Author Topic: Just did a little survey - 1/3 of my matches have no trees!  (Read 1095 times)

Offline Galium

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,633
    • View Profile
Re: Just did a little survey - 1/3 of my matches have no trees!
« Reply #27 on: Tuesday 11 June 19 09:11 BST (UK) »
My Ancestry tree isn't my main tree (which is entirely private and not on any website).  It's mostly direct ancestors only, but with siblings where I think it might be useful.  I haven't included sources, although as a lot of these are available on Ancestry I don't see any need to. The lack of visible sources doesn't mean I couldn't, or wouldn't provide them to anyone who was interested enough to ask.
The tree shows exact dates when I have them - which I feel ought to demonstrate that I have seen the original record in some form.

I do find it surprising that there are so many people apparently prepared to fork out for a DNA test, who bother to put a nice photo of themselves up there with it, but have no tree at all, linked or unlinked. 
One match is someone who I know from elsewhere has been researching extensively for years, but their DNA test has a tree of just 4 people linked to it.  Thrulines doesn't work with that tree.
Another close match has no tree linked, but other matches and hunting around tells me who  our common ancestors are - and also shows me that this person does in fact have a good public tree on Ancestry, on a separate account. I'm baffled.
UK Census info. Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

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 alpinecottage

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,063
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Just did a little survey - 1/3 of my matches have no trees!
« Reply #28 on: Tuesday 11 June 19 09:49 BST (UK) »
Like sugarfizzle and Gallium, I have linked a small direct ancestors tree to my DNA results on Ancestry. 
These are my reasons (in no particular order) for this;  1) I don't have my data on a GEDCOM so I had to enter everything manually  2) I have entered direct ancestors for about 6 generations which should encompass all or nearly all my 4th or nearer cousins  3) If a cousin doesn't recognise any of the surnames, they almost certainly haven't done much research or aren't very interested so won't be able to help much 4) I don't like the ease of the hints system on Ancestry whereby any one can acquire the wrong ancestors if they're not careful, leading to lots of erroneous trees being on Ancestry.  6) Many of my ancestors had fairly unusual names (no John Smiths or Mary Joneses) so I don't have to distinguish different families like others might.  7) I can always go back later and add more info.
Perrins - Manchester and Staffs
Honan - Manchester and Ireland
Hogg - Manchester 19 cent
Anderson - Newcastle mid 19 cent
Boullen - London then Carlisle then Manchester
Comer - Manchester and Galway

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 Kaybron

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Just did a little survey - 1/3 of my matches have no trees!
« Reply #29 on: Tuesday 11 June 19 14:11 BST (UK) »
I did a DNA test about a year ago hoping it might lead to finding out about my grandmother and possible links to her parents.  My top match has no tree and I have sent 2 emails and no reply.  My second top match has 13 people on a tree and is managed by someone.  I have received a reply to an email sent and hopefully we will work out our connection.  One person has sent me an email stating we have a connection.  The person has over 16,000 in their tree and addressed their message to me as Hi Elizabeth  Can you please look at my tree and let me know where you fit in.  My name is not Elizabeth therefore not a high priority in replying.

On a positive note a success story with DNA for my husband in the next few weeks.  He has sent a kit away and we are waiting for the results which are likely to have an impact on his family.  He supports me with my interest in family history but does not do anything apart from listen to what I tell him.  A request was made for him to take a test which he willingly agreed to and we are waiting for the results to come through.  Using some very good trees put together by several people and one that I have recently put together for him with the basics of his ancestors, is going to go a long way in working out the relationship.

Offline lmgnz

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Just did a little survey - 1/3 of my matches have no trees!
« Reply #30 on: Wednesday 12 June 19 08:09 BST (UK) »
I have not counted the number of my matches whose trees are fairly useless or non existent but 1/3 is about what I had estimated. (I suspected DNA test gifts and 6 months free membership to be the reason for most of these).

However despite little or no public information, Ancestry does tell you who shares the same matches so you can often find someone in the shared matches with more information and sometimes you can find someone who you have in your own tree.

I have been using the colour groups to link people together. Some I do know who they are and can name the right family as there are known people in their tree,  but I have at least 9 groups for which I have not yet worked out which family they belong to (though I do have some ideas). However they all match up to at least one other person in the same group.

Using the colours to group people I have been able to assign most of my 429 x 4th cousin or less to a family or group despite many of them not having trees. Only 2 of them are my known 2nd cousins everyone else is further away.

I got my results at the end of January and it has taken me all this time to work through the "closer" cousins and part way into the 5th-8th cousins (those few who have shared matches).

One thing I now realise is that I am going to have to come down my side branches a lot further than have so far done, as some of my matches go back to 4th, 5th or even 6th gt grandparents born in 1700s.

The scary bit is when you see the total number of matches. I think mine is over 50 thousand.

