Shared Matches at Ancestry

[Bob Spiers]

The basis of the approach is, at first use, to give the phrase in full immediately followed by the abbreviation within parentheses; thereafter, the abbreviation can be used as it has been fully defined within the document (which, in this case, is the thread).

Phil, there you have it in one (as I mentioned in replying to Peter). The protocol (as you say) is at first use the full form, showing its abbreviated term in brackets (a simpler word than parenthesis); after which the short form is acceptable. I accept within Forum postings the full form may well have been used before, so an abbreviated form is (perhaps) acceptable. But we should remember others will try to make sense of an actual posting without having to dive back to see what it means. I am well aware of the time it takes to write Forth cousin, once removed against 4C1R, but you demonstrated your uncertainty by reminding (using an asterisk), it should not be confused with a similar spreadsheet reference!

I also had military (RAF) experience in a clerical capacity and am fully aware of the armed forces use of the short form for rank and position. I worked at Command Headquarters (CHQ) for the PMO (Principal Medical Officer) who was an AVM (Air Vice Marshal); but outside the forces these terms would only be used after the full form had been shown.

On another level entirely, I also once had a tendency given my early enthusiasm for gardening to use the botanical name for flowers, until I found others hadn't a clue what I was talking about. When explaining that Myositis was rampant my wife reminded I meant 'Forget-me-not'.

I agree, in a Genealogical Forum some acceptance of short-form terminology can be taken as read, but DNA terminology is a different thing altogether and we should tread lightly on the use of DNA short form. Especially if the intention is to spread the gospel and encourage DNA testing.

 

[peter]

I agree, in a Genealogical Forum some acceptance of short-form terminology can be taken as read, but DNA terminology is a different thing altogether and we should tread lightly on the use of DNA short form.

Quite right. Looking back at the current discussion the only abbreviations that weren't spelled out in full were cM and DNA. I deliberately didn't put the full version because I suspected that to write centiMorgan and Deoxyribonucleic acid would be more confusing than enlightening!

Especially if the intention is to spread the gospel and encourage DNA testing.

I generally discourage DNA testing rather than encouraging it on the basis that people who understand what it can do for them wouldn't be asking my advice, and those who don't understand it need to find out more before making the decision.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Here endeth the last lesson...I think I will flit to safer pastures.

 

[peter]

Here endeth the last lesson...I think I will flit to safer pastures.

Don't go - I was just going to ask you what RAF means.....

PS only joking, although I did have to think twice when someone used RCAF in an email

 

[Bob Spiers]

Don't go - I was just going to ask you what RAF means.....

It was what was shown on my cap badge, silly me not to ask what it stood for.

 

[Norman]

No military service here, I missed National Service by a year or so. I did work for London Transport for 40 years and for some time I was a Garage Operations Manager or GOM as it was known. Although I was never too pleased to be referred to as a GOM I was eternally grateful I wasn't the Assistant Rolling Stock Engineer.

 

[BettyJ]

Bob, if you follow the strategies I outlined in my recent Masterclass it won't make very much difference whether your cousins' trees are public or private - that's why those strategies are so effective.

As far as the cousins who have no trees are concerned, remember that we were all beginners once. If the amount of shared DNA is sufficiently high that they're likely to be 3rd cousins or closer, why not help them get started with their research? There's a good chance that you'll be able to figure out how the two of you are related.

There will be some, of course, whose sole motivation in taking the test was to find out about their ethnicity, and who have no real interest in going any further. But you won't know until you ask.

Bob, if you follow the strategies I outlined in my recent Masterclass it won't make very much difference whether your cousins' trees are public or private - that's why those strategies are so effective.

As far as the cousins who have no trees are concerned, remember that we were all beginners once. If the amount of shared DNA is sufficiently high that they're likely to be 3rd cousins or closer, why not help them get started with their research? There's a good chance that you'll be able to figure out how the two of you are related.

There will be some, of course, whose sole motivation in taking the test was to find out about their ethnicity, and who have no real interest in going any further. But you won't know until you ask.

