PLUNK – An Ancestry DNA game for Christmas (and beyond?)

[Katie Bee]

My close matches (442): P = 18, L = 208, U = 87, N =129, K = 21, giving a score of 9.3

Target is 100% but if you have illegitimate ancestors this could be difficult to attain.

I have 3 illegitimate ancestors - a great grandfather and grandmother (maternal) and a great grandmother (paternal), so I think 100% may be difficult as you say John! But I'm working on it.

 

[canadianbeth]

I have at least two illegitimate ancestors - my paternal grandfather and my paternal 4x great-grandfather.

 

[Tim]

Here are my numbers John, just not sure what it proves. We don't use U and N?

P 15
L 78
U 32
N 52
K 13
PLUN=174
score = 13.97849462
53% have trees.

However I have 4 times the number of distant matches with common ancestors, i.e. 52.

 

[canadianbeth]

I think my post above is incorrect; my illegitimate ancestors are my father and my 3x great-grandfather.

 

[John Dancy]

Tim,
Are you one of our younger lost cousins ? you currently have the lowest level of close matches. And this almost certainly explains why your number of close matches with distant relatives is higher.

So far we have 3,337 close cousins of whom 18% have been allocated common ancestors by Ancestry and 53.8% have linked trees.
Unlinked trees seem quite often to have few, if any, names in them and could quite easily not be the family tree of the person who had done the test anyway.

 

[Tim]

John,

Not following your logic. I could be 2 or 102, but that wouldn't alter the matches I have.
All these figures prove is how many of my distant cousins have tested compared to my close ones.

I have managed to place 15 of my close cousins in my tree and 41 of my distant ones.

You also say " You can increase your score by building your family tree branches so that Ancestry picks up more cousins, but it will go down as you slowly gain more close cousins."
But this is not true is it? My score can only increase if K goes up (assuming P+L remain the same).
K is Number of close cousins with “Common Ancestors”. So I should get more of my known close cousins to do DNA tests?
Are you forgetting that these figures are based on DNA? Adding more branches won't change any of the PLUNK figures will they?

This is how my score changes if more close cousins test. (I could have put them in L but it makes no difference to your formula)

 

[John Dancy]

Hi Tim, Thanks for your lengthy response.

True that age doesn't matter, but your place on the family tree does - Given that the amount of DNA decreases per generation those from previous generations (parents, grandparents etc) are likely to match with more of your fourth/fifth etc cousins than you as they will have a larger sample to match the DNA from. 'Jorghes', above has a grandmother with 985 close matches, almost certainly because her DNA sample is larger to start with and matches further down some of her tree branches.

And yes, the number of "K" will increase as you build your family tree, if your branch then extends to the tree of a DNA cousin who has a 'brick wall' on their side of the branch.

My wife had two DNA close cousins whose trees 'ended' at "Henry Cassell" and his wife"Elizabeth Dickerson" - My wife's tree does not have either of these. Research showed that "Henry Cassell" was actually "Henry Cattle" and the son of my wife's 2nd Gt Uncle. He had married bigamously (using the same names and occupations for himself and his father, and signing with the same handwriting). Having contacted the descendants of Henry Cassell they changed their trees and my wife's number of Common Ancestors increased. We have also identified a significant number of her DNA relatives who would be linked with her as Common Ancestors if they put more people in their trees, linked their unlinked trees, or even had a tree at all. So yes you can increase K with effort rather than more cousins taking tests. Slightly more than half of Tricia's close cousins with common ancestors were gained through changes to her tree, the biggest when she discovered that her grandfather was born Benjamin Hubbard, not Benjamin Herbert (changed his name on joining the army at 18).

I note that you added your 'more close cousins' to the Private Linked tree" value. Was this for a reason? but yes, I agree with your figures

 

[Susan48]

Close matches 266: P = 18, L = 125, U = 48, N = 75, K = 12, giving a score of 8.39
53.75% have trees

 

[Helen7]

We have also identified a significant number of her DNA relatives who would be linked with her as Common Ancestors if they put more people in their trees, linked their unlinked trees, or even had a tree at all.

The same would happen with me. I've identified my relationship to far more cousins than Ancestry has identified as having 'Common Ancestors', through BMD searches and contacting those with no or minimal trees. Same for my husband's matches, including two previously unknown 2nd cousins who had no trees, which of course means Ancestry can't show the relationship.

