When I first commented, the beta wasn't available to me, but it now is because it was being rolled out in stages. "Invited" was not the right word but I simply meant that not everyone would be able to see it at the time.
Now that I have it I tend to agree that it doesn't seem to add much of value but I disagree that that the earlier ethnicity tools are not what we want. When I tested last year, all my paper research had hitherto shown that I was English on both sides going back at least to the mid 18th century. When my test came back the vast majority of my highest matches live in the USA and come from a community which on further search was descended from the Irish diaspora that went to the USA in the mid 1800s. My ethnicity estimate at the time told me that I was half Irish...go figure! However, DNA doesn't lie so the ethnicity estimate confirmed the basis of my matches and turned my world upside down.
So, it depends on what you are looking for. Conventional family historians more often than not are simply trying to prove ancestry, to get past brick walls and to add new ancestors. If that's your main need then ethnicity has less value.
I accept that constructive criticism is valid and that Ancestry needs to know whether its tools are useful and helpful or not. On this occasion I agree that this new one doesn't add anything that helps me.
