7's list!
It takes me about 30 mins of constant 'paging' or pressing the 'down' indicator, all the while watching for matches i might have missed on a previous occasion, paging down as I said to get to where I was checking last, as you go on 'tagging' matches, and moving on down, it works less well, you have to keep on clicking to open a match up, and finally it locks, and next time you look, you are back at the top again.
I have tried a few time to 'page' to the bottom of the list, but have never got there. It is so dis-spiriting, even if we now have more time to do the job!! By the way, where are my forum colleagues getting the information from?? I dont see it on Ancestry, myself!
Jane
PS - By paging I dont really mean paging obviously, but simply pressing the down arrow to move down the list, from matches I have tagged, to the ones I have not worked on yet!
-
A brilliant & passionate post on this issue by Roberta Estes, and a request to Ancestry to reconsider
https://dna-explained.com/2020/07/30/ancestry-match-purge-update/
-
They've added the decimals to the cMs but only for the lower ones - looks to be for 9cM or 10cM and below - but the system is crashing continuously and giving the 'backend services overtaxed' notice.
-
Jane I don't know if this will help but instead of looking at the whole of the 7cm list you could shorten it by searching for a number or letter in peoples names - eg search 1 then go through those - search 2, etc etc
With the letters search q, z, x but for more common letters eg e just search words eg son, ing, ter, mac, mc ...
or it's a shame you can't search for matches 7.5cm to 7.6cm etc
I've just tried searching for 0 and I'm getting "our services are overtaxed......" so probably won't help
-
They've added the decimals to the cMs but only for the lower ones - looks to be for 9cM or 10cM and below - but the system is crashing continuously and giving the 'backend services overtaxed' notice.
Not showing here, but I note if you put in a custom range of 7cM-7cM, you also get many that show 8 - I presume these are all the 7.5-7.9 rounded up.
-
on mine 10cm and higher are the same - 6cm-9cm now have decimal points eg 9.9cm across 1 segments
-
on mine 10cm and higher are the same - 6cm-9cm now have decimal points eg 9.9cm across 1 segments
Yes you are right. I just reloaded now it shows :).
-
As we thought - it's in descending order. Backend services seem to be very busy this morning!
-
Dont know about anone else, but I am finding Ancestry slightly more stable since the CM decimal place rejig on Monday/Tuesday. Still very busy though. But touch wood was not 'thrown out/back to the beginning' of my list at all yesterday.
I am down to 6.5 on my list, and when I finish them, that's me. On to my Dad's list!!
-
I'm half way through the 6.4s. I should finish by the weekend. My wrist hurts if I do too many!
-
I'm only at 7.4 - long way to go.
Before the decimal place was added, I thought I only had 9 common ancestors in the 6 and 7 range. But now it's 14 because I have an extra 5 in the high 7s which was previously rounded to 8. These 14 represent 24% of my total "common ancestor" matches. Too many to lose in my opinion. But now saved by adding them to groups.
-
Just had a new common ancestor pop up at just over 7 cM. And have verified it is likely 'real' because I have access to other cousins DNA related to this same branch which they both also match. Sorry but I simply don't believe there is a honest reason for these removals, to 'help' us, other than, by, as Roberta Estes found of DNA Explained, was carefully hidden in the middle of the white paper, ' Storage' issues ::). As has also been pointed out in other forums, a lot of Ancestry matches are artificially reduced in size using the Timber algorithm, because Ancestry has determined you have common ancestors in highly endogamous populations i.e. Ashkenazi Jews, Amish etc. (probably often, wrongly), so the argument against many of the sub 8cM matches may be bogus from the beginning.
-
I totally agree, melba :)
I'm not sure if others have noticed but I've found that there seems to be a higher proportion of large trees among my low cM matches than the higher ones. It may be just coincidence but interesting!
-
So frustrating, I am never going to be able to colour code all my below 8cm's in time it's just too time consuming.
I have made so many matches below 8cm.
I actually sent a complaint on to ancestry, they replied but no valid reason for doing this. Other than to say they have extended when they will delete them so people can add notes etc to the ones they want to keep.
That doesn't solve any new ones we gets after this date though does it?
-
So frustrating, I am never going to be able to colour code all my below 8cm's in time it's just too time consuming.
I have made so many matches below 8cm.
