Only Direct Ancestors in your DNA Tree?

[Tim]

...You do, of course, need to have a single tree attached to your DNA results - but it can be a private tree. For DNA purposes there is no need to include anyone other than direct ancestors.

Peter, you've mentioned this a couple of times and I can't quite see the logic. As a minimum, I think this is a correct statement. But surely it would be better to have all your Direct Ancestors and all of their direct descendants? After all, it is these descendants that we're linked to these DNA matches through?

I've seen examples where members have 3 people in their tree, so not got as far back as our common ancestor (CA). But because I have included direct descendants the link between them and the CA was displayed.

Yes, I'm sure if I didn't have the direct descendants attached then Ancestry would have suggested a CA. But as we know, what they show as the path between the DNA match and the CA is often wrong.

I use FTAnalyzer to create my DNA tree, it will create either just direct ancestors or direct ancestors and their descendants, it's so quick and easy.

Is there a downside to having the descendants added?

 

[Sue_3]

I'm wondering this too?

Also, what is FTAnalyzer? It sounds so useful that I imagine it won't be compatible with anything I use.

 

[Tim]

I'm wondering this too?

Also, what is FTAnalyzer? It sounds so useful that I imagine it won't be compatible with anything I use.

FTAnalyzer is a free software program that uses a gedcom from your Family History Software. It does many many things.

There's even a dedicated section to it here on the Forum and a FaceBook group for users

It's downloadable from the MicroSoft Office Store, current released version 8.5.2 but we're testing Version 10 Beta at the moment.

 

[peter]

But surely it would be better to have all your Direct Ancestors and all of their direct descendants? After all, it is these descendants that we're linked to these DNA matches through?

For most people that's virtually their whole tree!

There's nothing to stop you having another public tree, but the one attached to your DNA results has special significance, it's the one that your matches will search using surnames and places.

If you include surnames and places which are not those of your direct ancestors you are potentially going to waste people's time (this is a particular problem when the tree is private).

Another factor is that if a public tree is too large people won't bother to look through the list of people, and perhaps not bother looking at it all. I prefer trees with more than 100 but less than 1000 relatives.

Finally, if the information in your tree is sufficient for someone else to make the connection, then Ancestry can do it too - you will show up as a Common Ancestors match. Common Ancestors and ThruLines take into account ALL Ancestry trees, including searchable private trees.

Don't make life difficult for experienced researchers by giving help to the less-experienced that they don't actually need.

 

[peter]

PS I should apologise for not having explained this before - it was something which I knew intuitively but had not previously put into words.

 

[IanL]

If you include surnames and places which are not those of your direct ancestors you are potentially going to waste people's time (this is a particular problem when the tree is private).

Another factor is that if a public tree is too large people won't bother to look through the list of people, and perhaps not bother looking at it all.

We all have different approaches. I'm with Tim on this - I want to see the collateral lines as well as the direct ones. Those are where I often find the connections.

Family history used to be very collaborative but is a lot less so now. Lost Cousins seems to be an exception. People do their own research without reference to anyone else. So, if they are serious about breaking down brick walls, they should be searching through large family trees and not consider it a waste of time.

 

[peter]

We all have different approaches. I'm with Tim on this - I want to see the collateral lines as well as the direct ones. Those are where I often find the connections.

(a) you don't need to have the collateral relatives in the tree linked to your DNA results, they can be in another tree
(b) if there is a connection Ancestry will find it automatically, whether or not it's in the tree linked to your DNA results
(c) If you don't have a direct ancestors only tree (whether it is attached to your DNA results or not) you are making life difficult for your cousins
(d) However, if the tree connected to your DNA results isn't public your cousins are less likely to look at their match with you
(e) By having a public tree which includes all of the descendants of your direct ancestors you are infringing the privacy of your living relatives; their names are hidden but it doesn't take a genius to identify them using the GRO birth and marriages indexes

if they are serious about breaking down brick walls, they should be searching through large family trees and not consider it a waste of time.

