Ancestry Assignment to Both Sides

[ggrocott]

Mine has also gone up - from 1 to 12.  One I had already identified as having shared matches on both sides of my tree and is a 32cm match but with no tree so I have been unable to get any further.

The rest have no shared matches and range from 8 - 15 cm but they are all on two segments.  Intriguing.  Six of them have trees of some sort so I may try to investigate further, none of them have shared surnames and the only shared location is London, UK - so it may be tricky!

[phil57]

Just received an email from Ancestry informing me that yet more of my matches have been sorted by parent. Having checked, there are no more both parent additions, and I don't keep track of how many matches I have to each parent, but what is noticeable is that I'm being told on the main DNA matches page that my top four maternal common communities are all in the USA, and three out of the top four paternal communities are also either in the USA or Australia.

If I look at the communities assigned on the ethnicity page, they are the same as they have been for some time, all in the UK or NW Europe apart from two minor American settler communities...

[MJW]

As mentioned earlier, I have 74 "both sides" matches (previously this was 2).

From checking number of segments for each match:-
- only 1 match has 1 segment  (a 15cM match)
- 2 have 4 segments
- 5 have 3 segments
- 66 have 2 segments

So far, I haven't been able to make much sense of these matches.

[Ruskie]

Just received an email from Ancestry informing me that yet more of my matches have been sorted by parent. Having checked, there are no more both parent additions, and I don't keep track of how many matches I have to each parent, but what is noticeable is that I'm being told on the main DNA matches page that my top four maternal common communities are all in the USA, and three out of the top four paternal communities are also either in the USA or Australia.

If I look at the communities assigned on the ethnicity page, they are the same as they have been for  some time, all in the UK or NW Europe apart from two minor American settler communities...

Mine look the same for both Parents and still about the same number of ‘unassigned’. No obvious  changes with their update.

I noticed yesterday that my “common communities” had changed, though I generally ignore that. I hadn’t noticed Puerto Rico on the list before - that’s an interesting one. 

Are the “common communities” based on locations in people’s trees? Not many of my DNA matches have trees, which would reflect in the common communities not being as expected? I wonder if more Americans having trees would explain more US locations in common communities.

I’d find it more useful to show matches’ locations (as My Heritage does) than “common communities”.

[phil57]

Are the “common communities” based on locations in people’s trees? Not many of my DNA matches have trees, which would reflect in the common communities not being as expected? I wonder if more Americans having trees would explains more US locations in common communities.

Yes, there's an element of Ancestry family tree scouring involved, in that their algorithm looks at clusters of DNA matches and also the locations contained in the matching members' family trees.

I do have a fairly large number of half cousins in the US, all from three sons of my GGF fathered by a different wife - not my GGM. They are by far my largest group of matches derived from emigres, with many descendants having taken Ancestry DNA tests; although I also have some direct cousins in Australia and Canada. Canada isn't mentioned in these new communities at all.

But the main point is that these eight foreign communities are the communities I am most attached to according to the DNA matches by parent page, yet when I drill down to the communities page itself, I'm told that I am connected to The Midlands, Central Southern England, the East of England, Wales and "Ohio, Indiana and East Kentucky Settlers". Irrespective of their accuracy or otherwise (some are broadly correct, others I have an issue with) they completely contradict my "top communities" now shown on the DNA matches by parent page, and which as far as I'm concerned are complete bunkum.

Something definitely seems rotten in the state of Denmark, not that I have a community there either, but if I did I would regard it as far more likely than the ones that I seem to have just been allocated

[Biggles50]

Interesting, I used to describe myself as an Anglo, Welsh, Canadian.

DNA came on the scene and I became:-

Anglo, Welsh, Canadian, Indian, Italian, Scottish, French, German, Spanish, Belgian, Norwegian, Icelandic, Greek, Syrian, Albanian, Hungarian, North Macedonian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Austrian, Lebanese, Palestinian, Israeli & Jordanian.

Then things expanded and added to the above was:-

Luxembourg, Switzerland, a smidgen of the Netherlands, not no mention, Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Alderney and a new lifeform under a rock on the beach of Brittany.

Ahh such is life

[phil57]

The main issue that I have with these North American and Australian communities though is that I am not directly descended from anyone who lived in those places. Rather, some of the brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles (half and full) of my direct ancestors settled in those places for various reasons within the last 200 years.

If I accept Ancestry's description of communities, that they are formed from Ancestry DNA members whose ancestors probably came from the same place of cultural group within the last 50-300 years, it would make sense for my cousins in other continents to be attached to communities in the British Isles. It makes far less sense for me to be attached to communities in other continents where neither I or my direct ancestors have ever resided.

And even less sense for Ancestry to state that those communities in N. America and Australia are the communities to which I have the highest attachment on the DNA matches by parent page, when  none of the communities listed there appear in the list on my Communities page itself

It has rather reinforced my opinion of the whole concept, at least as far as Ancestry are concerned. This is one aspect for which Living DNA have a far more precise UK biased implementation. They have no access to a tree relating to my DNA sample, yet their recent ancestry results are pretty accurate in comparison to my research, in some places down to county level. Even within the UK, Ancestry seem far more hit and miss.

[Biggles50]

Conversely for me Living DNA is way off the mark.

Summation to 30% for East Anglia, Midlands, Cornwall and Scotland.

I have Zero ancestors from these areas in the last 250 years.

[Ruskie]

What you say makes sense Phil. I think “common communities” is a fairly meaningless and unhelpful feature.

It’s based on where some people who match some of your DNA live now, or can be pigeonholed into particular groups.

(“Last names in trees” has no value either I don’t think.) 

With Parent 1’s side I have two lots of Ashkenazi Jewish communities - one in Central and Eastern Europe and another in NE Europe.

Although I only have an estimated “13% Jewish” on Ancestry I get many matches who have very high percentages of Jewish “ethnicity” - some into the 90%s.

I think that they are keen on DNA tests, so are overrepresented in the number of matches I have, and this must be the reason for my two Jewish common communities.

Unfortunately my Puerto Rican community will probably remain a mystery. 

Parent 2’s side is questionable too, but I won’t elaborate.