I actually sent a complaint on to ancestry, they replied but no valid reason for doing this. Other than to say they have extended when they will delete them so people can add notes etc to the ones they want to keep.
That doesn't solve any new ones we gets after this date though does it?
I noticed they ahve added the decimal point, I am still on 7.9 so I don't really have time to properly analyse just going down the list trying to put in a group that I have called unknown. If I'm really lucky I'll get to 7.8 before deleted.
-
Just a reminder that Ancestry DNA is 20% off i.e. £59 + P&P until the end of today 11:59 BST
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/dna/
-
This is the latest from Roberta Estees Blog (found it in my Spam!!)
Does it help or confuse the whole issue more ;D
https://dna-explained.com/2020/08/09/august-hot-news-ancestry-match-tagging-script-dna-sales-
Kim
-
Speaking as a computer ignoramus, it confused the hell out of me and I wouldn't dare try it.
Also, it says to minimise the number of matches you choose, suggesting that you, say, go from 6.3 to 6.6 but am I the only one who can't get those boxes to show the decimal point? It will only take whole numbers.
I wasn't going to bother (mostly because I'd have to go through my own matches as well as those of my 3 brothers) but 'fear of missing out' took over and I started. I now have maroon dots in front of my eyes even though I stopped about 5 minutes ago!
I also started by stupidly calling my new category 'UNKNOWN' which, of course, meant I had to scroll down each time to the bottom of my column of colour coded groups, so I hastily went back in and renamed it ANON so that its near the top!!
Then I made the mistake of scrolling down to see just how many 7.9 matches there were - sorry, as someone once said: 'life's short and then you die'. Unless I get that 'missing out' feeling back, that's it - no more. I've checked mine and my brothers' common ancestor matches under 8.0 and made sure I found a home for them but, otherwise, I surrender. White flag, and all!! If I carry on, I shall either need one of those nice cardies with the long sleeves that tie at the back, or I shall publicly badmouth each and everyone of those Ancestry bods who came up with this daft idea.
Incidentally, what IS the 'logic' behind this decision?
Are we absolutely sure that, failing a quickie degree in computer science from the Open University, there isn't a quicker, easier way of just 'selecting all' and bunging them in a colour coded (oh, here come those maroon spots again!) column? Ancestry should have come up with one before they laid this on us.
How do we know they're not going to do a repeat announcement for the 8-10 cM category in a few months time?
-
I put mine into two groups named 6cm and 7cm.
I have finished one lot of 7cm = 13,138
I am currently at 14,261 of 6cm still going
What are we like!
btw I was wondering if later other lower cms with new decimal were going to go too!
-
Here's what I did after getting the heads up from Melba about the method to automate tagging Matches.
I opened my matches in Firefox. Don't usually use this browser so I had to wait for lots of updates.
I loaded all Ancestry matches, then selected 6 - 6 cM . Decimal places don't seem possible. I started by selecting public linked trees, I pressed function (brown key Fn on my keyboard) and at same time F12. This opened a window in the bottom half of the screen, from which I selected the Console tab. I pasted in the text from the attached text file. I had opened the text file in Notepad, clicked select all and copied and pasted it in. I had made my group for all the matches the second one down after the "star"group and called it "!general". You will need to edit the text file to make it the same as your group in line 6
var groupTitle = "!general";
Change group name inside in quotes to your group name.
It is best if you give it a name to make it the second in the list, otherwise you need to change the group number in line 42
var myTag = choices[2].getElementsByClassName("checkbox");
Once you have pasted text in to "console" press run
If it stops, press run again
If it restarts it will skip the matches already tagged and go onto new ones.
hope it works fot you
-
Has anyone worked out if we need to be tagging 8cm too or are those all safe?
I’m guessing it’s not worth doing those with no trees, what about unlinked trees?
-
Has anyone worked out if we need to be tagging 8cm too or are those all safe?
I’m guessing it’s not worth doing those with no trees, what about unlinked trees?
Since they introduced the decimal points and stopped rounding, I think we can assume all untagged 8.0 cM and up will not be removed. Ones without trees might have shared matches so you can't necessarily say they are of no value, but you would have to look at each individually without some other 3rd party tools like genetic affairs or shared clustering becoming available again. Also of course, ones that currently have no trees may have trees in the near future. What I am not clear about is we will actually be able to search these sub 8 cM matches in the future?
-
Can anyone tell me when the "beginning of late August" is? ::)
-
Probably after late middle August
-
;D
-
How many of you are considering suing Ancestry for repetitive stress syndrome? :(
-
I am almost done my 6cm on one dna account, still got to do the 7cm and then do my own - oh my.
-
Still makes no sense why ancestry is doing this, I literally just cracked a branch I was stuck on, and that was with matches under 8cm.
We should have got a petition of some sort going. They should have a check box to turn on the lower matches, as most who don't even both to upload a tree would probably never do that.
They will probably add an additional tier for you to pay more money to see lower matches. Wouldn't surprise me.
-
If I owned one, I'd take my hat off to you who've colour coded all of your 6-8 matches. I had another attack of 'missing out' this afternoon and started to do my 7.9 matches. I found myself glazing over and ended up with a stiff shoulder! I think I only attempted it because its too damn hot to do much else.
There were so many 7.9's that I hate to think how many more there are that are going to be lost to me, but, quite frankly, I've given up caring! I have a difficult enough job trying to get higher matches to actually respond to my messages, so the lower ones will just have to drift into the sunset.
I am not at all happy with Ancestry for doing this and may well exercise my right next March when my sub is due for renewal to downgrade back down to a standard sub, especially as I keep getting thwarted on military 'Hints' which tell me I'd have to upgrade even more to view them (I didn't and I won't).
With this latest 'investment' firm buying in, I'm wondering if we're just becoming a cash cow but will gradually have more and more deducted from our service.
I hate it when a site that you've previously really valued goes into this money grabbing mode.
Meanwhile, as I say, hats off to you stalwarts - I'm done! ::)
-
I've been going through all matches below 8cM, but I have three tests to do this on, so am filtering out all except those with public linked trees.
Those who have been there for a year or more without any tree at all aren't likely to put one there now, and although I may be missing something by not checking all the private and unlinked trees - I don't think I have time for them. It's taking me long enough as it is. At least if somebody has a public linked tree there's a chance I'll find out how the other person is related.
-
Since you can't specify decimal points in the search ranges, if you want (say) all the 6.1 cM matches you have to say 6 to 6 and then page through (potentially) thousands of entries to get to the ones you want. BUT Ancestry are obviously now being swamped with traffic and giving the message :
"Our backend services are overtaxed at the moment and we are unable to retrieve all your matches. We apologize for the inconvenience, please try again later".
-
well, that wasn't predictable, was it???? ::)
-
I've just been looking at some of my new/unviewed matches. I see that they are going to decimal for matches below 10 now. Have others noticed this and when did it occur?
Is this ominous or are they just giving us a little more info :-X
Gadget
Add- I must have missed a lot of posts - I see durhamgirl posted it pages ago! Sorry :-[
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=834432.msg7004923#msg7004923
-
Having added coloured dots and/or notes to the <8cM matches, what happens if you accidentally remove the dot/note - does the match evaporate in a puff of smoke, never to be retrieved again?
-
I suspect it might. But it might stay if your match reciprocates and tags you.
-
I too had only just noticed that all matches below 10cMs have now gone to decimal points. This does indeed make me suspicious that these will soon be disappearing as well. What on earth is going on with Ancestry?
Before we know it, we'll be lucky to retain any matches below 20cMs which seems to be their cut-off for more distant 'cousins'.
(Ancestry hasn't had a sudden takeover by the current government, has it? I mean, the words 'brewery' and '--ss up' spring to mind!) >:(
-
The cynic in me says they are intentionally reducing the number of matches we've got to validate theories and break down brick walls. The lower matches, in particular, are very useful for brick walls further back in time. If we have less to work with, we stick with Ancestry longer in the hope that some sort of match will turn up one day to help.
I’m just glad I cracked some of the blocks before now as I’d have no way of doing this after the lower matches are removed. I don’t have time to go through every <8cM match and mark them, and what a ludicrous option it is anyway - hugely inefficient for us (impossible for people with certain health issues), slows down their ‘back end’ while we’re doing it, and means those who have done it keep all the matches anyway. Why didn’t they just offer an ‘opt in - opt out’ function? I can imagine the majority wouldn’t do anything with such an option, and only a small percentage opt to keep the low matches - which they’ve offered an alternative cumbersome way of doing anyway.
