• Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

Ethnicity Testing- Is it really worth it?

I can assure you they do not have private trees. I have a private tree but if a match contacts me I send them reports on the family line we link on. These reports contain birth year or date of birth plus birthplace, date & place of baptism, date and place of marriage, childrens details and date/place of death, date/place of burial. You can easily see if your DNA matches have no tree, a public tree or a private tree. My example of someone not logging in for two years doesn't exactly smack of someone being interested in family history (to me anyway) As you don't have a DNA test on Ancestry you can't really tell what I am talking about.
 
Also Bryman, even if you message a DNA contact they don't always reply. I always reply to messages I receive. Again, this non reaction does not really suggest all the DNA matches are family history fans. I blame Ancestry for this as much of their DNA marketing has edged towards ethnicity rather than discovering unknown relatives. I am not the only person to complain about lack of trees and lack of response to messages. It is disappointing but if some people are more interested in ethnicity rather than discovering unknown relatives or their roots then who am I to complain? It is their money and they can spend it how they like and get out of it whatever they choose. I was merely pointing out that not all people who take DNA tests are keen family history fans.
 
Oh dear, I hope that I did not seem to be too critical. Sorry if I trod on any toes. I was only trying to point out that some people, including me, can be interested in family history and have their own off-line tree without anything on-line.
 
For sure. I have a very close DNA match with someone on Ancestry who does not have a tree on Ancestry. He has an offline tree. But I knew him before I or he took the DNA test and he at least would answer messages as he is very interested in family history
 
Not all Ancestry users realise that there are advantages to uploading a private (but searchable) tree - even LostCousins members email me about this. So one cannot assume that people who haven't uploaded a tree don't have one, although I agree that this is often the case.

Why do people test if they're not researching their tree? In many cases because they were given the test as a gift, others because they believed the marketing. Some may aspire to research in the future, others may have no such plans.

Fortunately we all have more than enough matches with cousins who do have trees. That's why the strategies in the Masterclass focus on those with linked trees, whether public or private, and ignore that the rest.

Obviously it's frustrating when one of our nearest matches has no tree and refuses to respond - in my case it's my closest match and he has used an obviously false name (Gerald Wiley) which means that whilst I know what part of my tree he is in, I cannot identify who he is. But corresponding with him wouldn't help me to knock down any 'brick walls', so I don't get hung up about it.

Finally, it's important to bear in mind that people may not be receiving our messages. There are several large email providers who bounce emails that they, in their 'wisdom', determine are spam. Even worse, some put them into a 'black hole', so neither the sender nor the recipient is aware of what's going on. The best service is probably Gmail, but even they don't put all incoming mail in the user's Inbox or Spam folder - instead you have to look in the All Mail folder (and many Gmail users don't even know this exists).
 
Agree Peter. I used to get hung up over it but I don't now. As you rightly state there are DNA matches who DO answer messages and who DO have a tree on Ancestry. One lady did answer my messages but didn't know the names of her grandparents which I found surprising! I never met my paternal grandparents but I do know their names.

However, even if the DNA matches never receive the Ancestry messages I send, I still receive surprisingly few messages myself from DNA contacts and I do check spam folders etc. I have over 8,000 people on my tree (researching since 2002). All of these people have been documented and researched thoroughly and no copying from other people's trees so plenty of scope for people to contact me if they so wish. My tree may be private but the names would still appear in Ancestry's database with an opportunity for them to contact me. All of this evidence leads me to believe there are still a large number of Ancestry users who only use the test for ethnicity. But that is their choice and their money; but I can't help feeling disappointed sometimes and I know other Ancestry DNA participants share my disappointment.
 
Having read these latest posts I am perplexed to say the least in understanding why any Researcher of Family History would take a DNA test solely for ethnicity reasons. I was reluctant to take a DNA test, but when I finally succumbed it certainly wan't for its ethnicity revelations, nor would I select any Provider on this basis. The only ones who take the slightest interest tend to be younger family members who feign surprise to be told what their parents and grand parents could have told them anyway, and where they faltered, certainly I could, and do, fill in the gaps - from conventional research.

