DNA - What's the point?

[AngelaR]

In the early-ish days of DNA for Family History research, I went for a mitrochondrial DNA test, not realising what a total waste of time that was!

Later, I did an autosomal test with the same company and found a few contacts but not many so retested with Ancestry, since they are the one company who won't let you upload tests from anywhere else. Since then I have gradually found the results incredibly useful - not so much the near matches but ones a wee bit further.

I have a private tree on Ancestry, which I've populated with names and dates but no pictures and ThruLines uses that to give me indicators of possible common ancestors. (I prefer to keep a very comprehensive tree on my PC at home rather than rely on putting my research solely on a commercial platform.

I would really encourage Michael to have a tree on Ancestry with at least the outline of as many generations back as you can do. It doesn't have to be public but it needs to be there for ThruLines to work. As has been pointed out though, it relies on whatever people put in their trees to suggest how you are connected and we all know what rubbish people put in trees, so you will be connected to them just not necessarily the way they think.


However, even without a tree, if you can find people on Ancestry that you know about and see what other people have shared matches with you and them, it narrows the field down considerably.

Apologies if this is a long ramble but I wanted to be encouraging - I have found quite surprising things as a result of the DNA test. Unfortunately, a number of people who tested (I have an apparent first cousin on my father's side) look like they have died and the frustration of seeing their name and not being able to contact them is enormous 

[Albufera32]

Granted this is from Ancestry's own advertising, but assuming they aren't outright lying, earlier this year the number of DNA tests on Ancestry was over 15 million.

At least amongst their American customers, that translates into an average of 50 000 DNA matches, apparently.

(Having recently done the dna test myself and whilst awaiting the results I have been watching videos by Crista Cowan.)

[AngelaR]

Fingers crossed for some good results for you, Albufera32!

Ancestry certainly has far and away the most people tested, which is why it's a good idea to use their test and the results can always be exported to other platforms (eg GEDMatch I think) to broaden the scope a bit.

Over the past few years, I've noticed quite a lot of new matches for me in the UK, whereas before it was largely US people so I think it's becoming more and more generally useful.....

[brigidmac]

Pat ..I'm on a very similar project for a war baby now know that her highest match MUST be grandson of her birth father but no tree and not answering messages yet .
But we are in touch with her birthfather half neice and grandson who have not tested but the descendant of their mutual grandfather & those of his sister have tested .
I can also trace mutual matches common ancestors to 1824 .1810 & 1789 so paper trail confirmed
My hint would be pay for someone from elder generation before you test yourself or agree with relatives to purchase a few tests at same time ..saves on postage costs

[TonyV]

Thanks for all your views and advice. It was the Ancestry DNA test I had in mind given that it is heavily discounted right now. I am not currently a subscriber. I have been in the past but I have never had a family tree there. The brick wall that bugs me most is in my paternal line where I can't distinguish between two likely candidates who could be my 4x grandfather. There are public trees on Ancestry which claim to know but whenever I've asked the tree owners they can provide no proof and indeed pretty much every tree owner was unaware of the second candidate. As most of you have seen it is clear that most of the trees are cloned so that the errors are also repeated but treated as kosher.

Given that the amount of DNA passed down reduces each generation and that by the time of 4th grandparents is pretty much negligible I don't really understand how a DNA test gets round my problem. I do understand that getting the oldest members of the line to take the test makes sense but I am that person. I also suffer from being perhaps the only person in my extended family who is interested in this obsession so I would be laughed at if I asked cousins to take a DNA test.

Maybe I will; maybe not!
   

Tony

[AngelaR]

At the moment, as you say, the Ancestry test is heavily discounted so now is probably the time to jump!
I have a large number of connections via 4x gt grandparents (and like you am the only one in the family who is interested so no chance of asking cousins). It's all a bit random but one side of my family (my father's) seems to have very persistant genes or something so lots of confirmation of my research there. Still can't find anything further about my elusive William Cannings (see below!) but in a way, this is the fun of it! I don't regret forking out for my test(s) at all (apart from the mitochondrial one I suppose)

[medpat]

I have got 11 contacts who are directly related to the siblings of my 3rd gt grandparents, we connect at my 4th gt grandparents. You can get back there, you just have to be aware DNA is variable at conception.

You only need to find one distant cousin to verify a paper trail.

[medpat]

I have got 11 contacts who are directly related to the siblings of my 3rd gt grandparents, we connect at my 4th gt grandparents. You can get back there, you just have to be aware DNA is variable at conception.

You only need to find one distant cousin to verify a paper trail.

[medpat]

Pat ..I'm on a very similar project for a war baby now know that her highest match MUST be grandson of her birth father but no tree and not answering messages yet .