New matches

[PhilGee]

It looks like the "Christmas present" results are starting to filter through

My new matches (< 8 days) dropped to 2 over the Christmas period and has now started going up (currently 35 from 10 yesterday)! All are <18cM and some actually have trees attached with > 4 people

 

[Pauline]

I don't think I had any new matches over the Christmas period, but I've had lots over the last couple of days. I'm not sure how many of them are Christmas present ones as yet, or if Ancestry DNA just shut up shop for the holidays, and this is the backlog.

 

[Tim]

Wouldn't it be more likely that they are the Black Friday tests coming through?

 

[JoyNor]

Likewise here I got no matches for several days but now have yards of them. All pretty much useless as I just skimmed down the most recent 20 or so names to find only one person with a tree (most are no trees) with more than 1 name on it. I wish Ancestry would shove their repeated recommendation to"Invite Fred Bloggs to build a tree and link it to their DNA results" where the sun don't shine. Considering I get minimal response to messages sent to even those who have large trees with other matches/ancestor surnames shared with me and also those to whom I link with common ancestors (often evidenced with my proven paper trails) I don't see why I should to spend my valuable time encouraging these fly-by-nights to build their trees. I can better spend the time on my own tree, scouring records and documents which are more likely to produce results. Two recent visits to graveyards resulted in more progress than anything gained recently from my DNA matches.

 

[peter]

Likewise here I got no matches for several days but now have yards of them. All pretty much useless as I just skimmed down the most recent 20 or so names to find only one person with a tree (most are no trees) with more than 1 name on it.

Ah yes, the common fallacy that because someone doesn't have a tree the match is of no possible value.

 

[JoyNor]

I didn't say they are of no possible value per se. But with no tree, no shared matches, no names that may be worth following up they ARE useless to me in trying to progress MY tree. It is fairly certain most are tests taken as a gift, with no real interest beyond maybe their (estimated) ethnicity. The vast majority of my matches are as I described above. I have several good cM values with some but only about 1 in 20 messages sent elicits a reply & of those replies I might as well bang my head on a brick wall as after a couple of exchanges the correspondence goes cold. I have been contacted by 5 people in the 4 years since I tested - all just wanted immediate access to my tree & of the 5 only 2 had a tree themselves with more than 3 or 4 names. One had my father alive & well living in Liverpool, 12 years after he died in Yorkshire! Did they amend this error with my input? No.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I didn't say they are of no possible value per se. But with no tree, no shared matches, no names that may be worth following up they ARE useless to me in trying to progress MY tree.

Yes Amen to that comment.

 

[peter]

I didn't say they are of no possible value per se. But with no tree, no shared matches, no names that may be worth following up they ARE useless to me in trying to progress MY tree

That would only be true if you're not collaborating with any of your genetic cousins.

 

[JoyNor]

So I had 6 new matches yesterday. Five with no tree. One with just two "living" people. And so no ancestor names. All under 10cM. No clues from their profiles where they or their ancestors are/were located. No shared matches. None of them on the new matches of the genetic cousins who have allowed me to access to their DNA results. None of them on the new matches of a couple of 5C1Rs that I work with. So no idea even which side of my tree the anonymous six might be. Suggestions on a postcard please.

 

[peter]

So I had 6 new matches yesterday. Five with no tree. One with just two "living" people. And so no ancestor names. All under 10cM. No clues from their profiles where they or their ancestors are/were located. No shared matches. None of them on the new matches of the genetic cousins who have allowed me to access to their DNA results. None of them on the new matches of a couple of 5C1Rs that I work with. So no idea even which side of my tree the anonymous six might be. Suggestions on a postcard please.

It's best to follow the strategies in the Masterclass, which focus attention on the matches most likely to help you knock down your 'brick walls'. Trying to figure out how you are related to all of your genetic cousins would be a hopeless task even if they all had trees of a reasonable size.

Note that the chances that you will have any shared matches at Ancestry with a 5C1R cousin are low unless you have endogamy in your tree - statistically the average DNA shared between 5C1Rs is less than 2cM. However collaborating with them greatly increases the chances of identifying shared matches, since having access to their matches effectively reduces the 20cM threshold to just 8cM.

The other major benefit is being able to search their matches for the surnames of the ancestors you share - this effectively doubles your chances of knocking down the 'brick wall' that you share.