Author Topic: dna results  (Read 694 times)

Offline lisalisa

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
dna results
« on: Friday 28 December 18 12:52 GMT (UK) »
Hello,

I bought 2 ancestry dna kits in the black friday week, and have just got the results (well one test came in on the 26th and one today), so firstly I am very impressed that the results are much quicker than the time frame suggested when buying the kits.

I'm thrilled with how interesting it all is.   ;D

I have a couple of questions regarding the layout of the results on ancestry, which I'm sure someone will know the answer to.

On the dna page it tells you how many 4th cousins or closer, is there a way to see how many distant cousins 5th to 8th, or do you just have to go through all the pages and count?

Also when viewing a 4th cousin or closer match and clicking on shared matches, the shared matches shown are up to 4th cousin, but don't show the distant ones.
Is there a way to show distant cousins in those matches?

I think if I am viewing a distant cousin match and click show shared, I get 4th and closer and distant cousins showing.

Am I missing a way to view the shared?

thanks,
Lisa

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
    • View Profile
Re: dna results
« Reply #1 on: Friday 28 December 18 13:21 GMT (UK) »
Lisa, I thought I was getting a few more matches recently, must be the Black Friday sales.

Firstly
You have to do a count of your 5th to 8th cousins manually. Number of matches per page is 50.

Secondly
You generally only get 4 to 6 cousin shared matches, occasionally 5th to 8th if they also match a 4 to 6 cousin.

You will find your way around fairly quickly, it is exciting at the beginning.

Regards Margaret
STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline lisalisa

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: dna results
« Reply #2 on: Friday 28 December 18 13:38 GMT (UK) »
Thanks Margaret. 

Another question is what is the 'cut off' threshold that people tend to use (I appreciate it will vary from person to person), for the lower limits of shared cM's?

I read an article online mentioning 'false positives', I think it came up when I was reading about the Leeds method on a blog, in that lower values of shared cM's might not be 'real/correct' (not sure quite what term to use).

Is 10 cM's shared a realistic cut off for looking at a distant cousin or is that too small and too distant?  I suppose if they match with closer cousins then that's a big clue to where to go looking.

It's a pity the layout of the results at ancestry doesn't allow some kind of 'filing' or even colour coded stars, to attach matches to different family lines. 

I have a big notepad ready . . . .

Lisa

Offline Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 46,170
    • View Profile
Re: dna results
« Reply #3 on: Friday 28 December 18 13:44 GMT (UK) »
Hi Lisa

The usually accepted lower measure is  7 cMs but Ancestry goes below that. I've not found any  of my matches with that measurement to match so far but I've not gone through them all.  I have got a few distant cousins in the 15-19 category though.

It might be worth you using this  chart to check possible relationships:

https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4

Also, have a read of a paper that Margaret recommended a while ago:

https://www.lostcousins.com/newsletters2/wedding18.htm#Masterclass


Gadget

Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

Offline jillruss

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,487
  • Gt Gt Grandfather Shepherd from Aberdeen 1827-1910
    • View Profile
Re: dna results
« Reply #4 on: Friday 28 December 18 13:48 GMT (UK) »
Ah, that's why I've suddenly got 5 new matches over the past few days when I'd had a long dry spell!!

It would be even better news if the 5 people had actually put a tree on Ancestry as well. I couldn't do much with their reasonably common names - + they don't even say which part of the world they're from. What is it with these people? Do they really think other people will do the work for them ( mugs like me who want to find the link so put themselves out to try and work it out) or are they just a bit lacking in the old grey matter department?

Unbeknown to me, a relative of mine did the test and actually managed to include an 8 person tree but, when I tackled her as to why she'd done it (I knew she wasn't really that interested in family history) she said it was for the ethnicity results and also she thought, for the amount Ancestry charge, they'd also provide her with the family information!!!

Is this why people don't include a tree? or is it just me being very unlucky with my 'no tree matches'? I'd estimate that 75% of my matches are pretty useless because of this.

And still, and still...its more than worth it for the few matches that come up trumps and fill in a gap in my tree!!  ;D
BRICKWALL - WILLIAM HORWOOD bn c.1779 in or near Berks. N.B. NOT s/o William & Joanna in Waltham St Lawrence.

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
    • View Profile
Re: dna results
« Reply #5 on: Friday 28 December 18 13:49 GMT (UK) »
Lisa, This newsletter makes a very good starting place for testers.

https://www.lostcousins.com/newsletters2/wedding18.htm#Masterclass

I follow some of the advice given there, but have developed my own ways as well.

As for cutoff values, ancestry uses 6cM and I have found some valid matches at around that level.

About half my confirmed matches are 4 to 6 cousins or closer, the others from more distant cousins. Not sure what proportion are from low cM matches.

Regards Margaret
STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go

Offline Guy Etchells

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,665
    • View Profile
Re: dna results
« Reply #6 on: Friday 28 December 18 13:55 GMT (UK) »
Thanks Margaret. 

Another question is what is the 'cut off' threshold that people tend to use (I appreciate it will vary from person to person), for the lower limits of shared cM's?

I read an article online mentioning 'false positives', I think it came up when I was reading about the Leeds method on a blog, in that lower values of shared cM's might not be 'real/correct' (not sure quite what term to use).

Is 10 cM's shared a realistic cut off for looking at a distant cousin or is that too small and too distant?  I suppose if they match with closer cousins then that's a big clue to where to go looking.

It's a pity the layout of the results at ancestry doesn't allow some kind of 'filing' or even colour coded stars, to attach matches to different family lines. 

I have a big notepad ready . . . .

Lisa

It depends on a number of things: How much time you have, how wide and how far back your family history research goes, how desperate you are to mention just three.
I tend to cut off around 50 cM as a general rule, but that is just me.
Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
    • View Profile
Re: dna results
« Reply #7 on: Friday 28 December 18 14:16 GMT (UK) »
Lisa, You may not get many matches above 50 cMs, I have only got 12 above that level!!

Regards Margaret
STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go

Offline Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 46,170
    • View Profile
Re: dna results
« Reply #8 on: Friday 28 December 18 14:54 GMT (UK) »
Lisa, You may not get many matches above 50 cMs, I have only got 12 above that level!!

Regards Margaret

I've just checked mine and have 18, some of which are recent additions.

50th is  32 cM
100th is 27.4cM
150th is 24.5cM

310 20cM or over
Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk