SideView

[Mitch_in_Notts]

'By parent BETA' is now showing again on all 5 tests I have access to.

I notice quite a few of my matches which were previously unassigned have now been assigned by Ancestry - over 500 more to my Paternal side and 200+ extra to my Maternal side.

All of mine are back.
Mums one 'Both side' match has now been moved to Paternal(correct) by Ancestry. She has also gained one Maternal match.
My own remains stubbornly 528 allocated and 11,775 unassigned

 

[KirstenB]

Yes some of the tests I managed have changed and some not. Still showing some clear errors (assigned maternal and clearly paternal). Interestingly most tests seem to have 10 to 15% of the total unassigned. However one test (done in at the same time (early 2019) as some others) has nearly 48% unassigned.

 

[Sue_3]

My 'By Parent Beta' is back as well. Since I started recording my totals I can now see that my one 'Both Sides' match has been reassigned to the correct parent only, meaning that the total number of assignments to my other parent has reduced by one. The number of unassigned matches has increased by the number of new matches I've had in the past week.

 

[Sue_3]

Yes some of the tests I managed have changed and some not. Still showing some clear errors (assigned maternal and clearly paternal). Interestingly most tests seem to have 10 to 15% of the total unassigned. However one test (done in at the same time (early 2019) as some others) has nearly 48% unassigned.

My own DNA has nearly 59% of my matches unassigned and my cousin's has nearly 35% unassigned. I expect it will depend to some extent on how many living cousins someone has and how many of them have tested?

 

[Mitch_in_Notts]

My own DNA has nearly 59% of my matches unassigned and my cousin's has nearly 35% unassigned. I expect it will depend to some extent on how many living cousins someone has and how many of them have tested?

I still haven't found anyone who can beat my 96% unassigned figure

 

[KirstenB]

96% unassigned is impressive but frustrating, there must be some error, or they are still working on it if your Mum's matches have been more assigned.

 

[Mitch_in_Notts]

96% unassigned is impressive but frustrating, there must be some error, or they are still working on it if your Mum's matches have been more assigned.

Sorry I ought to have said she is my Adoptive Mother so the Matches are unrelated (except she is a DNA match to me, but that's another story). And yes the massive unassigned hasn't helped me track down any potential birth Fathers!

 

[KirstenB]

Sorry I ought to have said she is my Adoptive Mother so the Matches are unrelated (except she is a DNA match to me, but that's another story). And yes the massive unassigned hasn't helped me track down any potential birth Fathers!

No worry it must be all the more frustrating for you. Good luck.

 

[Bob Spiers]

By parent BETA' is now showing again on all 5 tests I have access to.

I haven't commented before on this posting, but noticed only 2 (out of 5) parent BETA's were showing 3 days, ago then all disappeared a day later. Today, like Helen, all my 5 Trees now show parent BETA. For how long I do not know.

 

[Sue_3]

I still haven't found anyone who can beat my 96% unassigned figure

Oh dear, I can only hope that this improves for you and that the 4% are useful.

 

[Mitch_in_Notts]

Oh dear, I can only hope that this improves for you and that the 4% are useful.

Strongest Paternal match is 22cM, and with a decent tree it's 17cM, which tells me nothing. I have a match of 401cM which isn't even assigned!
The Maternal, which I have always known all about, has a match of 335cM which is correctly assigned, so if they can match one side, why not then other....

 

[peter]

Strongest Paternal match is 22cM, and with a decent tree it's 17cM, which tells me nothing. I have a match of 401cM which isn't even assigned!
The Maternal, which I have always known all about, has a match of 335cM which is correctly assigned, so if they can match one side, why not then other....

I suggest you re-read what Leah Larkin said on her blog about how the process works.

 

[Mitch_in_Notts]

I suggest you re-read what Leah Larkin said on her blogb about how the process works.

I have read it and have yet to find anyone else who has such a high unassigned figure. I have suspicions from the 401cM match as to who my Father is(3 possibilities). I can see no connection between those peoples(3) ancestry and my birth Mothers, that would suggest a close relationship, that would be a significant reason for so many unassigned matches.

 

[peter]

I have read it and have yet to find anyone else who has such a high unassigned figure. I have suspicions from the 401cM match as to who my Father is (3 possibilities). I can see no connection between those peoples(3) ancestry and my birth Mothers, that would suggest a close relationship, that would be a significant reason for so many unassigned matches.

