Ethnicity estimates

[Pauline]

Does your sister show up as your half-sister in Common Ancestors?

No, as a full sister.

 

[Pauline]

I should perhaps have said also that there is no problem with the previous and later generations, and when I look via our 2 x great grandfather for each of us, it shows the line going back through that great grandfather correctly. So why with just that one ancestor, my sister's ThruLines thinks I am not his descendant, and my ThruLines thinks my sister is not his descendant, but elsewhere acknowledges we both are, is anyone's guess.

 

[peter]

I should perhaps have said also that there is no problem with the previous and later generations, and when I look via our 2 x great grandfather for each of us, it shows the line going back through that great grandfather correctly. So why with just that one ancestor, my sister's ThruLines thinks I am not his descendant, and my ThruLines thinks my sister is not his descendant, but elsewhere acknowledges we both are, is anyone's guess.

It reminded me of all the instances where Common Ancestors are shown as half-cousins. But clearly it isn't the same issue.

 

[The Rhymer]

Where does it tell you how many common ancestor matches you have? I know where to find the statistics for most things but this one is eluding me.

If you go to DNA on Ancestry, then to Matches, you can click on "By Parent" and you will get the number of matches for each parent. Add them together, and, abracadabra! you have your total matches

 

[jorghes]

I don't believe that's how it works. Once you know which is parent 1 and which is parent 2 you can tell Ancestry, as a result of which they will use 'maternal' and 'paternal' in their SideView predictions. But unless they've changed their system, they won't do it simply because you confirm how you are related to some identifiable cousins.

I don't think I have ever used the "Edit parent" option, and yet both my mother and my grandmother's results (neither of whom I have the opportunity to test a parent) is all labelled "maternal side" or "paternal side". And there are very few that are either "unassigned" or have the little circle exclamation mark which notes that I was the one who assigned maternal or paternal to the match. [I presume that Ancestry uses the fact that my grandmother's results are in the system to label his results maternal or paternal].

Pauline I don't think I've ever seen anything that tells you how many "Common Ancestor" matches you have. The only thing I can think of that might give you an idea is ThruLines - which will tell you how many matches are descended from that particular ancestor if you hover over their name - but I'm not sure if that includes your own results.

 

[peter]

If you go to DNA on Ancestry, then to Matches, you can click on "By Parent" and you will get the number of matches for each parent. Add them together, and, abracadabra! you have your total matches

Pauline was talking about Common Ancestors matches - not all matches.

There's no need to do any calculations to find the total number of matches - it is shown in the Shared DNA dropdown, ie:

 

[Pauline]

Pauline I don't think I've ever seen anything that tells you how many "Common Ancestor" matches you have. The only thing I can think of that might give you an idea is ThruLines - which will tell you how many matches are descended from that particular ancestor if you hover over their name - but I'm not sure if that includes your own results.

Yes, I tried that, and the numbers do seem to exclude the root person, but I'm not sure if it catches all Common Ancestor matches, and in any case I was hoping for any easier way than all that mental arithmetic. I kept losing where I'd got to!

 

[jorghes]

Yes, I tried that, and the numbers do seem to exclude the root person, but I'm not sure if it catches all Common Ancestor matches, and in any case I was hoping for any easier way than all that mental arithmetic. I kept losing where I'd got to!

Oh I know, I've tried to count a couple of times and keep losing track.

I think it does include all the Common Ancestors, because that's how it constructs the relationship trees. It unfortunately does not include people who you know are linked to you, but have private trees or no tree at all.

 

[The Rhymer]

If you go to DNA on Ancestry, then to Matches, you can click on "By Parent" and you will get the number of matches for each parent. Add them together, and, abracadabra! you have your total matches

Well, aren't I the silly one?

 

[The Rhymer]

I still have over 200 matches with cousins who Ancestry have identified as having Common Ancestors. The vast majority were previously unknown to me, and that's how I've been able to add several hundred more relatives from the 1881 Census in recent years.

I have just checked on Ancestry and I have zero Common Ancestors although I have some 15,000 Matches.

I have quite a few matches through public trees, one is even a DNA match (4th to 6th cousin; 31 cM; < 1% shared DNA) who actually has some direct common ancestors with me, thank you very much, Ancestry, but I hesitate to contact people with public trees as so many seem to take Ancestry hints as gospel truth and end up with a person born in Lincolnshire, baptised in Devon, married two or three times concurrently in different counties, or even countries*, and having children with the different spouses at rates that Nature only intended for mice or rabbits, and finally dying in yet another part of the country ... then being baptised or getting married again

* the problem of so many towns in Australia and North America being named by emigrants after their hometowns, and the tree owner working too fast?

 

[peter]

direct common ancestors

When Ancestry talk about Common Ancestors (and when we talk about them on the forum) it's always referring to direct ancestors.

 

[Pauline]

I have just checked on Ancestry and I have zero Common Ancestors

That must be pretty unusual. So when you click on the Common Ancestors button, are there just no matches there, or what? And in ThruLines, does it mean you have no match numbers showing when you hover over an ancestor, and no potential ancestors? When I click on filters at the top, mine shows I have 28 potential ancestors, which I think arise from Common Ancestor extrapolation. Not that I’ve found potential ancestors to be of any use - mostly I already know about them, only there’s just no proof they are my ancestors, but there are also a few that are so wildly unlikely, you wonder how anyone could have put them in their tree.

