Ancestry's DNA Circles

[jorghes]

I just received my results late Friday and have no circles. Currently, I have eight "shared ancestor hints" but can only access two of them, one maternal and one paternal. I already had all the maternal information but it is good to have it confirmed. And good to have what I thought was paternal confirmed as well but there are still questions there.

ETA: I am pretty sure that my tree is public; is there a way to make sure?

It's in tree settings - I think there's then a "privacy" tab.
Circles can take a while to appear, as can more "shared ancestor hints" - the ones you can't view will be from people with private trees. All of my DNA results have slowly accumulated and I expect them to keep accumulating as more people add to their trees, thus giving more hints!


Re: the Help information, I do love that even Ancestry admits that member trees "may not always be accurate" and pretty much confirm that some people simply add people to their tree that they're not related to.

Peter, while I'd love to say that the ancestor trees have magically allowed me to identify the fathers of my two illegitimate ancestors, at this point they haven't - but given the potential of DNA Circles, there's always a possibility that they may come up with a Circle based on said illegitimate ancestor that they then add you too by way of the "possible ancestor" feature. I think the brick wall would fall so quickly you'd almost hear it.

At this point, given that the feature is still in beta, who knows where it might go from here.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I know when I am beaten and reading about the methodology behind DNA Circles has me well and truly beaten. I applaud Phil for trying to simplify things (and goodness knows he has lost me with 'techno' speak before) - and Peter also for drawing attention to its over complexity - so what I really suggest is for someone to emulate how they cover jargon speak in my Computer Magazine. They have a feature called "What are they talking about"? which highlights jargon gobbledygook (emanating from the likes of Microsoft, Apple, Google and others) and prints below in simple terms what they mean. It is quite comical and revealing and something along those lines is badly needed here.

 

[PhilGee]

Peter, while I'd love to say that the ancestor trees have magically allowed me to identify the fathers of my two illegitimate ancestors, at this point they haven't - but given the potential of DNA Circles, there's always a possibility that they may come up with a Circle based on said illegitimate ancestor that they then add you too by way of the "possible ancestor" feature. I think the brick wall would fall so quickly you'd almost hear it.

If you cannot find a candidate for the father when "working up" the tree, I suspect no-one "working down" through the father will find a link to your ancestor either. Also, as the circles are based on a "common ancestor" present in all trees, you will not be included with those "working down" as your ancestor will not be a "direct ancestor" in any of the other trees, though you may find another circle with people in the same state as yourself.

Slightly off-topic: If you view an Ancestry DNA match, the "information" button gives some details eg "33 centimorgans shared across 1 DNA segment". Would it be more useful to give more precise detail at that position eg "41.4cM 4225SNPs on Chr. 19 (from 49105265 to 63776118)" as can be extracted from the corresponding GEDmatch data? Ancestry must have the data available or they could not provide the figures they do show. The data is for a confirmed 6th cousin match I have - the families then move geographically apart.

Phil

​

 

[peter]

Slightly off-topic: If you view an Ancestry DNA match, the "information" button gives some details eg "33 centimorgans shared across 1 DNA segment". Would it be more useful to give more precise detail at that position eg "41.4cM 4225SNPs on Chr. 19 (from 49105265 to 63776118)" as can be extracted from the corresponding GEDmatch data? Ancestry must have the data available or they could not provide the figures they do show. The data is for a confirmed 6th cousin match I have - the families then move geographically apart.

They can't provide that information because the TIMBER algorithm adjusts the length of segments t0 more accurately reflect - in Ancestry's opinion - the importance of the segments. For example, my mother-in-law has a match with distant cousins which GEDCOM shows as being 26cM with a longest segment of 11cM, but at Ancestry it's shown as 9cM.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I've just had a lunch break only to return to find Phil's post. Words fail me; talk about Jekyll & Hide!