 

[Helen7]

My score can only increase if K goes up (assuming P+L remain the same).
K is Number of close cousins with “Common Ancestors”. So I should get more of my known close cousins to do DNA tests?

Surely it's not getting more of your known close cousins to do DNA tests that would increase K, it's getting more of your "close cousin" DNA matches to put reasonably-sized trees on Ancestry.

 

[Tim]

Hi John,

Unfortunately my position in the tree also doesn't matter. I have fourth/fifth cousins, I also have sixth/seventh and eighth cousins. The fact that Jorghes has 985 close matches means that more of her close matches have tested compared to mine. The number of fourth/fifth cousins is also purely due to the number of siblings that each generation has.
The figures that Ancestry share are purely to do with people who have taken DNA tests. I have 174 close matches which I think is quite low. And this was why I created the other post to try and see how different my results were compared to others.

What maybe useful for comparison, is if you take your PLUNK numbers and divide them by the number of close matches and multiple by 100 to get a percentage.
Mine look like this.


And here are yours.


And here are Susan's.

 

[Tim]

Surely it's not getting more of your known close cousins to do DNA tests that would increase K, it's getting more of your "close cousin" DNA matches to put reasonably-sized trees on Ancestry.

Hi Helen,

From John's definitions (below), and he only uses K, P and L in his formula.
If the tree is private (P) then having 2 or 1,000 in the tree won't effect the result.
If the tree is Linked (L) then the further they push back their tree and specifically in your common line, would potentially increase K

Ancestry derive K from other peoples trees. I have people in my DNA results where Ancestry doesn't indicate a common ancestor but I have these people in my DNA tree.

P = number of DNA close cousins with Private Linked Trees
L = Number of DNA close cousins with Linked Trees
U = Number of DNA close cousins with Unlinked Trees (private and public)
N = Number of DNA close cousins with No trees (includes “Tree Unavailable)
K = Number of close cousins with “Common Ancestors”.

 

[John Dancy]

Hi Helen,

"If the tree is private (P) then having 2 or 1,000 in the tree won't effect the result."

Yes it will, Ancestry looks at all the Private person's direct relatives to see if any match yours, the more direct relatives in either their or your trees the more chance of a match, and Ancestry working identifying a chain.

There is another thread where I have covered this, but if you go to the "View Relationship" and the cousin who is private shows up as mostly locked cells (when Ancestry only has their tree as a reference) you can unlock them by adding the children comprising the locked generations to your own tree. Ancestry will show your tree members first, whichever branch they are on. I know because I have done it.

I think my initial comments were because I was trying to work out why your number of close cousins were low, but I agree it is almost certainly due to the number of your cousins who have tested. One of Tricia's cousins (through the illegitimate line already mentioned) is only 17% European, most of her Ethnicity being Asian, and she has few close cousins, but it means that almost all her European cousins are either descendants of the bigamist or his wife. It is helping us to break a rather persistent brick wall in that we now know cousins on the other side.

And on Jorghes grandmother - The amount of DNA reduces generation by generation, and children/grandchildren can get a completely different sequence of DNA from her. By her grandchildren or great grandchildren they could quite well not even match, or the match fall below the 8cm required for Ancestry to be interested. You would be bound to have less close cousins than your grandmother simply because you have less DNA to match.

 

[Helen7]

If the tree is private (P) then having 2 or 1,000 in the tree won't effect the result.

I agree with John. Ancestry use information in both public and private trees to connect to your tree, so it does matter how many people are in the private trees of your matches. If they only have themselves and their parents - and there are no other trees available to fill the gap - then Ancestry won't be able to make the connection.

Ancestry derive K from other peoples trees. I have people in my DNA results where Ancestry doesn't indicate a common ancestor but I have these people in my DNA tree.

I'm not sure what you mean here. By 'DNA tree' do you mean the tree linked to your DNA results on Ancestry, and that your DNA matches are included in your tree? If the DNA match has a linked tree (however small) Ancestry should be able to find the common ancestor from your tree if you have the cousin in your tree.