Does anyone at Ancestry actually think these things through?
Sorry for the moan, but it’s just so inefficient and such poor customer service on their part.
-
By using the automatic tagging programme mentioned up thread I have given all my 6 and 7 matches a group assignment, but now I realise that higher matches might also be vulnerable.
One of the things that seems to be happening or may have already happened is the change in number of segments
Quote from Ancestry:
More accurate number of shared segments (beginning early August)
The DNA you share with a match is distributed across short segments, long segments, or some combination of both. Our updated matching algorithm may reduce the estimated number of segments you share with some of your DNA matches. This doesn’t change the estimated total amount of shared DNA (measured in centimorgans/cM) or the predicted relationship to your matches.
I have a match with a person on Ancestry which says it is 34 across 2 segments. She has uploaded to My Heritage and there it says our match is 47.7 across 3 segments. The size of the segments are 21.0, 21.4 and 6.3, so Ancestry has chopped out the small segment and also seems to have reduced the length of the other two to get a total size smaller than My Heritage.
I have several matches in the low teens over 2 segments, potentially both those segments could be below 8 individually, so will I lose the whole match even though the total may be 12 or 13?
-
By using the automatic tagging programme mentioned up thread I have given all my 6 and 7 matches a group assignment, but now I realise that higher matches might also be vulnerable.
One of the things that seems to be happening or may have already happened is the change in number of segments
Quote from Ancestry:
More accurate number of shared segments (beginning early August)
The DNA you share with a match is distributed across short segments, long segments, or some combination of both. Our updated matching algorithm may reduce the estimated number of segments you share with some of your DNA matches. This doesn’t change the estimated total amount of shared DNA (measured in centimorgans/cM) or the predicted relationship to your matches.
I have a match with a person on Ancestry which says it is 34 across 2 segments. She has uploaded to My Heritage and there it says our match is 47.7 across 3 segments. The size of the segments are 21.0, 21.4 and 6.3, so Ancestry has chopped out the small segment and also seems to have reduced the length of the other two to get a total size smaller than My Heritage.
I have several matches in the low teens over 2 segments, potentially both those segments could be below 8 individually, so will I lose the whole match even though the total may be 12 or 13?
Lizzie, I think they are only hiding those matches where the total cM is below 8, not those made up of multiple smaller segments under 8. They still have smaller sized segments around as I have matches of 7.0 cM with 2 segments!
-
Thank you, that's reassuring.
-
I notice 'longest segment' (underneath shared dna) is showing up this morning.
Not yet sure how much help it will be.
Having now looked at a few of these (where I know the relationship), I'm not sure how it will help.
Added
eg. a new match has shared 14cM acr 2 segments, longest segment 8cM.
so this is making me think that the 8cM is a more 'likely' distance for the connection to be, however that is all governed overall by the random nature of how much dna is inherited and then shared, I think. So this could be a somewhat closer match, than suggested by the 8, if the amount of shared dna is lower to start with. So just a guide then - perhaps easier to see once the connection is known. (I don't know this one).
-
I notice 'longest segment' (underneath shared dna) is showing up this morning.
Not yet sure how much help it will be.
Having now looked at a few of these (where I know the relationship), I'm not sure how it will help.
Added
eg. a new match has shared 14cM acr 2 segments, longest segment 8cM.
so this is making me think that the 8cM is a more 'likely' distance for the connection to be, however that is all governed overall by the random nature of how much dna is inherited and then shared, I think. So this could be a somewhat closer match, than suggested by the 8, if the amount of shared dna is lower to start with. So just a guide then - perhaps easier to see once the connection is known. (I don't know this one).
Just looked at mine - doesn't make any sense
I have a match supposed to be 34 over 3 segments but longest segment is 49
-
I think they've made an error, Lizzie.
I've just been looking at some shared matches in a friend's DNA and all of them from the first at 488cM to the last at 20cM have the longest segment as 26.
Maybe they were testing :-\
-
Funny - I've just looked at mine and they run from 154 (shared 1846) to 7 for a shared cM of 6.9. So what are they doing?
???
add - and an 8.4cM across 1, with largest seg as 10!