How can the same person give a relatively simple analogy of jorghes question about identifying the father of two illegitimate ancestors and then follow it up - (whilst admitting it to be 'slightly off topic') with something that unquestionably qualifies as gobbledygook. I wouldn't mind had he not proffered the explanation that the given data applied to a confirmed 6th cousin...6th Cousin??

Everyone is almost everyone else's 6th cousin with or without quasi DNA speak. Please, please Phil: "Keep it Simple", just as you did earlier when attempting to explain DNA Circles; that was not far off tack at all.

 

[Bob Spiers]

They can't provide that information because the TIMBER algorithm adjusts the length of segments t0 more accurately reflect...

As someone who was in the 'Timber' trade for years I am dying to find out if a TIMBER algorithm works out the 'Knot Area Ratio'? (Sorry trade secret). Acronym's... no wonder I dislike them so much.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I was pleasantly surprised to find Ancestry's own explanation of a DNA Circle relatively straightforward, even allowing the use of the acronym IBD (Identity by Descent).

A DNA Circle is a set of likely descendants of a given ancestor and is generated by combining pedigree and IBD information across the entire AncestryDNA database. A DNA Circle is always in reference to a particular ancestor. Each member of a DNA Circle has the ancestor in his or her online pedigree and shares DNA identical-by-descent with at least one other person in the circle.

I thought Phil's interpretation (see #17) pretty fair, whilst my own written quite separately perhaps an over simplification:

"If 3 people have the same ancestor in a Tree and each has a 'qualifying' DNA match with one of the others, then each qualifies to share the same DNA circle"

I do not set out to explain 'qualifying' as Phil attempts, so perhaps someone can come up with a better 'lay' interpretation of a DNA Circle.

Edit
Apologies for playing about with fonts just count your lucky stars I did not mess about with colour.

 

[Bob Spiers]

As someone who was in the 'Timber' trade for years I am dying to find out if a TIMBER algorithm works out the 'Knot Area Ratio'? (Sorry trade secret). Acronym's... no wonder I dislike them so much.

OK no need to respond I have now found out that 'Timber' is just a name coined by Ancestry (not an acronym per se) for an Algorithm that filters DNA results. It is still jargon however and an explanation to that effect might just have been helpful to others who are not part of the DNA Cognoscenti.

 

[peter]

It is still jargon however and an explanation to that effect might just have been helpful to others who are not part of the DNA Cognoscenti.

It was in capitals, Bob - that was a hint for anyone who dozed off when reading the newsletter last month:

Ancestry's Timber algorithm - how genetic cousins are identified

 

[peter]

Everyone is almost everyone else's 6th cousin

There are statistics showing the number of cousins of each order in table in the DNA Masterclass. On average we have about 200,000 living relatives who are 6th cousin or closer. It's only when you get to 10th cousin that most of us are related.

 

[jorghes]

If you cannot find a candidate for the father when "working up" the tree, I suspect no-one "working down" through the father will find a link to your ancestor either. Also, as the circles are based on a "common ancestor" present in all trees, you will not be included with those "working down" as your ancestor will not be a "direct ancestor" in any of the other trees, though you may find another circle with people in the same state as yourself.

​

As Ancestry has already provided one of my set of DNA results with two DNA Circles around people I do not have in my family tree and suggested that they should be there somewhere, it is completely possible, although not necessarily likely.

As part of Ancestry's DNA Circles feature, they also have a "New Ancestor Discoveries - Beta" section which appears below the normal three panel dashboard, it will ONLY appear if they have something for you there, otherwise, it simply doesn't exist. My mother's results pull up two of these so called "New Ancestor Discoveries", which as my third image in post #14 shows, it shows you the Circle, and adds the avatar for the DNA result outside of it, with links into the circle. I doubt very much that either of the individuals which has been identified by this feature are actual ancestors of mine, but it's possible that they are cousins and share ancestors.

