AncestryDNA’s new BETA

[peter]

Like Peter has suggests viewing the results on GEDmatch is really the only way to see the true picture.

That's not quite what I said yesterday. GEDmatch won't necessarily provide a more accurate picture, but examining the matches on GEDmatch might help to explain why there is an apparent discrepancy.

Other research into matches shared by parents and their children has suggested that around one-third of DNA matches are false matches. But it doesn't matter, provided you follow the strategies in my Masterclass, and focus on the matches whose online trees suggest a connection. (The chance of getting a false match with someone who really is a cousin is pretty small.)

When you have tens of thousands of matches there is little point puzzling over matches where there is no obvious connection (unless the amount of DNA shared is so high that it can't be ignored, or the match is shared with a cousin). I wasted years playing with Chromosome Browsers before I saw the light and tested with Ancestry. I wrote the Masterclass because I didn't want LostCousins members to make the mistake that I did!

 

[peter]

Ancestry have a deep discount on DNA tests at Amazon.co.uk - but for Prime Members in the UK only. Just £53.40 including shipping, the cheapest online price ever (I think). OFFER ENDS MIDNIGHT TONIGHT (Monday 15th July)

You can get a free trial of Prime if you follow this link.

Offer extended to midnight tonight (Tuesday), price now even cheaper at £53.

Also for Amazon Prime Members a half-price offer on 23andMe's health and ancestry test - details here.

 

[Helen7]

Thank you Kane133 and Peter for your very helpful posts. I clearly have more reading/investigation to do to get my head round this.

When you have tens of thousands of matches there is little point puzzling over matches where there is no obvious connection (unless the amount of DNA shared is so high that it can't be ignored, or the match is shared with a cousin).

I agree with this, but it is frustrating when you have a match with quite high shared DNA and shared matches with known cousins, but the person has no tree and does not respond to messages. I just categorise these as related on a particular grandparent branch, group them as such and move on.

 

[jorghes]

Update:

I noticed today that Ancestry have added another little addition to ThruLines - now when your cursor "hovers" over the Ancestor box, it will identity how many DNA matches that you have for that ThruLine, which you used to have to click through to discover.
It also gives the range of cM that you share with those matches, for example one of the results I have is "7 DNA matches between 8-114cM".

 

[canadianbeth]

"You are the only DNA tested descendant connected to this ThruLine" This is what I see when I hover over my Dad's name and his mother's. Does that mean none of my unknown paternal grandfather's descendants have tested? That the ones with the high numbers and many segments that I cannot identify are almost certainly through my mother or her family? Or does it mean maybe only those with trees? My (no trees) niece is a descendant of my father and she is not mentioned. I get the same thing when I hover over my mother and she is of course also an ancestor of my niece. For my maternal grandparents, I have one match and I know who she is - my cousin's daughter.

 

[jorghes]

"You are the only DNA tested descendant connected to this ThruLine" This is what I see when I hover over my Dad's name and his mother's. Does that mean none of my unknown paternal grandfather's descendants have tested? That the ones with the high numbers and many segments that I cannot identify are almost certainly through my mother or her family? Or does it mean maybe only those with trees? My (no trees) niece is a descendant of my father and she is not mentioned. I get the same thing when I hover over my mother and she is of course also an ancestor of my niece. For my maternal grandparents, I have one match and I know who she is - my cousin's daughter.

not necessarily - my aunt doesn’t show on any of the ThruLines, simply because she doesn’t have a tree on Ancestry. Alternatively they may not have enough of a tree for Ancestry to be able to approximate where they fit within that particular ThruLine.

 

[peter]

Yes, it's important to remember that ThruLines aren't based on DNA, but on Ancestry trees.

 

[Helen7]

It also gives the range of cM that you share with those matches, for example one of the results I have is "7 DNA matches between 8-114cM".

I agree this new feature could be potentially useful. As my son has also tested, all my ancestors up to 4th great grandparents have either '1 DNA match of 3,462 cM' or 'X DNA matches between n and 3,462 cM). The only ones that don't are 'Potential Ancestors' who don't appear in either of our trees. Jorghes, as your parents have also tested, I wonder why you don't get the 3,000+ upper limit always showing. Is it that your parents don't have trees linked to their DNA results? Or can you somehow filter out parent/child matches so they don't show?

 

[jorghes]

I agree this new feature could be potentially useful. As my son has also tested, all my ancestors up to 4th great grandparents have either '1 DNA match of 3,462 cM' or 'X DNA matches between n and 3,462 cM). The only ones that don't are 'Potential Ancestors' who don't appear in either of our trees. Jorghes, as your parents have also tested, I wonder why you don't get the 3,000+ upper limit always showing. Is it that your parents don't have trees linked to their DNA results? Or can you somehow filter out parent/child matches so they don't show?

I quoted one from my grandmother's results as that was whose ThruLines I was checking when I noticed the new feature. If you head down low enough on her results, then the range changes from 9 - 3432cM (the higher being my father). And you're right, the upper 3000+ result vanishes at 5x great grandparents.

My own, which to be honest I only randomly check (my parents and my grandmother get so many more results), does have that upper 3,000+ range on all results, including 5x great grandparents.

As I mentioned somewhere else, my aunt, who has also tested, does not of course show on ThruLines (my father's sister).

EDIT:
They're also listing segments on the results now I notice, as well as cM (caught my eye as my older brother shares more segments with my mother than myself or my younger brother!)

 

[canadianbeth]

The highest number I get in ThruLines is 372, from my niece and down through my mother's family. On my Dad's the highest number is 55. back to my fourth great-grandparents. There is a third cousin with 51.

 

[MaggieL]

Yes, it's important to remember that ThruLines aren't based on DNA, but on Ancestry trees.

I thought this was the case. But I had a DNA match but couldn’t find the connection to my lines. The other person’s tree only had 6 names on it, none of which I shared, in fact they were all in the States. According to Thrulines we are 5th cousins and shows how we are related. I haven’t checked records to prove or disprove this. That’s next on my long agenda!

I like the fact that Thrulines shows you how you are probably connected. Either by a direct ancestor or sibling of a direct ancestor. It certainly helps in researching which line you need to research.

 

[Helen7]

The other person’s tree only had 6 names on it, none of which I shared, in fact they were all in the States. According to Thrulines we are 5th cousins and shows how we are related.

Remember Ancestry aren't just looking at your tree and that of your DNA match, but at all the other trees which might provide a link between your trees. I too have a DNA match with only 6 names, none shared with my tree. Ancestry suggested we are 4th cousins and I was able to verify this from the records. This often happens where someone has a minimal tree. Ancestry's suggested relationships are only as good as the other trees, of course, and need to be checked, but are a good starting point.

 

[peter]

I thought this was the case. But I had a DNA match but couldn’t find the connection to my lines. The other person’s tree only had 6 names on it, none of which I shared, in fact they were all in the States.

They are based on Ancestry TREES. Ancestry stitch together the information from multiple trees (including searchable private trees) to create ThruLines.

 

[MaggieL]

They are based on Ancestry TREES. Ancestry stitch together the information from multiple trees (including searchable private trees) to create ThruLines.

Thanks Peter. That makes sense. In this case it was helpful but I can see how it could lead up the wrong path, or tree! As we all know, some trees are quite bizarre