-
I've got several in that group - all with LS 49, fine for the closest two - both 1C1R and 546/16 and 412/20, but the others are 36/1, 34/1, 28/3, 31/2, 21/1 and of course CF at 34/3. I'll look at other groups where I know they've uploaded to Gedmatch, to see if anything makes any sense
-
I've just found this from them:
In some cases, the length of the longest shared segment is greater than the total length of shared DNA. This is because we adjust the length of shared DNA to reflect DNA that is most likely shared from a recent ancestor. Sometimes, DNA can be shared for reasons other than recent ancestry, such as when two people share the same ethnicity or are from the same regions.
-
I've just found this from them:
In some cases, the length of the longest shared segment is greater than the total length of shared DNA. This is because we adjust the length of shared DNA to reflect DNA that is most likely shared from a recent ancestor. Sometimes, DNA can be shared for reasons other than recent ancestry, such as when two people share the same ethnicity or are from the same regions.
So the longest segment could be something ancestry has made up? still doesn't make sense to me
-
an example of the longest being longer which I've just been looking at
dna match to my mom 47 acr 2 longest 65
to me 39 acr 1 longest 59
relationship is 1/2 4C and 1/2 4C1R
maybe the longest segment will be the 'more accurate' guide where the number of segments is low (if it is the shared which has been adjusted as they appear to be saying), however, it looks like the figures are still in the same ball park for connections.
-
I've just found this from them:
In some cases, the length of the longest shared segment is greater than the total length of shared DNA. This is because we adjust the length of shared DNA to reflect DNA that is most likely shared from a recent ancestor. Sometimes, DNA can be shared for reasons other than recent ancestry, such as when two people share the same ethnicity or are from the same regions.
I’ve been puzzling over this...?
Some of my ‘longest segments’ are twice the size of the DNA Ancestry says is shared! How can that be?
Romilly :o :o
-
As it says!
Ancestry have always cut off a few cMs because they think it might be inheritance by locality. That's why the shared DNA is larger on My Heritage and Gedmatch for, for example. There are a few threads on it.
-
Why can't they just show us the real results, not adjusted to what they think they might be.
-
A quick example:
I have a known relative -
Ancestry - 120 over 6 segs, largest segment 47cMs
My Heritage - 133.4 over 7segs, largest segment 48.6cMs
Ancestry's algorithm chopped off some. We all know what algorithms can do!
-
Just found another one:
Ancestry - 48 over 2, largest seg 58
My Heritage - 69.9 over 3, largest seg 57.6
::)
-
A quick example:
I have a known relative -
Ancestry - 120 over 6 segs, largest segment 47cMs
My Heritage - 133.4 over 7segs, largest segment 48.6cMs
Ancestry's algorithm chopped off some. We all know what algorithms can do!
I have numerous ones like that and Gedmatch too
I have a known relative who doesn't match with me on Ancestry, but we do match to the same group of people. I have a match with him on Gedmatch though.
-
Why can't they just show us the real results, not adjusted to what they think they might be.
Looks like it's the 'wisdom' of Ancestry's Timber algorithm at play, but now we can see it more starkly as presumably the larger segment is the pre Timbered figure ::). So now it is going to be even more confusing for people and they are going to have even less confidence in it :-\ .
-
One of mine's been "timbered " a lot
My match with GB:
25 / 1 longest 38 on Anc,
43.8 /2 longest 37.4 on MH,
38.3 /2 longest 31.4 Gedmatch
Gedmatch shows I have two matching segments with her very close to each other on same Chr , totalling 38.3, longest 31.4.
My Heritage puts these together and finds a match at 6.4 on a different Chr, which there is no sign of on Gedmatch even when I reduce threshold to 5.
Ancestry also adds these two bits together, then timbers it to 25,
GB and I have match with a third person (LC) over part of this large segment and the small bit on the other chr. This match appears on Gedmatch and MH but not on Ancestry. I would have thought it was big enough to be picked up.
-
This is the latest from Roberta Estees Blog (found it in my Spam!!)
Does it help or confuse the whole issue more ;D
https://dna-explained.com/2020/08/09/august-hot-news-ancestry-match-tagging-script-dna-sales-
Kim
Ohhh! This seems to be what I've been searching for! Thanks for sharing that link as the code seems to scooping up a lot of the matches that would have just disappeared as my mum has loads of small DNA matches, some that I've been able to prove are connected.
