Ancestry DNA Matches

[Vicky13]

I'd already grouped all my matches - I have tried to split it into 8 GGP and some of these I've also identified the 2xGGP and 3xGGP. So some of my second and third cousins are in more than one group. Most of my paternal line I know exactly where the connection is, and the same for one of my mother's grandparents.
Quite a few matches are flagged "common ancestor" so Ancestry has missed a trick by not using this information.

 

[Helen7]

Quite a few matches are flagged "common ancestor" so Ancestry has missed a trick by not using this information.

I agree, they could use this information. However, in some cases the 'common ancestor' information is incorrect, so it's up to you to check it and label the person (or not) accordingly.

 

[Katie Bee]

They have just got round to me!
I have just got the pop up
'We’re testing a new feature for DNA matches!'

 

[peter]

I've just noticed that one of my Ancestry matches has the following statistics:



Downgrading a 37cM segment to just 8cM seems quite drastic - I've never seen such a large percentage reduction (78%) before. Does anyone have a comparable example?

 

[Helen7]

Downgrading a 37cM segment to just 8cM seems quite drastic - I've never seen such a large percentage reduction (78%) before. Does anyone have a comparable example?

That does seem a very drastic downgrading! I haven't come across anything so drastic amongst my matches, though I have one where a single-segment 35 cM match has been downgraded to 14 cM. This is for a documented 4th cousin 1x removed.

 

[Pauline]

At long last I have this new DNA feature and saw it first with my sister's match list. I am at the top of her list and was amused to read alongside my name "Do you recognise them?" I think I might!

 

[Helen7]

I am at the top of her list and was amused to read alongside my name "Do you recognise them?" I think I might!

Yes, I had the same amusement with my son. Before I told Ancestry he was my son, on the details screen (under Common Ancestors) the relationship was stated as "C could be your mother through...[me]" which always amused me, as C is identified as male, so how could he be my mother? It now states that "C could be your son through...[me]" which is better but the 'could be' also amuses me given the probability of the Parent/Child relationship is 100% and his tree has me as his mother, not his daughter.

 

[canadianbeth]

After going through all my common ancestors list, and putting everyone into either mother or father, I discovered that I have more paternal matches than maternal, in spite of the fact that I have no one at all in one of my paternal lines. One match of course, my niece, fits into both categories.

 

[chrissy1]

I too have noticed this feature recently - helpful to identify which DNA matches you can identify and where they belong in your tree. However, I use the yellow star to denote a DNA match that I can identify and record where they fit into the tree under 'notes', which allows me to concentrate on the unidentified matches without a star and enables me to identify my connection to any matches in common.

Yes I have a few DNA matches who are either considerably closer or more distant than anticipated and some for whom the actual relationship does not appear in Ancestry's drop down list. A second cousin whose parents were first cousins and both her grandmothers were my grandmother's sisters appears more closely related because half rather than 1/4 of her DNA is related to me, but the option of second cousin does not appear in the list of probable relationships.

 

[chrissy1]

Agreed - I have some still to be diagnosed matches where there are shared matches with cousins on opposite sides of my tree.

I agree. I have some on opposite sides of my tree and given that I have 4 distinct sections of my tree originating in Devon/Cornwall, Gloucestershire/Worcestershire, London/Essex and York, I find it hard to imagine they are linked.

 

[chrissy1]

Returning to Tim's original comment regarding the number of DNA matches, I wonder if anyone else has noticed a big variation in the number of 4th cousin or closer matches on Ancestry? Amongst the tests I manage, my sister has 438, I have 332, my first cousin has 312 and my second/third cousins have 176, 265, 337, 360 and 414 respectively. I have also noticed that the number of matches has almost doubled in the last 18 months or so for every test I manage.

 

[jorghes]

Returning to Tim's original comment regarding the number of DNA matches, I wonder if anyone else has noticed a big variation in the number of 4th cousin or closer matches on Ancestry? Amongst the tests I manage, my sister has 438, I have 332, my first cousin has 312 and my second/third cousins have 176, 265, 337, 360 and 414 respectively. I have also noticed that the number of matches has almost doubled in the last 18 months or so for every test I manage.

You inherit a different amount of DNA than each of your siblings from your parents (you receive 50%, but it's a different 50% for each sibling), and as far as I can remember, they can also be different segments of your parents DNA for each sibling. As far as I know, the only types of siblings who may inherit the same amount of DNA would be identical twins.