Cheers

Offline lmgnz

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Just did a little survey - 1/3 of my matches have no trees!
« Reply #31 on: Wednesday 12 June 19 08:22 BST (UK) »
I just did a quick survey of the first 10 matches in my new matches from the last 7 days:

5 no trees
4 unlinked trees
1 tree of 4,500 people.

Most have less than 10 cM shared DNA so I am not expecting to  see any shared matches.

That is where the common ancestor thing is very useful. I just found one with only 7 cM DNA and surprisingly one shared match (to someone who shares my 3x gt grandparents). The only snag is that I think the common ancestor in the tree of my 7cM cousin is wrong and our shared ancestor is not my 4th gt grandparents as stated, but probably either my 5th or possibly 6th gt grandparents. Depending on whose research you believe. I have quite a lot of faith in those who, like me, did their initial research from parish records pre Ancestry.

Cheers

Linda

Offline LizzieL

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,848
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Just did a little survey - 1/3 of my matches have no trees!
« Reply #32 on: Wednesday 12 June 19 13:25 BST (UK) »
Just looked at my new matches in last 7 days. One has a tree with 111,899 people, but no common ancestor match!
Berks / Oxon: Eltham, Annetts, Wiltshire (surname not county), Hawkins, Pembroke, Partridge
Dorset / Hants: Derham, Stride, Purkiss, Scott, Sibley
Yorkshire: Pottage, Carr, Blackburn, Depledge
Sussex: Goodyer, Christopher, Trevatt
Jersey: Fowler, Huelin, Scott
Essex/Herts: Livermore, Holgate, Law, Day, Myson, Boyton
Norfolk/Suffolk: Stone, Alexander, Tipple, Ingate

Offline IgorStrav

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,714
  • Arthur Pay 1915-2002 "handsome bu**er"
    • View Profile
Re: Just did a little survey - 1/3 of my matches have no trees!
« Reply #33 on: Wednesday 12 June 19 13:44 BST (UK) »
Just looked at my new matches in last 7 days. One has a tree with 111,899 people, but no common ancestor match!

Yes.  This sort of thing is very hard to believe......
Pay, Kent. 
Barham, Kent. 
Cork(e), Kent. 
Cooley, Kent.
Barwell, Rutland/Northants/Greenwich.
Cotterill, Derbys.
Van Steenhoven/Steenhoven/Hoven, Belgium/East London.
Burton, East London.
Barlow, East London
Wayling, East London
Wade, Greenwich/Brightlingsea, Essex.
Thorpe, Brightlingsea, Essex

Offline LizzieL

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,848
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Just did a little survey - 1/3 of my matches have no trees!
« Reply #34 on: Wednesday 12 June 19 13:53 BST (UK) »
Just looked at my new matches in last 7 days. One has a tree with 111,899 people, but no common ancestor match!

Yes.  This sort of thing is very hard to believe......

But she is descended from Alfred the Great, and although my tree doesn't go back that far, my ancestors are from Wantage area (King Alfred's birthplace) so a possibility he was our common ancestor  ;D ;D ;D
Berks / Oxon: Eltham, Annetts, Wiltshire (surname not county), Hawkins, Pembroke, Partridge
Dorset / Hants: Derham, Stride, Purkiss, Scott, Sibley
Yorkshire: Pottage, Carr, Blackburn, Depledge
Sussex: Goodyer, Christopher, Trevatt
Jersey: Fowler, Huelin, Scott
Essex/Herts: Livermore, Holgate, Law, Day, Myson, Boyton
Norfolk/Suffolk: Stone, Alexander, Tipple, Ingate

Offline IgorStrav

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,714
  • Arthur Pay 1915-2002 "handsome bu**er"
    • View Profile
Re: Just did a little survey - 1/3 of my matches have no trees!
« Reply #35 on: Wednesday 12 June 19 13:55 BST (UK) »
Just looked at my new matches in last 7 days. One has a tree with 111,899 people, but no common ancestor match!

Yes.  This sort of thing is very hard to believe......



But she is descended from Alfred the Great, and although my tree doesn't go back that far, my ancestors are from Wantage area (King Alfred's birthplace) so a possibility he was our common ancestor  ;D ;D ;D

Aha - but Lizzie, I thought you'd already established your connection to Adam and Eve (or alternatively that wonderful woman in Africa somewhere way back when), helped by some Rootschatters here?  Not got round to putting all the generations on your tree, evidently.
Pay, Kent. 
Barham, Kent. 
Cork(e), Kent. 
Cooley, Kent.
Barwell, Rutland/Northants/Greenwich.
Cotterill, Derbys.
Van Steenhoven/Steenhoven/Hoven, Belgium/East London.
Burton, East London.
Barlow, East London
Wayling, East London
Wade, Greenwich/Brightlingsea, Essex.
Thorpe, Brightlingsea, Essex