There's no need to speculate whether your parents were related - you can use the GEDmatch tool. But bear in mind that if your parents came from an endogamous population they will appear to be more closely-related than they really were.

 

[Helen7]

Given that we know a 'Both sides' match requires at least 2 segments from each side it seems impossible. However it turns out that TIMBER had downgraded the segment length:

Amongst my recently assigned matches, I have one which is shown as 'Both Sides', with the following figures:
Shared DNA: 26 cM across 3 segments
Unweighted shared DNA: 43 cM
Longest segment: 23 cM

This doesn't fit the 'at least 2 segments from each side' requirement, so I'm a bit puzzled. The person's tree - which is very extensive - gives me no indication of how we might be related (if at all) and the only shared match is to a known documented 3rd cousin on my mother's side.

I have run my DNA through the GEDmatch tool to show that my parents weren't related.

I guess this will probably remain a mystery, but I find it rather intriguing and wonder how the 'Both Sides' assignment would come about in this case. I have read the blog that Peter recommended and note it says that 'a match will be assigned to both sides if any individual shared segments are labeled “both” (as with fully-identical regions or runs of homozygosity).' but I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser.

 

[KirstenB]

Amongst my recently assigned matches, I have one which is shown as 'Both Sides', with the following figures:
Shared DNA: 26 cM across 3 segments
Unweighted shared DNA: 43 cM
Longest segment: 23 cM

This doesn't fit the 'at least 2 segments from each side' requirement, so I'm a bit puzzled. The person's tree - which is very extensive - gives me no indication of how we might be related (if at all) and the only shared match is to a known documented 3rd cousin on my mother's side.

I have run my DNA through the GEDmatch tool to show that my parents weren't related.

I guess this will probably remain a mystery, but I find it rather intriguing and wonder how the 'Both Sides' assignment would come about in this case. I have read the blog that Peter recommended and note it says that 'a match will be assigned to both sides if any individual shared segments are labeled “both” (as with fully-identical regions or runs of homozygosity).' but I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser.

I am not sure how many people are getting "both" on sideview, is it common for people who aren't already aware their parents are related e.g. don't know there parents are cousins?
I have identified a few I think are both side but sideview hasn't marked them as such. The GEDmatch tool suggests my parents are not related and that my maternal grandparents are not related to each other. I gather that refers to about 5 to 7 generations back though of course not infallible.
My mother has 2 "both" matches. The bigger one, as with Helen's, only has 3 segments so can't have 2 from each side (51cM 3 segments-55 cM unweighted. Longest 38cM). The second does have 4 segments but the match is only 15cM (unweighted 35cM longest 14cM).
The bigger match has a very small tree, no clear help, and only matches me and my mother.
The small match has a bigger tree, no clear links, nearest is family from the same County as my grandparents. They have no shared matches with my mum and don't match me.
Anyway plenty of other matches to look at so put on one side.

 

[canadianbeth]

The GEDmatch tool suggests my parents are not related and that my maternal grandparents are not related to each other

I just did the GED match; my parents are not related to each other, but my paternal ones were - they were first cousins. How do you know your grandparents were not related? There was nothing stating that mine were.

As for both sides, I only have one match, 1762cM, 25% shared but then I am well aware of her; she is my sister's daughter.

 

[KirstenB]

I just did the GED match; my parents are not related to each other, but my paternal ones were - they were first cousins. How do you know your grandparents were not related? There was nothing stating that mine were.

As for both sides, I only have one match, 1762cM, 25% shared but then I am well aware of her; she is my sister's daughter.

Sorry, my mother tested so I put her test through "are your parents related" so I know my maternal grandparents weren't related to each other- as far as that tool is accurate.
My mother also had a third "both sides" match; me.

 

[peter]

as far as that tool is accurate.

I imagine the GEDmatch tool simply looks for homozygosity, ie sections of your DNA which are identical on both strands. However the fact the fact that it doesn't find any doesn't mean that your parents aren't related, as you only inherited half of their DNA.

In any case, always remember that SideView is only claimed to be 95% accurate for 90% of users (or vice versa). Somebody on tis forum will be one of the unlucky ones.....

 

[Susan48]

There was an interesting Zoom presentation on SideView held by the Essex Society for Family History, available for members on the Society's website. I was interested to read about two workarounds for the 15% who still aren't able to access SideView through their own accounts. The first workaround has already been mentioned on this forum, namely through another account to which you have access. The second workaround was more complicated and I don't feel qualified to explain it. Perhaps Peter has seen this presentation as I think he's a member of ESFH?