My (public) DNA-linked tree only includes my direct ancestors. I suppose I could increase K if I were to include all branches down to living cousins, but I don't really want to do that, to protect cousins' privacy (yes, I know living people are 'hidden' but it's easy to identify people if their parents are shown).

 

[John Dancy]

Reference your last paragraph. Whilst I understand your reasoning, I am not certain why your cousins would have had their DNA tested if they did not want to find relatives (close or distant, there can be different reasons for it) To a certain extent their DNA test has stopped them being 'private'.
I have a growing list of messages from cousins who thanked me for helping them. The latest wanted to know why her grandfather was in my tree, her father, she knew, was illegitimate. We worked out that her father and his brother were both my second cousins, although illegitimate, and she has spent lockdown making friends with closer cousins she didn't know she had.

 

[Helen7]

I am not certain why your cousins would have had their DNA tested if they did not want to find relatives

There can be many reasons for someone getting their DNA tested - it may have been a gift, or they may have agreed to be tested to help a relative out, and they may not be interested in finding relatives at all. Re the privacy issue, I've found quite a few trees containing my parents (and me, as their only child, though I'm 'hidden' of course). Fair enough if they are DNA matches and/or clearly related to me. However, in some cases the connection (if any) is so distant that it seems the people are just collecting names (copying from other trees), and they often don't respond to messages. I wouldn't want to grow my public tree to such an extent.

 

[John Dancy]

and it is the ones who just copy that can give errors credibility. Earlier this week I had three 'Hint' ancestor's trees linked to a cousin. They had a different maiden name for his wife and a marriage nine years later than the real one. They also missed the four children (one 'unnamed') born before their listed marriage,

 

[Tim]

John,

You've quoted me out of context and then answered something I wasn't saying.

We were talking about increasing the K number. I was suggesting getting more close cousins to test to increase K and Helen suggested that these cousins should increase the number of people in their tree.

There is another thread where I have covered this, but if you go to the "View Relationship" and the cousin who is private shows up as mostly locked cells (when Ancestry only has their tree as a reference) you can unlock them by adding the children comprising the locked generations to your own tree. Ancestry will show your tree members first, whichever branch they are on. I know because I have done it.

This is simply not true. I have many instances where I have my DNA cousins in my DNA tree. Looking at ThruLines it can sometimes show a suggested route or on others it shows nothing and no common ancestors.
Ancestry does not use my DNA tree in determining the connection from them to me, it uses other peoples public and private trees to do this. If it can't find another tree with a link then it can't display it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. By 'DNA tree' do you mean the tree linked to your DNA results on Ancestry, and that your DNA matches are included in your tree? If the DNA match has a linked tree (however small) Ancestry should be able to find the common ancestor from your tree if you have the cousin in your tree.

My (public) DNA-linked tree only includes my direct ancestors. I suppose I could increase K if I were to include all branches down to living cousins, but I don't really want to do that, to protect cousins' privacy (yes, I know living people are 'hidden' but it's easy to identify people if their parents are shown).

Like you, I have a DNA tree which is public. It contains all my ancestors and their descendants, but no pictures, no sources, no notes etc. My main complete tree is private. Yes, I've managed to place 56 of my DNA matches into my tree.

 

[John Dancy]

Merry Christmas Tim,

We seem to have got a bit confused somewhere - I am not certain what you mean by a "DNA Tree", all my references have been to the public and private trees available on Ancestry, including mine, and Ancestry uses these. In your paragraph

"Ancestry does not use my DNA tree in determining the connection from them to me, it uses other peoples public and private trees to do this. If it can't find another tree with a link then it can't display it."

I am not certain why you think Ancestry wouldn't use your tree to make a link? As I have said, I have the evidence it does.

Pleased to have a meaningful discussion.
Stay Safe
John

 

[Tim]

Merry Christmas John.

My DNA tree is the one that I have attached to my DNA results.

You may have evidence of links but why do you think it's from your tree? How can you prove this? I have evidence of DNA matches where Ancestry shows no connection and no common ancestors but we are DNA matches and these people are in my DNA tree and in my Public tree.
But what would be the benefit to you if Ancestry just shows you your own tree? Isn't the whole purpose of ThruLines to show you what other people have? There have already been many posts on this forum asking why ThruLines shows the wrong ancestors and relatives even though people have the correct ones in their own trees?

Stay Safe John, happy discussions.