-
Another good blog from Roberta about the fact that many Thrulines connect to sub 8cM matches - ergo are all these now invalid according to Ancestry? Secondly attempting to find connections in your low matches via searching by family surname and how well she managed to do through manually tracing her own Thrulines with those name matches
https://dna-explained.com/2020/08/14/6-7-cm-matches-are-172-thrulines-all-wrong/
-
Just found a 7cM match that is helping with an 18th century brick wall. Also finding shared matches at these lower levels that are helping tie clusters together. What with this and the race against time to save these lower matches... Very unhappy with it all. Can someone get hold of Ancestry's senior management and give them a good shake?
Does anyone have an email address for them that works? As Roberta says in her blog, the one she has comes back as non-working. The website itself only has chat or phone options and don't have time or patience for either.
-
I've found quite a few establishments have taken to doing this. They always - rightly or wrongly - blame it on covid.
I wonder how this would go down if the boot was on the other foot:-
'due to the covid pandemic, I'm sure you will understand that I am unable to pay for my subscription this year. I do hope you will bear with me as, due to a resultant shortage of finances, I am unable to respond to your request at the moment. Be assured, I value your patience. '
-
I sent them an email last week, it was via the website, I didn't find an email address, but contacted them via the support centre, then I clicked on the dna symbol, clicked on test results, then there is a 'contact us' button.
I sent them my concerns via the form.
I got a polite and 'thoughtful/relevant' reply some days later which included, 'Your feedback has been forwarded to the appropriate department for consideration.'
I don't know if it helps the situation or not, maybe if enough people did it, I don't know.
-
They do have a Free Phone number on the same page link:
https://support.ancestry.co.uk/s/ancestrydna-support
I've not tried it!
-
Thanks to lisalisa - I somehow managed to access the form although I had to log on in a separate window and the text and icons were all out of sync (icons were just squares). Dare say our comments will have no effect whatsoever.
Is anyone else having issues with the system freezing? It's taking me several minutes to get each match marked and so there's no chance of getting through tens of thousands by 'late August'. It would help if you could filter to decimal points, and also if you could filter by those who have no notes (rather than just those who do have notes). It's all a bit rubbish, isn't it?
-
Definitely is, rubbish I mean!!
-
Thanks to lisalisa - I somehow managed to access the form although I had to log on in a separate window and the text and icons were all out of sync (icons were just squares). Dare say our comments will have no effect whatsoever.
Is anyone else having issues with the system freezing? It's taking me several minutes to get each match marked and so there's no chance of getting through tens of thousands by 'late August'. It would help if you could filter to decimal points, and also if you could filter by those who have no notes (rather than just those who do have notes). It's all a bit rubbish, isn't it?
Flemming, there is a script that will save the low matches automatically, mentioned earlier on this thread, sorry I must have missed out on messaging you earlier :-[, please check your pms.
-
This is getting a little like the Ides of March. It's nearly the end of August and I can still see the 6 cMs that I chose not to mark in any way.
-
Anyone else seem to be getting far more new matches than usual.....and so many under 8 cm !
I couldn't possibly attempt to classify them all .
Im concentrating on working on my Jones side have established 1 more thru line with a 3C ,2r the kind that wont show when new system takes over.
-
Flemming, there is a script that will save the low matches automatically, mentioned earlier on this thread, sorry I must have missed out on messaging you earlier :-[, please check your pms.
Thanks for the link. Sadly, my eyes and browser glazed over about 2 mins into the video. Neither of us are up to altering Java script and so it's back to the manual process and accepting that a third of my matches will be culled at some point. But at least I got a really unhelpful reply from Ancestry (I can sense the 'pat pat' on the head and 'run along now').
Ancestry will be making changes to DNA Matches in the coming weeks. We understand your concern, however we do intend to improve the accuracy of matches. Although Matches below 8cms will not be listed as normal in the next few weeks, you can still retain them by adding them to custom groups or messaging these matches also. We do appreciate your feedback on this. We are always sorry to learn our members had a frustrating experience but are happy to help. Your feedback has been forwarded to the appropriate department for consideration.
-
Anyone else seem to be getting far more new matches than usual.....and so many under 8 cm !
