Ethnicity Testing- Is it really worth it?

[Pauline]

Hey Peter and anyone else who has taken a test with Living DNA. I've just looked at my results again and my Great Britain and Ireland Ancestry has gone from 92.3% to 94% - has anyone else's results changed? My Regional Results have changed too. They seem even more accurate.

My LivingDNA results aren't due for another couple of months, but I seem to remember mention in the FAQ of updates in the analysis of results as they gather more information for doing this.

 

[Pauline]

I've just had my Ancestry DNA results, and bearing in mind the approximate nature of both the areas and percentages, their assessment of my ethnicity seems about what I'd expect. I've been assessed as 49% British and 24% western European, but as most of south east England is covered by western Europe, that seems fair enough. The possibly interesting bit is the 10% Iberian Peninsula though it has to be seen in the context of the given range which is 0-19%.

Overall, nothing earth shattering or life changing, but nevertheless interesting to see.

 

[jorghes]

How were your "genetic communities"? On target or completely off? I'm wondering if the new beta set up might be a touch more accurate than some of the ethnicity suggestions.

 

[Pauline]

How were your "genetic communities"? On target or completely off? I'm wondering if the new beta set up might be a touch more accurate than some of the ethnicity suggestions.

Pretty much on target. The main community is southern English, with 95% certainty, and as that covers Kent, Norfolk, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, that accounts for a sizeable chunk of my earliest known ancestry.

I've also been given possible connections (20%) to Yorkshire & Pennines, which seems to cover my Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire origins, and West Midlands.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

My East Anglia ancestry has also increased.

 

[jorghes]

Pretty much on target. The main community is southern English, with 95% certainty, and as that covers Kent, Norfolk, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, that accounts for a sizeable chunk of my earliest known ancestry.

I've also been given possible connections (20%) to Yorkshire & Pennines, which seems to cover my Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire origins, and West Midlands.

Seems that might be a little more accurate in some ways - mine gives me English in the West Midlands/the Welsh and English West Midlands - which is my mother's side and the Scots in Central Scotland and Ulster Ireland which matches quite a few of my father's migrating family. My older brother also has "Southern English" which should be the direct male line. Unfortunately it doesn't bring up my Jewish links, but that's ok I suppose.

 

[peter]

The problem with Ethnicity Estimates is that if they roughly match what we're expecting we assume they're right, and if they don't we assume they're wrong. Until they are sufficiently detailed and sufficiently accurate that we can use them as clues in the hunt for ancestors on the other side of our 'brick walls' they are of entertainment value only. Ancestry's Genetic Communities are still too broad.

It's still early days, but hopefully Living DNA will provide some vital clues - I look forward to hearing from the first LostCousins member to knock down a 'brick wall' with their help!

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

For the first time I've been told I have Cumbrian Ancestry by Living DNA. No Cumbrian ancestors that I know of but lots of illegitimacy on one line so can't rule it out.

 

[jorghes]

Ancestry's Genetic Communities are still too broad.

I have to admit, I don't mind broad so much simply because unlike a lot of people with mainly British ancestry, my ancestors are all emigrants both within the UK and then, of course, to Australia. A general idea is sometimes better than no idea at all!

I sometimes wish all my ancestors came from the same area of Britain - that would make my research simpler. (I won't say easier, that's probably not what it would become!)

 

[B C Chris]

I just received my Living DNA results and while most were what I expected I had no results from the West Midlands area where my grandmother came from. I am assuming that the family lines may have migrated there from other areas during the industrial revolution as I have only traced them to the mid 1700s. While I have ancestors from Tipperary (2x great grandmother) there is no Irish but that can be explained by Cromwell as the family story goes. I have tested Family Tree DNA FF and have contacted several cousins. At least now I know that my ancestry is likely 100% from Great Britain I can focus my effort to find DNA cousins.

Does anyone have an idea why there was no West Midlands area results?

 

[PaulC]

I know this is an old topic but I'm just wondering what current opinion is. Even before I got my Ancestry results I was looking at Living DNA and was quite impressed by their website. It would be nice to see a more detailed and reasonably accurate report on my ethnicity so I'm very tempted to give them a go.

For those of you who have already tested with Living DNA, were you happy with the results and is it something you would recommend?

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I was very happy with my results. My father was from Norfolk and maternal great grandparents and most of their antecedents from Suffolk and Living DNA correctly gave me a high East Anglian ethnicity. I only took the DNA test with Living DNA because I was so disappointed with my Ancestry results. Ancestry have since updated my results and now they are more in line with what Living DNA told me but Living DNA got it right FIRST time!

 

[peter]

For those of you who have already tested with Living DNA, were you happy with the results and is it something you would recommend?