I am not always in agreement with Peter, but on this occasion I support him to the hilt. Ancestry is head and shoulders over their competitors for reasons he has given. I also applaud his new DNA Project which has more going for it 'ethnicity-wise' than that of any DNA Provider.

I do however agree with those who post about Ancestry (DNA) members who show 'No Tree' . That really does raise my hackles but then I'm only slightly less disagreeable about Private Trees which I find a waste of time. All my best contacts have come from others with Public Trees, but best not go down that road lest I stray off topic.
 
It's doubly ironic that most people who have tested their DNA aren't researching their family tree, and most people who are researching their family tree haven't tested their DNA.
 
Bob if you want to start another topic on Private versus Public trees I am happy to take part!;) If you and I were related you would not find me or my private tree lacking :)
 
In answer to Bob. The answer lies in your first statement: "Researcher of Family History would take a DNA test solely for ethnicity reasons". I think some people take the test to say I am 100% British or as Peter says, the kits are bought for people for Christmas or Birthdays when they have run out of present ideas. Possibly hoping it may encourage them to research their family tree - it doesn't always work! ;)
 
I have resisted putting my two penneth into this discussion but I find any genealogy DNA testing to be a complete waste of time and money, at least for me and family who have tested.

Ancestry stands head and shoulders above all other testers, as being the worst. Moneygrubbing thieves is the best description of ancestry. The last family member tested had two 4th cousins, 16 5th or 6th cousins and 224 distant cousins, not thousands predicted in the masterclass. From the top 18 one 4th cousin in in fact a great uncle already known about but not contactable through ancestry, no tree and no access, 4 of the others have trees but no reply to messages the rest are a waste of space. As for ethnicity this person is listed by ancestry as being more British than I am, despite their tree researched to the 1600's which is all East Europe, Russia, and the Balkans, I have 100% English, Welsh and Scottish lines back to 1500 except for one probable Scandinavian link and before 1500 one line that is viking, probably around 700 CE. Ancestry think I am only 40% British.

The only reason ancestry is popular is because the cannon fodder believe advertising and people like Peter push them forward, more so when they make money from referrals.
 
Rhian said:
The last family member tested had two 4th cousins, 16 5th or 6th cousins and 224 distant cousins, not thousands predicted in the masterclass.
Click to expand...
I've bought for 8 Ancestry tests for me and my family, which I clearly wouldn't have done if I didn't think they were worthwhile, and with 15700 matches I have the fewest of the lot. My advice is for people with ancestors from the British Isles, as they are the readers of my newsletter.

My 15700 matches at Ancestry compare with 2118 at FTDNA and 979 at 23andMe. Now tell me that I'm wrong to recommend Ancestry!
 
I don't think you can completely discount ethnicity testing - I only discovered that I had European Jewish ancestry when it popped up on my ethnicity results. This was mainly due to the fact that my great-grandmother (my closest "fully" Jewish relative) had an Anglicised name, as did her parents, and she was born in London. Knowing that I had European Jewish ancestry opened up a massive door for me, broke down one part of the brick wall on that side of the family - once I'd found that un-anglicised name (unfortunately there still is a bit of brick wall in that area) and further DNA tests then opened up massive extensions of cousins etc and more hints... and so on and so forth.

Ancestry's ethnicity testing does seem to be getting more accurate, and I suppose it will only improve as they continue to develop what they're offering - although I agree that it is tainted by the money making part of the venture, but almost everything is these days. Except for LostCousins.

Rhian, has your relative gone back and checked the results again? I check them every so often and they continually change and more and more pages/cousins/contacts are added. Plus people are being tested all the time and they then get added to your list, and then as Ancestry's testing gets better your results are further refined - or at least I think that's how it works!

Like Peter, my results have the lowest numbers - my 4th cousin count is at 139 (my other 5 tests have over 200, and one has over 600); I have 5 3rd cousins listed, all but one of whom I know where they fit - I've contacted four out of five... and the only one I don't know where they fit didn't know much about their own tree and wasn't particularly helpful... and of course they're on my maternal line, the one that DNA isn't giving me much help on so far!