Same here. Once they're stopped, I won't have any new matches coming through. It will be like tumbleweed city. If they're trying to free up systems processing, it'll certainly work with me, but seems like something of a blunt instrument to achieve the aim.
-
Here's what I did after getting the heads up from Melba about the method to automate tagging Matches.
I opened my matches in Firefox. Don't usually use this browser so I had to wait for lots of updates.
I loaded all Ancestry matches, then selected 6 - 6 cM . Decimal places don't seem possible. I started by selecting public linked trees, I pressed function (brown key Fn on my keyboard) and at same time F12. This opened a window in the bottom half of the screen, from which I selected the Console tab. I pasted in the text from the attached text file. I had opened the text file in Notepad, clicked select all and copied and pasted it in. I had made my group for all the matches the second one down after the "star"group and called it "!general". You will need to edit the text file to make it the same as your group in line 6
var groupTitle = "!general";
Change group name inside in quotes to your group name.
It is best if you give it a name to make it the second in the list, otherwise you need to change the group number in line 42
var myTag = choices[2].getElementsByClassName("checkbox");
Once you have pasted text in to "console" press run
If it stops, press run again
If it restarts it will skip the matches already tagged and go onto new ones.
hope it works fot you
I also found this worked just as well in Chrome. But took a bit more time to find the "console" tab
-
Well that's me given up the ghost on tagging. Decided had to continue on manual operation as my pc is so fragile, though thanks for being in the loop regarding the 'automatic' method. Would have saved me the incipient RSI for sure!! ;D
I have fully tagged down to and including 6.5's on the 3 accounts I manage, and down to 6.0 for matches with >9 people with accessible family trees. I have started on the matches with unlinked trees, on my own account. But to be honest haven't the heart to attack this with gusto, instead I intend to indulge my other hobby, listening to folk music, specifically, the Folk on Foot 3 streamed broadcast on Youtube - about 7 hours of pure pleasure!!
Who knows, if there is time afterwards, I may go at it again for a couple of hours.
All this assumes untagged matches disappear in a puff of smoke by tomorrow morning. But I am still on holiday ( with nowhere to go/want to go...) So, you never know!
-
About 9.50 pm - they seem to have run, whatever it was they were running, for me anyway. I've lost about 3.5 k matches from my own match list, with about 5k off both my Dad's and my cousin's lists!!
-
About 9.50 pm - they seem to have run, whatever it was they were running, for me anyway. I've lost about 3.5 k matches from my own match list, with about 5k off both my Dad's and my cousin's lists!!
Confirmed all non tagged 6 & 7 cM matches are now hidden :(.
-
Do you think we should start saving our 8cM-9cM matches?
(just because these were given a decimal point like the 6cM-7cM matches)
-
Do you think we should start saving our 8cM-9cM matches?
(just because these were given a decimal point like the 6cM-7cM matches)
Nooooo ;D :o!!!!!
-
;D
-
They are still showing photos of matches that I presume are less than 8cm because they are not accessible.
I did still get a shared match of a shared match who is 7.5 but otherwise the small matches have gone
-
Same here this morning. Yesterday I had 40k matches; today I have 19k. They've culled over 50% of my matches. Livid.
The saddest thing of all - clicking on 'unviewed' and no matches coming up at all.
-
Has anyone else not had any new matches since the cull? I was getting about six a day before it happened but nothing since Monday ::) :'( Also got a snotty reply from Ancestry when I told them how the total number of matches has been halved - got ordered to use the suggestion box instead. Not too friendly, are they?
-
Snap Fleming!
I haven’t had any new matches since the cull either...
Romilly.
-
Im wondering if the small matches will still show up on thru lines
if the trees line up
I had a new 8cm 3c 3R last week
-
I have just noticed that the decimal points have been removed from 8cM and 9cM.
Also:
Coming soon! We'll be updating AncestryDNA ethnicity results to be even more precise in the coming weeks.
adding new regions ... and Oceania
-
I have just noticed that the decimal points have been removed from 8cM and 9cM.
and in the 6s and 7s that we still have!
-
Did they tell anyone the decimals were going? Is that a rhetorical question?
Also just seen the ethnicity results are in a *new* improved (really?) format. Or perhaps they've just gone back to an old format.
