Ancestry Matches 7cM and less

[peter]

However does the above action mean that I am saved on John Smith's DNA list?

Yes, it does.

This is important as I regularly use the little mentioned facility on Ancestry where I share my DNA matches with other users (as viewer) and ask them to do the same in reverse. This is very useful for distant cousins as they often share DNA with mutual cousins that do not share with myself.

I have found literally dozens of 4th, 5th and 6th cousins that I have found by normal paper research that do not share DNA with me but have taken a DNA test and share DNA with other known DNA cousins.

There will also be 3rd cousins who you don't share DNA with. I even know of two 2nd cousins once removed who don't share DNA.

Sharing matches as a viewer is better than nothing, but it's frustrating not to be able to make notes. Perhaps you can persuade your cousins to upgrade the relationship to collaborator?

 

[Andrew Lloyd]

Interesting to see that we are getting an extra decimal point on our matches below 10cM this morning

 

[Helen7]

Interesting to see that we are getting an extra decimal point on our matches below 10cM this morning

That's interesting, and will help to sort out those that will be rounded up/down before the cutoff.

Unfortunately, on checking my matches this morning I keep repeatedly getting the message "Our backend services are overtaxed at the moment and we are unable to retrieve all your matches. We apologize for the inconvenience, please try again later." Frustrating!

 

[LynneWK]

I have 37,730 DNA matches to my tree and 3,490 between 6-7 cM. That's an awful lot to check through and mark. Has anybody any quick solutions as to the best way to tackle such a large amount? I'm going boss eyed looking threw for ones with attached trees.

 

[peter]

I have 37,730 DNA matches to my tree and 3,490 between 6-7 cM. That's an awful lot to check through and mark. Has anybody any quick solutions as to the best way to tackle such a large amount? I'm going boss eyed looking threw for ones with attached trees.

That's a small number than most other people, judging from the comments I received when I estimated that I'd lose 8000 or my 24000 matches.

But whatever the number, follow the advice in my newsletter! I'm certainly not going through one by one.

 

[LynneWK]

Thanks Peter. I have used the Ancestry 'Potential Matches' button to limit the list a bit. Like you though I am covering more than one tree.

 

[canadianbeth]

I do not see a "Potential Matches" button. Where would I find it?

 

[LynneWK]

On your DNA page go to common ancestors second along at the top of filters line. Has a green leaf in the corner

 

[peter]

Thanks Peter. I have used the Ancestry 'Potential Matches' button to limit the list a bit. Like you though I am covering more than one tree.

What I wrote in the newsletter was "The best way to save the matches that might make a difference is to follow the two key strategies outlined in my DNA Masterclass, then add a note to those matches that might be of future interest".

 

[canadianbeth]

On your DNA page go to common ancestors second along at the top of filters line. Has a green leaf in the corner

I found that and have them all identified. My page just does not say "Potential Matches"

 

[LynneWK]

Once you have clicked on your ancestor it brings up the link on the left that shows common ancestor. If you read it, it says "according to ancestry members trees etc and finishes with X could be your X cousin X removed" This suggests in this instance they are just comparing names in trees. What if the trees are wrong

 

[peter]

Once you have clicked on your ancestor it brings up the link on the left that shows common ancestor. If you read it, it says "according to ancestry members trees etc and finishes with X could be your X cousin X removed" This suggests in this instance they are just comparing names in trees. What if the trees are wrong

The trees could be wrong. But when there's both a tree match and a DNA match it increases the chance of a small DNA match being genuine, and it increases the chance that the trees are broadly correct. Most Common Ancestors matches are supported by multiple trees and they rarely have exactly the same information - because names change, spellings change etc.

 

[Pauline]

What if the trees are wrong

Ideally you need to check out the trees used in common ancestor matches, although if you don't have access to the right records, this isn't always that easy.

As for errors - sometimes the match's tree is wrong, sometimes it's the trees used by Ancestry to extrapolate the match's tree to a potential common ancestor, and sometimes Ancestry confuses two people of the same name and follows the wrong one.

With close matches you will likely have some shared matches which will at least confirm if the common ancestor suggested is in the right part of your tree or not. With more distant matches you may not have any shared matches and so need to take extra care.

For those matches (in mine and my sister's list) where I know the suggested common ancestor(s) to be spurious, all are "distant cousin" matches, and almost all of them are under 10cM (I do have one at 19cM). As well as those I know to be spurious, there are quite a few others where as yet I cannot confirm if the suggested common ancestors are correct or not, and again all of these are distant DNA matches.

With all of my "4th - 6th cousin" matches I can confirm that we do share the common ancestors shown, though with a few matches we also have other ancestors in common (in a different line) that are not shown.

But on the whole I think the Common Ancestor list is a very useful feature, so long as people take care and recognise it's limitations and potential for misleading errors.

 

[LynneWK]

I agree with you Pauline. I have made mistakes in my paternal tree which a lot of Ancestry users copied. I have now removed but others haven't.
In the DNA of my maternal side our common ancestor is correct up to a point but one tree has over 72,000 people in the same named tree. I am a little skeptical as to whether that many are really a match to me the further back it goes.

 

[peter]

one tree has over 72,000 people in the same named tree. I am a little skeptical as to whether that many are really a match to me the further back it goes

The vast majority of people in the trees of your DNA matches aren't cousins of yours - on average you share half of your ancestors with a 1st cousin, a quarter with a 2nd cousin, and so on.

 

[LynneWK]

To date I have just colour marked my common ancestors from start through to 6cM and the same in my husbands tree. Have seen some very interesting links but so far nothing that will help with my brick walls

 

[peter]

To date I have just colour marked my common ancestors from start through to 6cM and the same in my husbands tree. Have seen some very interesting links but so far nothing that will help with my brick walls

Personally I think you'd have done better to follow the Masterclass. Although you can search for surnames in individual trees it takes much longer when you do it one at a time, and there is no way I've found of searching individual trees by birthplace.

The other advantage of searching globally, as recommended in the Masterclass, is that the search only takes into account the direct ancestors of your matches. Most of the surnames in a typical tree are not ancestral surnames.

 

[LynneWK]

OK will give it another try.
Many thanks Peter

 

[Bryman]

Has Ancestry already started to make the announced changes? I have been checking my new matches identified each day and have been getting about 8-10 with 20 cM or less shared until last weekend. There have been no new matches added this week and today the total has decreased by 1. Is this the result of chance or has any other member noticed anything similar?

 

[Andrew Lloyd]

Is this the result of chance or has any other member noticed anything similar?

I have certainly noticed no new matches since 3rd August. Maybe we have seen the last of new matches <8.0cM?
In the past I have noticed that occasionally a match can disappear. Not sure why. Maybe the tester has passed away?