In Ancestry's own words:
You may have been notified that you have a New Ancestor Discovery or seen one on your DNA homepage. But what is it? New Ancestor Discoveries is an innovative feature that combines AncestryDNA results, historical records, and millions of family trees shared by Ancestry members to point you to a potential new ancestor or relative. It’s an entirely new path to finding your family story using just your DNA, which means you don’t need a family tree to receive these discoveries. New Ancestor Discoveries are also great if you’ve hit a brick wall in your research or have a small or incomplete tree.
​

When you will get a New Ancestor Discovery
We’ll show you a New Ancestor Discovery if you share significant amounts of DNA with multiple members of a DNA Circle—which means you might also be related to the ancestor that the DNA Circle is built around. (See how New Ancestor Discoveries are identified)

Why you might be related to the person
The short answer is that we aren’t sure if you are. We do know that you share significant amounts of DNA with others who are likely descendants of the ancestor, which means there’s a good chance this ancestor could also be your ancestor or a relative.
Once you receive a New Ancestor Discovery, you can use it as a great starting point for your research and connect with other family members you didn’t know you had.
​

 

[Bob Spiers]

It was in capitals, Bob - that was a hint for anyone who dozed off when reading the newsletter last month:

Cheeky..but I like you! Incidentally I found the Ancestry article under my own steam and had no recollection of your Newsletter item, or of clicking the link. My response to your next item will perhaps explain more.

 

[Bob Spiers]

There are statistics showing the number of cousins of each order in table in the DNA Masterclass. On average we have about 200,000 living relatives who are 6th cousin or closer. It's only when you get to 10th cousin that most of us are related.

Point noted, but I'm afraid 6th cousins do not rattle my cage I'm afraid, hence my stance on reading (sorry Phil) gobbledygook with only a 6th cousin reward at the end. Now I know it only likely possibly applies to 200,000 living relatives perhaps I should have been kinder.

It might help you reminding about Newsletter articles & Masterclasses if I relate how I deal with your Newsletters. When I receive the email notifications (which these days seems to be every time) I keep them unopened until I have time to digest them and then I scan read them, noting most things in general and little in particular. I leave the Newsletter tab open and get on with other things. Then, usually just before I close down for the day, around tea time, I will go back and digest the Newsletter in more detail. Even so I might well leave the Masterclass for another time to read as and when. Bottom line, almost everything (perhaps not book reviews but I like things bought and your interesting footnotes) gets read and in general terms taken in. Whether it is retained or easily recalled is quite another thing, but sadly that is an age thing. So do not be too surprised if I pose a question or query which you have covered in a Newsletter or Masterclass. It is just something that has slipped my mind. I still enjoy your Newsletters.

 

[PhilGee]

Point noted, but I'm afraid 6th cousins do not rattle my cage I'm afraid, hence my stance on reading (sorry Phil) gobbledygook with only a 6th cousin reward at the end. Now I know it only likely possibly applies to 200,000 living relatives perhaps I should have been kinder.

No problem, Bob - I have far worse comments from my "super technophobic" wife when I say things like "select the recording and press play" instead of stating every button press (and describing the button symbol and/or position) in sequence

I picked the example as it was a single segment, on Ancestry, GEDmatch and FTDNA and the "common ancestors" have been identfied - it just happened to be a match where the cM measurement was (much) larger than most of my 4C and 3C matches.

Phil

 

[peter]

6th cousins do not rattle my cage

The most distant documented connection I've found so far is an 8th cousin - and whilst it's a distant relationship there are at least 7 'brick walls' that I share with my cousin, which in my book makes it a useful connection.

 

[jorghes]

For breaking news on AncestryDNA - they seem to have just added a "Compare" button beneath the usual "View Match"... It so far seems to give a closer comparison between shared DNA, shared ethnicity and shared matches. (There is also a new "Matches Map" button).

And for the information that I went in to find in the first place - the most distant cousin I have discovered is a couple of 7th 1x removed cousins of my paternal grandmother's... and I'm not completely sure of the nature of my relationship with them! I think my grandmother even shares enough DNA with a sixth cousin and a 7C1R for them both to be classified by Ancestry as "3rd cousins". Admittedly, they are both through the Ashkenazi Jewish side of the family, and one of them would share the pedigree collapse on that side of my family and there is a lot of intermarriage.