I had my DNA done at Ancestry a few months ago, but have not done much with it till recently. I agree that it may not matter if a match has an Ancestry Family Tree or not. I don't have one and am not sure if I will. But I have been investigating shared matches with first and 2nd cousins and that is a big help in learning what line the match is from. Not having a tree at Ancestry does not necessarily mean you are a beginner. I have been doing genealogy off and on for years and have over 2000 people entered into my genealogy program.

 

[peter]

I agree that it may not matter if a match has an Ancestry Family Tree or not.

It makes a very big difference since, unless it's a close match or a match that is shared with a cousin, you're unlikely to ever look it (since it won't show up in searches).

You yourself should certainly have an Ancestry tree, though my recommendation would be to make it private. If you have no tree it will be assumed that you're a beginner even though you're not, but more importantly you won't show up in your cousins' searches.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I agree that it may not matter if a match has an Ancestry Family Tree or not. I don't have one and am not sure if I will

I think Peter has already answered on this point and I thoroughly endorse the fact you should have an Ancestry Tree (he and I disagree about whether it should be Private or Public but that is a secondary issue). I have to be honest and admit as far as I am concerned potential matches showing as 'N0 Trees' are just ignored and of little use to anyone (other than the owner perhaps). So I just move on to those with Trees, giving priority to those with Public Trees, then falling back on the Private Trees. My next move will be GEDmatch which at the moment is still incomprehensible, but will be mastered in time.

I should own to being the only family member to take a DNA test, and doubt that will change. No parents living and have two sisters; one female paternal first cousin, and a few maternal first cousins (male & female). None have taken, or wish to take a DNA test, all being happy to leave things to me and view and comment on my long established and well viewed TribalPages Tree. That is why for me to get the best out of an Ancestry test I can only relate to matches with Trees attached!

 

[peter]

None have taken, or wish to take a DNA test

But, as I recall, until recently you thought the same way - so they might change their minds, especially when you explain why it would be so helpful. None of my close relatives have refused to test.

On the other hand more distant cousins who are often more useful - a shared match with a 1st cousin only narrows it down to one side or other of your tree. However a shared match with a 4th cousin can be pinpointed more precisely, though naturally you'll have fewer shared matches with distant cousins.

 

[Bob Spiers]

However a shared match with a 4th cousin can be pinpointed more precisely

Reading about 4th cousins (and nothing to do with the DNA context of Peter's comment) I miss what I found most useful in the past when using Family Tree Legends (FTL) -now obsolete - which was its ability to produce Relationship Reports. NOT individual to individual -which is possible in many Family History (FH) programs - but ALL the direct line ancestors or descendants of ONE individual.

Although FTL did not allow me to pinpoint individual relationships -or isolate ancestors from descendants - it was just a matter of scanning the report pages (often quite many) and picking out the relationship(s) sought. So if I wanted to find 'multi-cousin' relationships, they were there to be found.

Can anyone advise if such an interrogation can be achieved using other FH programs? I cannot own to having tried too hard to duplicate FTL's report capabilities(and I don't have access to all FH software), but with the advent of my new DNA shared matching, I believe it would be useful to again produce such a report.

Is anyone aware if I can achieve the same results with any other genealogical software?

 

[Susan48]

I know you're not a Mac user, Bob, but MacFamily Tree 8 gives exhaustive kinship reports. My own kinship report on my paternal line family tree starts with partner and ends with 4th cousins once removed with uncles, aunts, in-laws and everything else in between, each category naming the appropriate individuals to whom I'm related in that way. For instance, I have (according to that particular tree) 90 "second cousins twice removed up" (MFT terminology). Is this what you were looking for?

 

[Bob Spiers]

I know you're not a Mac user, Bob, but MacFamily Tree 8 gives exhaustive kinship reports. My own kinship report on my paternal line family tree starts with partner and ends with 4th cousins once removed with uncles, aunts, in-laws and everything else in between, each category naming the appropriate individuals to whom I'm related in that way. For instance, I have (according to that particular tree) 90 "second cousins twice removed up" (MFT terminology). Is this what you were looking for?