I am serious about knocking down 'brick walls', that's why I don't want to waste my time looking at the surnames and birthplaces of 10,000 people when I'm actually only interested in the 300 or so who are my match's direct ancestors. It's even worse when people include their spouse's relatives in their own tree.

 

[Tim]

I have 2 trees on Ancestry, one tree has every source and detail, with pictures etc., it's private but searchable.
My 2nd tree is attached to my DNA, and contains my ancestors and their descendants and is public.

It's important to note here that the Strategies highlighted in your Master Class relate only to the trees that people have attached to their DNA.

An example: I have the surname Porter as a Direct Ancestor (DA), 7 names would appear in a DA only tree, but 342 would appear in a DA+ descendants tree.
Scenario 1: A DNA match is using your Masterclass to search for Porter but I only have a DA tree attached.

Strategy 1: They get 7 hits but none of the forenames and dates match. (They haven't gone back as far to hit a Common Ancestor (CA))
Strategy 2: County is a hit but village/town isn't​

Scenario 2: A DNA match is using your Masterclass to search for Porter and I have a DA+ descendants tree attached.

Strategy 1: They get 342 hits some of the forenames and dates match.
Strategy 2: They're getting matches on villages and towns.​

But what about Strategy 4 - More Tips?


In the DA tree, there are no collateral lines. Isn't the Master Class relying on the fact that we have added a DA+ descendants tree?

 

[peter]

It's important to note here that the Strategies highlighted in your Master Class relate only to the trees that people have attached to their DNA.

Correct. However - unless it has changed - Ancestry's search only looks at the direct ancestors of your matches, so adding descendants won't affect the results that other members get when they follow the strategies in the Masterclass.

Isn't the Master Class relying on the fact that we have added a DA+ descendants tree?

No, the Masterclass is referring to our collateral lines which are someone else's direct lines.

 

[Sue_3]

FTAnalyzer is a free software program that uses a gedcom from your Family History Software. It does many many things.

There's even a dedicated section to it here on the Forum and a FaceBook group for users

It's downloadable from the MicroSoft Office Store, current released version 8.5.2 but we're testing Version 10 Beta at the moment.

Thank you, that sounds very interesting and is something I'll look forward to spending some time exploring ... probably not this week but very likely next week!

 

[Tim]

Correct. However - unless it has changed - Ancestry's search only looks at the direct ancestors of your matches, so adding descendants won't affect the results that other members get when they follow the strategies in the Masterclass.

I didn't realise that, I did a quick test and it appears that it does only return results for direct ancestors when searching attached trees.

No, the Masterclass is referring to our collateral lines which are someone else's direct lines.

And that also makes a lot of sense.

Because of this, it doesn't matter if they do have 10,000 names as the search is only showing the results from 300.

The one big benefit from adding the descendants is that when a new DNA match comes along and you view the relationship, the boxes will be solid (as they come from your tree) and not dashed boxes which are Ancestry's guesses.

 

[peter]

Because of this, it doesn't matter if they do have 10,000 names as the search is only showing the results from 300.

But it does - as mentioned previously....

I don't want to waste my time looking at the surnames and birthplaces of 10,000 people when I'm actually only interested in the 300 or so who are my match's direct ancestors. It's even worse when people include their spouse's relatives in their own tree.

Whilst there is no inherent disadvantage in having a large tree attached to your DNA results, it's very unusual to have a direct ancestors-only tree which isn't linked to the DNA results. Indeed, why would you have one at all if you weren't going to attach it to your DNA results?

 

[John Dancy]

Indeed, why would you have one at all if you weren't going to attach it to your DNA results?

Many tree owners haven't had their DNA tested, and a fair number only have their direct ancestors - are you saying they shouldn't have trees?

 

[peter]

Many tree owners haven't had their DNA tested, and a fair number only have their direct ancestors - are you saying they shouldn't have trees?

We're not talking about people who haven't tested their DNA.

 

[John Dancy]

Sorry Peter, had forgotten the title of the thread. - Lesson in not to post forum messages late at night.