RootsChat.Com

Hi,

Have a James Bailey of Kent (1770-) ~ 4th paternal great grandfather ~ whose daughter Sarah Baily married into the Friend Romany family.

Also have connections with Scamp (am a Kemp), Lee, & Boswell family names.

Any information on the Kent Bailey name I would be grateful for - many thanks

"...Ancestry sent me this information saying i share d.n.a in the broken three mark with lots of people from the Gipsy community..."


match named (beaney) ROMNEY MARSH Kent

......relatives of match.......Mark Ripley 1738 Samuel Beaney 1809 Henry Beney 1694 Emmaneul Hilton 1802 Philadephia Jones 1812  Mary Miley 1763 Menty Scamp /Mathews 1884 Oliver Scamp…………………

3rd cousin 1x removed
Half 3rd cousin
Half 2nd cousin 2x removed
2nd cousin 3x removed
 

match named (Gardiner)………….relatives of match......Leonard Gardiner 1867 Thomas Gardiner 1820 Mary Borman 1668 Elizabeth Boswell 1875 Sampson Scamp 1774 Mary Ann Maden 1856 Abel Lee 1751  ………………………………..

3rd cousin 1x removed
Half 3rd cousin
Half 2nd cousin 2x removed
2nd cousin 3x removed


Clarke ..........female…………..relatives of match......Margery Bailie 1578 Flora Ripley/Scamp 1890 John Scamp1693 Henry Woodward 1606 Joyce Wootton 1604 Anthony Lee 1679 Elsabesth Lee 1595 Orsin Lee 1728 Abel Lee 1759……………………

3rd cousin 1x removed
Half 3rd cousin
Half 2nd cousin 2x removed
2nd cousin 3x removed

Am deeply critical of Ancestry - I use them because of their family tree graphics, which are good, & the access the give to census returns & so forth.

But my especial interest is in 3rd-5th great grandparents, this is when the dna matching starts fading away, in some instances down to '0'.

In this instance Ancestry is an absolute horror - I have a cousin match of 20.2cM on Gedmatch which Ancestry whittles down to 10cM! This means that many of my genuine dna matches never feature on Ancestry, never come up on Ancestry dna-searches, which is appalling.

With Gedmatch you are given a lot of control over how you search, you can raise & lower thresholds, for example. Ancestry, on the other hand, treats us like children - we are not allowed to vary anything, we are not allowed to see lower matching, we are only permitted to see what Ancestry wants us to see.

Members can still compare matches - a good feature - but it is still subject to the whittling down of dna matching, by over 50% in my case - that is just ridiculous, it's like being given a history book with over half the pages missing I feel.

But that's private companies - in general, a law unto themselves :-|

Reply from Ancestry - emphasis mine:

"Thank you for your prompt reply and for supplying the screenshot. I have checked the screenshot. You have typed out the message like it was an email/letter send to the other person. The message box will always reformat the paragraphs as it does not work like an email box/letter, like it previously was. It is more like a message centre now, where paragraphing is not going to work. Messages should be written now as a continuous string of words."

So they have wrecked their own message centre & people you haven't been in contact with before will take one look at "a continuous string of words" & ignore it as spam - this has recently happened to me.

I suggest everyone using Ancestry complain - this is the only way they may listen to members.

Thank you.

Thanks Jane

So it's not just me?

Ancestry 'upgraded' their message service 2 years ago & it has been chaos ever since. Had a promising contact I messaged who didn't reply because they said - at length - the block-text message I was forced to send looked like 'spam' to them; so Ancestry is being actively negative in members' attempts to contact one another & discover more about our families.

This is infuriating - I rely on dna-testing & contacts because my family tree is so difficult to establish, Ancestry is just adding to the difficulty with their silly message programme, which is not fit for purpose I feel.