 

[peter]

Just to make sure we are 'on the same page':

 

[The Rhymer]

When Ancestry talk about Common Ancestors (and when we talk about them on the forum) it's always referring to direct ancestors.

I stand corrected - yet again.

 

[The Rhymer]

That must be pretty unusual. So when you click on the Common Ancestors button, are there just no matches there, or what? And in ThruLines, does it mean you have no match numbers showing when you hover over an ancestor, and no potential ancestors? When I click on filters at the top, mine shows I have 28 potential ancestors, which I think arise from Common Ancestor extrapolation. Not that I’ve found potential ancestors to be of any use - mostly I already know about them, only there’s just no proof they are my ancestors, but there are also a few that are so wildly unlikely, you wonder how anyone could have put them in their tree.

Exactly that, Pauline. It says "No matches match the selected filter.", whatever filter I try I haven't tried ThruLines yet, but might give it a whirl this w/e.
Oh, and I was referred to the most amazing tree yesterday (I've already forgotten how) but just on the first page of names, there were people from Peru and Mexico dating from the 1300s, an Ethiopian emperor from the 10th century, and then further in, gods and goddesses. I've found trees with Adam and Eve in them, too.

Just to make sure we are 'on the same page':

View attachment 2478

That's the one.

 

[Pauline]

And another ‘just to make sure’ question - I take it you have linked your test to the right person in your tree?

 

[peter]

And another ‘just to make sure’ question - I take it you have linked your test to the right person in your tree?

And you do have an Ancestry subscription? Not that this would prevent you from seeing Common ancestors.

It says "No matches match the selected filter.", whatever filter I try

If none of the filters work individually then there is something seriously wrong, but if you are combining filters then it could be genuine (for example, if you have selected 'Notes' but there are none).

 

[peter]

Perhaps you could post a screenshot? At the moment we're having to guess what you are doing.

 

[The Rhymer]

Yes, my tree is linked to me, myself and no other. I also pay a lot of money to Ancestry for very little return, it sometimes seems (areas not covered, no original records, 'sorry we're off-line at the moment', et al)

It would appear that I need to activate ThroughLines, but I would like to know how private my tree remains if I make it private but searchable. I had my fingers burned once by sharing it with a ****** who downloaded the whole tree and made it public ... and got plaudits for "her" research

Screenshots as requested:

 

[jorghes]

I have just checked on Ancestry and I have zero Common Ancestors although I have some 15,000 Matches.

I have quite a few matches through public trees, one is even a DNA match (4th to 6th cousin; 31 cM; < 1% shared DNA) who actually has some direct common ancestors with me, thank you very much, Ancestry, but I hesitate to contact people with public trees as so many seem to take Ancestry hints as gospel truth and end up with a person born in Lincolnshire, baptised in Devon, married two or three times concurrently in different counties, or even countries*, and having children with the different spouses at rates that Nature only intended for mice or rabbits, and finally dying in yet another part of the country ... then being baptised or getting married again

* the problem of so many towns in Australia and North America being named by emigrants after their hometowns, and the tree owner working too fast?

Being Australian myself I understand the issues with immigration - I still can't understand how some people can think that someone can have children concurrently in South Australia and Sussex at the same time, but equally I have an ancestor who went back to Yorkshire to get married for a third time even though he and his second wife had emigrated to Melbourne. (He then turned and came straight back to Australia with wife number 3).

Yes, my tree is linked to me, myself and no other. I also pay a lot of money to Ancestry for very little return, it sometimes seems (areas not covered, no original records, 'sorry we're off-line at the moment', et al)

It would appear that I need to activate ThroughLines, but I would like to know how private my tree remains if I make it private but searchable. I had my fingers burned once by sharing it with a ****** who downloaded the whole tree and made it public ... and got plaudits for "her" research

I'd say it's because you have it as unsearchable. Ancestry can't use your information to compare to other trees and as such, can't compile what you have. From those who have private (but searchable) trees in my DNA results, you can't see their tree (only make a guess at where they might link in due to other matches) without a Common Ancestor link.
You can receive Common Ancestor results with a private searchable tree - I have a public tree, and when Common Ancestors comes up it will detail where the link is by showing you the common ancestors between you and that individual in a direct line. It gives you no more access to the tree than just a set of names and years of birth/death. Those you don't have in your tree will be shown as "potential" individuals, but if you have them in your tree, they will be clearly visible.

Without a tree, Ancestry can't extrapolate anything - my paternal Aunt has had her DNA done, but she doesn't appear as having a Common Ancestor because she doesn't have a tree. I would say that Ancestry treats people who have private unsearchable trees as if they don't have one at all to comply with what you want.

Here's an extremely crude example of how Thru Lines appears for my paternal grandmother's results (I've removed the surnames) with one of the results having a private searchable tree (everyone shown in white I already have in my own tree.) The two individuals below William are living, so I can't see them, although I probably have them in my tree already thanks of the work of one of Grace's children. The 3 below Elizabeth means there are three individuals between her and CH:

The little blue DNA helix on the three results shown means I have linked their result to their entry on MY tree.