-
I've just been looking at all the dna tests for family members I manage and each test has at least 10 confirm common ancestors below 8cm. It still makes absolutely not sense why Ancestry are removing them. Their reasons are not justified at all.
I've tagged all the ones below 8cm into groups for the tests that are important to me, but it's rather annoying that any new ones once they make the change will never appear.
Well done Ancestry - well done (Not!!)
-
I agree. I'm really missing the lower matches. Whilst Ancestry crows about its *super* new ethnicity splits that appeal to the masses for a minute, the rest of us are left to plod on in total frustration with half a service. :-[
-
Just noticed that 'the longest segment' is now missing, not sure when it disappeared.
-
Just noticed that 'the longest segment' is now missing, not sure when it disappeared.
I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago. Well that didn't last long.
-
Just noticed that 'the longest segment' is now missing, not sure when it disappeared.
I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago. Well that didn't last long.
Presumably because it exposed how far Ancestry's Timber algorithm was diminishing matches, although I'm sure they'll say it was because it caused confusion ::).
-
Just noticed that 'the longest segment' is now missing, not sure when it disappeared.
I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago. Well that didn't last long.
Presumably because it exposed how far Ancestry's Timber algorithm was diminishing matches, although I'm sure they'll say it was because it caused confusion ::).
If you click on the blue part with info about the shared DNA e.g.
Shared DNA: 1,846 cM across 54 segments
You'll get a new pop up window giving you info about the longest segment.
Shared DNA: 1,846 cM across 54 segments
Unweighted shared DNA: 1,846 cM
Longest segment: 174 cM
-
Just noticed that 'the longest segment' is now missing, not sure when it disappeared.
I'm sure it was there a couple of days ago. Well that didn't last long.
Presumably because it exposed how far Ancestry's Timber algorithm was diminishing matches, although I'm sure they'll say it was because it caused confusion ::).
If you click on the blue part with info about the shared DNA e.g.
Shared DNA: 1,846 cM across 54 segments
You'll get a new pop up window giving you info about the longest segment.
Shared DNA: 1,846 cM across 54 segments
Unweighted shared DNA: 1,846 cM
Longest segment: 174 cM
Ah so they're just hiding it ;D.
-
oh I'm glad it's still there, it's interesting to see where the longest segment is greater (even much greater) than the shared dna figure, presumably the 'unweighted shared' is the figure before they cut it.
-
Does anyone know if Ancestry still looks for common ancestors with 6cM and 7cM matches that you've managed to save, or do they only look at 9cM and above now?
-
Does anyone know if Ancestry still looks for common ancestors with 6cM and 7cM matches that you've managed to save, or do they only look at 9cM and above now?
I've just had a 7 turn up with "Common Ancestor" mark. Must have been in the last few days as I check CAs quite regularly. It was marked with my "holding" group by the automated process just before the 6s and 7s got chopped. I know it's new because I haven't assigned it to a "proper" group and added note of shared ancestors.
added
Ancestry are saying she's a half 6th cousin but I haven't verified yet. She has a private tree with 9 people so it must be using a lot of information from other people's trees.
-
Good to know although a little ironic - Ancestry finding a common ancestor with a match at a level they say is inaccurate. ::)
-
Good to know although a little ironic - Ancestry finding a common ancestor with a match at a level they say is inaccurate. ::)
Ancestry seems to cobble together a pathway from various existing trees into one probable branch.
I have about thirty matches with Common Ancestors and all but two I am happy with the pathways Ancestry has created as I have been through each and verified each person.
-
Yes, I'm happy with most of mine as well, notwithstanding they come and go (I presume because other people are changing their trees), but it's a continual reminder of what's been lost (50% in my case). Ancestry's 'give feedback' box keeps cropping up and I feel like writing 'what's the point - you don't take any notice of it'. Perhaps someone will send them a link to this thread ;D ;D
-
Yes, I'm happy with most of mine as well, notwithstanding they come and go (I presume because other people are changing their trees), but it's a continual reminder of what's been lost (50% in my case). Ancestry's 'give feedback' box keeps cropping up and I feel like writing 'what's the point - you don't take any notice of it'. Perhaps someone will send them a link to this thread ;D ;D
I've already done that, along with reminding them of specific issues which I had complained about and they had completely ignored, they ignored that too.