For example:
My father shares 3,432 cM with his mother, but only 2,518 cM with his sister. She shares 3,467cM with her mother. My siblings and I each share a different number of cM with our grandmother - between 2,190cM and 1,658cM. In a similar manner, each of my siblings shares a different amount of cM from each of our parents.
To go back to my grandmother, one of her grandnephews only shares 803cM with her.

To follow, therefore, you could have different links to different cousins due to the different DNA that you have. Sometimes when I checked shared matches for the results for my father, grandmother or mother, the results may share DNA with me, but not one of my other siblings, or my father's sister etc.

Someone may be able to explain that more clearly than me!

I haven't noticed any differences in sheer numbers, but I haven't really looked. But someone did make a point about the recent Black Friday sales...

 

[Pauline]

I wonder if anyone else has noticed a big variation in the number of 4th cousin or closer matches on Ancestry?

I have always had around the same number of ‘close’ matches as my sister, but the same cannot be said of my husband and his brother - he currently has 321 close matches, while his brother has 526.

 

[Tim]

Returning to Tim's original comment regarding the number of DNA matches, I wonder if anyone else has noticed a big variation in the number of 4th cousin or closer matches on Ancestry?

Inspired by Chrissy, I've checked what my readings are now.

I have 6 closer than 4th cousin. I now have 8 closer than 4th cousin.

I have 169 4th Cousins or closer. 222 4th cousins or closer.

I have 18,651 Distant Matches. 21,530 Distant Matches

This gives me a total of 18,820 matches. New total of 21,752 matches

I have managed to identify 49 of these DNA Matches and add them to my tree. Managed to identify 112 and add them to my tree.

 

[Tim]

It's also interesting how the results differ between siblings

 

[jorghes]

Since we're updating our previous post, here is my update:
As with previous disclaimers – remember that my father and grandmother have Jewish relations (which leads to more results) as well as emigration to the USA. My mother only has English/Welsh heritage (and less emigration to the USA!)

Test 1:
My father had 12 closer than 4th cousin (2 as “2nd cousin” and 10 as “3rd cousin) – he now has 3 listed as “Close family” and 42 as “Extended family”. (Kind of wish that Ancestry would stop swopping this – but then his close family is 2 1C1R and 1 2C, so a “2nd cousin” tag wouldn’t work!)
He had 304 4th cousins or closer – now 374
He has 15,075 distant matches – now 17,325
Previous total: 15,397 of which 57 were identified – now 17,699 of which 107 have been identified.

Test 2:
My paternal grandmother had 21 closer than 4th cousin (3 2nd and 18 3rd) – now 4 “close family” and approx. 41 “extended family” (the page kept refreshing and moving)
She had 939 4th cousins or closer – now 1,097
She had 39,391 distant matches - now 44,483
Previous total: 40,356 of which 90 were identified – now 45,580 of which approx. 135 have been identified. (remembering for overlap with Test 1).

Test 3:
My mother had 12 closer than 4th cousins – now 47 listed as “extended family” (no “close family”)
She had 383 4th cousins or closer - now 461
She had 17,643 distant matches - now 20,295
Previous total: 18,041 of which 26 were identified – now 20,756 of which 33 have been identified.


And for Alexander’s new “Sibling comparison” (this should explain why I don’t use my own results other than the usual reasons…)

Sibling 1 (me)
4th cousins or closer: 286
Distant matches: 13,430

Sibling 2 (brother 1)
4th cousins or closer: 508
Distant matches: 23,078

Sibling 3 (brother 2)
4th cousins or closer: 417
Distant matches: 20,785

 

[peter]

I have always had around the same number of ‘close’ matches as my sister,

My brother has always had more than me - currently 321 against 252 (he has more total matches as well). But the biggest variations are with cousins, and these can usually be explained by their different ancestry.

 

[peter]

this should explain why I don’t use my own results

There is as much information in your DNA as in the DNA of your siblings, it's just distributed differently between ancestors. You'll get the best results by working with all the matches of all the siblings - it would be a serious mistake to ignore your own results!

 

[chrissy1]

But the biggest variations are with cousins, and these can usually be explained by their different ancestry.

My second cousins that are from the same branch of the family (our grandparents were siblings) have between 176 and 414 4th cousins and closer.

 

[peter]

My second cousins that are from the same branch of the family (our grandparents were siblings) have between 176 and 414 4th cousins and closer.

If they're second cousins they only share one-quarter of your tree, so there will little correspondence between the number of close matches they have and the number that you have. However if the cousins are all siblings the variation in the number of close matches is greater than I would expect.