I have discovered a whole range of cousins from 1C1R, all the way to 8th cousin (though I think that one counts twice through two different sets of ancestors.) Both the DNA results for my parents and grandmother have three cousin ranges - "2nd cousins", "3rd cousins" and "4th and above".

 

[Bob Spiers]

No problem, Bob - I have far worse comments from my "super technophobic" wife when I say things like "select the recording and press play" instead of stating every button press (and describing the button symbol and/or position) in sequence

At the risk of going off topic (my turn to say that) I think we something in common. However, my wife is passing fair at using the Sky handset and even her Fire HD Tablet (which I bought as an Xmas present after she yet again said she couldn't get on using a laptop). But when it comes to "Trouble at Mill" then there is a problem!

[1] Sky: "I can't get 'Catchup' - the network must be down" . I tell her to turn off the Sky box and wait 1 minute and switch back on (Meanwhile (back in the Jungle) I press the WPS button on the Router). Hopefully I hear "OK its working now" or I have to attend and set up the Network on the box again whilst she is asking why it is taking so long.

[2] Fire Tablet: "Its frozen on me". Now here she insists I show her what to do, which is fateful because she will ask again the next time it happens (and to be fair it doesn't happen often). However, it did happen last week and she even said "I remember you told me to hold the sound button and the power button, but I pressed them and it didn't work". I took the Tablet, held both buttons for about 20 seconds and let go; after a few second it rebooted as I expected it would. Her response: "Oh I didn't know you had to hold both buttons at the same time"

But in fairness - and what am I if not fair - she is a wiz with words, spelling, grammar and what have you and is constantly doing crosswords and word puzzles. But when it comes to electronic things, unless they work each and every time, she gives up and asks me to sort them out. But its nice to be wanted.

(Returning to topic)

I know how she feels of course as it is happening to me trying to get to grips with DNA and its resultant 'techno speak' which I irreverently call 'gobbledygook' . I can hold my own with Computers and almost anything under the heading of Family History, but I may well have to give up the DNA class and stick with conventional research.

Perhaps a separate DNA Technical Discussion is needed for the DNA Cognoscenti to feel at home, but meantime can I please ask everyone to take it easy with the 'techno' stuff and no use pointing me in the direction of a Masterclass either.

 

[Bob Spiers]

For breaking news on AncestryDNA - they seem to have just added a "Compare" button beneath the usual "View Match"... It so far seems to give a closer comparison between shared DNA, shared ethnicity and shared matches. (There is also a new "Matches Map" button).

As it had been a while since using 'Search Matches' I noticed both these buttons yesterday and thought they had been there a while. Unfortunately, although the 'Compare' button compared ethnicities, of the two new finds I tried , one was a 'No Trees' and the other "Unlinked"; so neither Compare or a Map of much use. I may of course make contact but they will have to take a back seat as I first work through those showing (Public of course) Trees with a reasonable quantity of people.

 

[peter]

neither Compare or a Map of much use

The Matches Map feature will be very useful indeed - one of the biggest problems with DNA testing is identifying where our genetic cousins live. Other things being equal, cousins who live close to me, or at least in the same country, are likely to be more closely related - and given how difficult it is to estimate how closely we're related to cousins who are more distant than 2nd cousins that's useful to know.

At the moment relatively few Ancestry users have said where they live, but the first thing I did after trying out the Matches Map feature was to update my profile, and I'm sure that many other regular users will do the same - so it will become more and more valuable over time.

 

[peter]

no use pointing me in the direction of a Masterclass

Those who don't follow the strategies in the DNA Masterclass are doomed to failure.....

I first work through those showing (Public of course) Trees with a reasonable quantity of people

......for a start you'll miss out on the cousins who have private trees, but you'll also find it more difficult to prioritise your matches with those who have public trees.