It depends what you are looking for. If you want something that broadly confirms what you already know (rather like my spreadsheet), then you'll probably be satisfied. But I see DNA testing as a way of knocking down 'brick walls', and that's only going to happen if the results show something that we don't know and we believe it.

Take a look at my LivingDNA results and see how helpful you think they are - for comparison you can see where my known ancestors came from in my spreadsheet (apart from my 2 German 3G grandparents and the ancestors first seen in London but whose origin is unknown).

As you can see, LivingDNA show me as having North Yorkshire (8.9%) and South Yorkshire (2.7%), neither of which feature in my tree. They show me as 8.3% Devon and 5.3% Cornwall, but I have just one 3G grandparent from Devon (3.1%) and none that I know of from Cornwall. South East England seems to include London, Middlesex, Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent, Surrey, and Sussex (possibly Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire too), quite a large area to be lumped into one.

 

[PaulC]

I guess I don't see it in terms of breaking down brick walls as such, but more generally as a means of learning more. Having a test validate your own findings seems like something of value in and of itself, even if it doesn't lead you anywhere new.

Peter, having looked at your Living DNA results and your spreadsheet I thought they were broadly consistant with each other and with your known ancestors. While you might not have any known Yorkshire ancestors, it does seem to come relatively high in the spreadsheet as well. On the other hand, I was somewhat disappointed with how my own spreadsheet turned out and am far from convinved by its merits!

From what I gather in the newsletters and elsewhere, it seems like Living DNA are pretty much the front runners with regard to ethnicity testing. Is that a correct assessment, or are there other compaines worth considering?

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

If you are from the UK I would definitely go with Living DNA. Their DNA dataset comes from The Peopling of The British Isles Project. They had more people in their DNA reference, far more than Ancestry had which may explain the "off" ethnicity results I had from them. My first lot of results from Ancestry gave me high Irish ancestry with not one recordable Irish person on my tree! You can see why I was so disappointed with the Ancestry ethnicity results.

My hubby had more UK ancestry than me with the first version of ethnicity with Ancestry, but since Ancestry updated their results, I now have more than him, so go figure!

Living DNA will also be introducing cousin matching in the near future. I believe they are beta testing it right now.

 

[peter]

From what I gather in the newsletters and elsewhere, it seems like Living DNA are pretty much the front runners with regard to ethnicity testing.

They are definitely the front-runners, but my advice to anyone who can to afford to buy another DNA test is to pay for one of your cousins to test at Ancestry - it is far more likely to help you knock down the 'brick walls' in your tree than testing with Living DNA. And it's likely to be cheaper too.

I guess I don't see it in terms of breaking down brick walls as such, but more generally as a means of learning more. Having a test validate your own findings seems like something of value in and of itself, even if it doesn't lead you anywhere new.

It isn't validating your findings except in the loosest sense - it won't tell you which ancestors came from which parts of Britain or what their names were. The way to validate your findings is through cousin-matching.

 

[PaulC]

It isn't validating your findings except in the loosest sense - it won't tell you which ancestors came from which parts of Britain or what their names were. The way to validate your findings is through cousin-matching.

I don't disagree but that doesn't seem like a fair comparison, surely it's better to see them as complimentary? Matching cousins through DNA would have little value if you weren't also doing conventional research, for example.

 

[peter]

what

I don't disagree but that doesn't seem like a fair comparison, surely it's better to see them as complimentary? Matching cousins through DNA would have little value if you weren't also doing conventional research, for example.

I agree that DNA and conventional research go hand in hand, but ethnicity estimates don't seem to be a necessary or particularly useful part of the mix for those of us whose ancestors came from Europe.

For most LostCousins members the cost of a DNA test represents a significant investment - so I don't want anyone to be under the illusion that testing with LivingDNA is going to transform their research to the extent that testing with Ancestry does. It won't.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Agree that cousin matching is good on Ancestry but many of the matches don't have a tree. So they have obviously bought the DNA kit for ethnicity reasons only and probably aren't bothered about family history. One of my highest matches hasn't logged in since October 2016! Luckily I know who it is and how I am related; but it would have been nice to have a chat (even if only online) and share photos. Perhaps, like me, they weren't too impressed with Ancestry's ethnicity results and thought matches weren't worth pursuing?

 

[Bryman]

Agree that cousin matching is good on Ancestry but many of the matches don't have a tree. So they have obviously bought the DNA kit for ethnicity reasons only and probably aren't bothered about family history.

I am not sure that your logic is really valid. I do not have an on-line tree at Ancestry (nor even a subscription) but if I were to get DNA tested, it would not be for ethnicity reasons. Perhaps some of these possible matches are interested in family history and have private trees which are not on-line (at Ancestry) and it is not convenient for them to do so. That may not be ideal from your point of view but they may change as they appreciate the possible advantages of putting a tree online.