I use DNA often as a confirmation of things that I think are correct - like when you think you've researched something correctly but you weren't sure... and then a relative pops up on DNA who shares those ancestors and they go from a query to a big massive tick.

**I am also happy to have debate on public v private trees if it's happening again!
 
FamilyHistoryGal said:
Bob if you want to start another topic on Private versus Public trees I am happy to take part!
Click to expand...
jorghes said:
**I am also happy to have debate on public v private trees if it's happening again!
Click to expand...
It has been well aired before, and most know I am totally in favour of Public Trees, as Peter is of Private and we have agreed to disagree - and any debate draws in those drawn to both sides of the argument. However I still feel strongly on what drives people to remain private and then become reclusive and (all too often) refuse to communicate with others (Family History Gal perhaps excluding).

I am a little busy at the moment but I will give it thought and try to set out why I think Public and open is the only way to operate, and leave others to say why they think the opposite works for them. Stand by your beds.
 
Rhian said:
The only reason ancestry is popular is because the cannon fodder believe advertising a
Click to expand...
I have in the past (mostly outside the Forum) been accused many times of having a chip on my shoulder, especially on the subject of commercial greed, insidious and invasive advertising and -at my worst - on the absurd commercialism of 'C' (if I must ...Ch***mas), which now occurs as early as August (that has been aired in the Forum).

But Rhian, if I may say so, your vitriolic attacks on Ancestry make my own various angst's pale into insignificance and I disagree anyway as I consider Ancestry (warts and all) - who are NOT a 'Not for Profit' organisation - do a pretty good job and their DNA side even better. Compared, say, to 'My Heritage', they are on the side of the Angels.

If you are against DNA testing, fine, but your arguments would stand up better without the need for putting the boot into Ancestry - so to speak. Just my opinion mind!
 
Bob Spiers said:
the absurd commercialism of 'C' (if I must ...Ch***mas)
Click to expand...

Thank you, Bob, for your restraint on this occasion. Also, may I ask that other Forum members similarly restrain from taking the name of my ancestor in vain? He was a hard working Sussex farmer for most of the year and should not be blamed for others greed during the coming festivities which are to be enjoyed by many, even by those who are not related. By all means raise a glass or two in fond remembrance of our ** Father as the end of the year draws near.

I just wish that I had discovered sooner that his descendants lived only 4-5 miles from me before I emigrated.

** I don't know who else may be related as he lived, and died, before the 1841 UK Census :( but please do get in touch if you believe that there may be a family connection.
 
Bryman said:
** I don't know who else may be related as he lived, and died, before the 1841 UK Census :( but please do get in touch if you believe that there may be a family connection.
Click to expand...
Hi Bryman, this is by way of really telling you of someone I worked with back in the 70's & 80's by the name of Lionel Christmas (I don 't mind using the word in a name context). Lionel lived and worked as a Warehouse Foreman in Faversham, Kent. I met his father on more than one occasion and you can imagine the good hearted fun we had referring to him as Father C ( So much so I cannot recall his first name).

As I recall the father and his whole family, including Lionel, came from a small Kent village (more a hamlet) near Aldington, Kent (it may even have been part of Aldington). Of course this does not constitute a family connection, merely to tell you of the family name being the same as your Sussex ancestor. I know Lionel passed away many years ago and I cannot recall the names of children; so sadly it is now just a memory. Perhaps you can trace family to Kent, which is only a neighbouring county to Sussex.
 
Bob Spiers said:
I am a little busy at the moment but I will give it thought and try to set out why I think Public and open is the only way to operate, and leave others to say why they think the opposite works for them. Stand by your beds.
Click to expand...
I have now written a Public versus Private Tree item under the 'General Genealogy' label which awaits moderation. Take a peek when it shows and, of course -FamilyHistoryGal and Jorghes, I look forward to your response, and those from others of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top