Susan, that not only seems to be what I seek, it may even surpass that once obtainable with FTL. You are quite right I am not a Mac user so unfortunately I must either research to see if a Windows version is available (probably not), or await to see if someone can suggest a Windows FH program that effectively offers the same. But at least it is refreshing to learn one such exists, even if for a different operating system. Thank you.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have just explored Mackiev FTM and can see it provides for several Reports -including what I seek a 'Kinship' one where you alight on an individual and seek a Kinship Report, either up or down a pre-set number of generations. An ancestral Report seems to confine itself to direct line -parent-grandparent-great grandparent and onwards - but allows one to filter in siblings of the ancestors (great Uncles & Aunts) and their spouses although it takes time to generate such a Report.

It appears complicated to say the least, but then I am not used to FTM and have it as a belt and braces program because of its syncing capabilities with Ancestry. I cannot as yet get it to include (multi) cousin relationships but accept it is early days. So unless someone advises if and how such can be achieved with FTM (or any other program for that matter), I will soldier-on for myself.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I think I have cracked it by changing the search person to me (aka the Home person) and playing about with the number of ancestral generations to be included - as well as ticking the 'all relationships' box and waiting (did I say waiting)...to be truthful I left it and set about preparing the evening meal...and on my return there was the Kinship Report in all its glory. Even though only set to 5 generations (all relationships) there was enough information (actually far too much) which included 'cousin-ships' a-plenty, of all shades and removals. I will need to play around further, alter the search person and the filters to see what that produces. Not as easy as my old FTL (or Susan's MacFamily Tree 8 no doubt) but I think it will produce what I want, or as close as makes little difference.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I see DNA related Kinship now deals in Half measures. Namely with HALF Uncles & Aunts, and of course inevitably, Half cousins, nephew nieces et al. As someone who has assured his wife for years that her sister (same mother different father...her mother lost her first husband in WWII and remarried) who died only last year was a true 'Sister' and NOT a Step-Sister - a fact accepted unequivocally by her family- is not about to be told (least of all accept) they were in fact half sisters; nor that the niece in regular contact, is a half niece!

Outside of legal definitions I have always accepted that siblings who share the same mother are 'full' brothers or sisters. Whilst those who share only the father are step siblings, though I know some would refer to them as 'half' siblings. I personally would only consider (though doubt I would use) the term 'half' to describe children born within convoluted family co-habitations to different mothers.

I accept the genealogical (DNA or otherwise) use of the term 'half' is likely meant to reflect kinship definitions of persons whose lineage only stems from one Parental/Grandparental line; but is this in fact correct or is it more involved?

 

[Susan48]

As I understand it, Bob, half brothers or sisters share one parent - either father or mother - and so are blood relations. Step relations are related by marriage but not blood. For example, if a parent marries again and the new spouse has children from a previous marriage, then the relationship between the two sets of children is that of step brother or sister. However, if the parent and the new spouse have children together then those offspring are half siblings to the children from previous marriages because they share a parent and are therefore blood relations.

 

[Bob Spiers]

As I understand it, Bob, half brothers or sisters share one parent - either father or mother - and so are blood relations. Step relations are related by marriage but not blood. For example, if a parent marries again and the new spouse has children from a previous marriage, then the relationship between the two sets of children is that of step brother or sister. However, if the parent and the new spouse have children together then those offspring are half siblings to the children from previous marriages because they share a parent and are therefore blood relations.

Thank you Susan (& I see Pauline agrees), since posting I have consulted the Oracle (who shall be nameless) who passed on more or less the same information. I therefore accept half brothers or sisters share one parent and it matter not which and your follow-on point about children sharing a parent (again it matters not which) from a previous marriage are half-siblings in the way you explain.

Incidentally I am told the terminology comes from Horse Breeding where horses sharing the same Dam are known as half brother or sister. The same does not apply where they only share the same Sire.

So be it.

 

[peter]

Incidentally I am told the terminology comes from Horse Breeding where horses sharing the same Dam are known as half brother or sister. The same does not apply where they only share the same Sire.

That's probably because there are relatively few stallions - see my article from a year ago.

 

[Bob Spiers]

That's probably because there are relatively few stallions - see my article from a year ago.

I found that fascinating Peter as I did the New Scientist link in the article. I obviously missed it first time round or it slipped from my memory bank...par for the course I'm afraid.