SideView

[peter]

OK, you referred to the explanatory information that was briefly available on Ancestry, which I haven't seen. I had read the blog. I couldn't tell how much of your post came from which source or was just your opinion, so I ought to have left Ancestry out of it! My cousin is in the 'both sides' group, not 'unassigned', but labelled as 'Maternal side' (without a little 'i') in my 'all matches' list.

I don't know why the 'i' appears against some matches and not others in my list, since I haven't told Ancestry (yet) who is Parent 1 and who is Parent 2 (therefore any matches labelled as Mother's side or Father's side are the result of my input in the past).

Since close cousins share more segments with us it's far more likely that they'll show up as both sides, given the less than perfect accuracy of any statistical algorithm - it's reasonable to assume that the unexpected side is a false match. We have many, many more distant cousins, so it's hard to assess how likely it is that my mother-in-law's only 'Both sides' match (other than my wife) is genuine. But even if it is, the chances of finding the connections on both sides are negligible. Of the three shared matches, two are Maternal side and one is unassigned (which in this case is probably because the two segments have been assessed by SideView as being on opposite sides).

 

[Stuart]

Now I do have that "by parent" page working, so I have numbers - 6,006 for Mum, 10,188 for Dad, and 4,778 don't knows. That split susprises me a bit, but then it it mostly a count of very distant matches that I've never pinned down at all.

There is now a support page "DNA Matches Split Up By Parent", which suggests that the little (i) icon will stay after you've used it and the relabelling is reversible.

That support page is found in the "by parent" page (if you have it), in the section labelled "both sides". Over on the right is a box containing:

"Why are some matches related to both parents?

They could descend from both parents, be distant relatives who have segments matching both sides, or come from a small population (like an island) that both parents belong to.

Learn more"

That learn more link leads to the explanations (such as they are).

 

[peter]

That learn more link leads to the explanations (such as they are).

The blog post is much more informative - Ancestry's support page skimps on detail.

 

[Helen7]

I don't know why the 'i' appears against some matches and not others in my list, since I haven't told Ancestry (yet) who is Parent 1 and who is Parent 2 (therefore any matches labelled as Mother's side or Father's side are the result of my input in the past).

For me, the 'i' appears against all the matches I'd previously assigned as Father's or Mother's side. These are each shown as Paternal or Maternal side, and when I click on the 'i' beside them, I'm invited to change all Parent 1 to Paternal side and all Parent 2 to Maternal side, which I haven't done as yet. The 'i' never appears where Ancestry has assigned them as Parent 1 or Parent 2 (or Unassigned) without my prior input.

 

[peter]

These are my closest matches, other than my brother. As you can see, there are two which don't have the 'i', but I don't know why. One is the mother of the other, but I can't see why that would make a difference.

 

[PhilGee]

For me, the 'i' appears against all the matches I'd previously assigned as Father's or Mother's side. These are each shown as Paternal or Maternal side, and when I click on the 'i' beside them, I'm invited to change all Parent 1 to Paternal side and all Parent 2 to Maternal side, which I haven't done as yet. The 'i' never appears where Ancestry has assigned them as Parent 1 or Parent 2 (or Unassigned) without my prior input.

Having redefined parent1/2 as paternal/maternal the "i" responds with "This is a label you selected for this match" - except for the one case in my maternal matches where the text is Paternal side, and it says
"We think this match is on your Maternal side, but you labeled them Paternal. Do you want to keep your label or update it?".

 

[trebor]

These are my closest matches, other than my brother. As you can see, there are two which don't have the 'i', but I don't know why. One is the mother of the other, but I can't see why that would make a difference.

When mine don't have the "i" it is where the option selected by Ancestry disagrees with mine.

 

[PhilGee]

That's the complete opposite to my experience.

 

[Sue_3]

These are my closest matches, other than my brother. As you can see, there are two which don't have the 'i', but I don't know why. One is the mother of the other, but I can't see why that would make a difference.

In my list, all of the matches I had labelled myself have the 'i', except for my maternal first cousin, who is also the only one of my matches that Ancestry thinks is 'both sides'.

In my maternal first cousin's list, though, I am identified as belonging to their father's family, which is correct as their father was my mother's brother. Note that I manage this cousin's DNA.

In my maternal first cousin's list there is also only one match that Ancestry thinks is 'both sides', and it's a fairly close cousin match that we share, and they are labelled in my list as 'parent 2' and my 'parent 2' is clearly my mother.

So, something has suggested to Ancestry that my maternal first cousin shares some DNA with my father's side and also that another of my maternal cousins shares some DNA with my maternal first cousin's mother's side (which is not my side)?

I have spent some time looking at shared matches for some further clues but soon reached a point where I was overwhelmed by all the data!

 

[Sue_3]

Since close cousins share more segments with us it's far more likely that they'll show up as both sides, given the less than perfect accuracy of any statistical algorithm - it's reasonable to assume that the unexpected side is a false match. We have many, many more distant cousins, so it's hard to assess how likely it is that my mother-in-law's only 'Both sides' match (other than my wife) is genuine. But even if it is, the chances of finding the connections on both sides are negligible. Of the three shared matches, two are Maternal side and one is unassigned (which in this case is probably because the two segments have been assessed by SideView as being on opposite sides).

I think that's reasonable too, although to be honest my brain is so scrambled now that I'm no longer sure about anything.

 

[Stuart]

When mine don't have the "i" it is where the option selected by Ancestry disagrees with mine.

Which display is that on - the maternal/paternal or custom labelled equivalent? (I'm assuming you still get both after identifying parents 1 and 2).

 

[peter]

So, something has suggested to Ancestry that my maternal first cousin shares some DNA with my father's side and also that another of my maternal cousins shares some DNA with my maternal first cousin's mother's side (which is not my side)?

As I've mentioned previously, because SideView is only 95% accurate it's very likely that when there are a lot of shared segments (as with 1st cousins), some of them will be misidentified. You don't need Ancestry to tell you how you're related to a 1st cousin, so just ignore what they say.

 

[trebor]

Which display is that on - the maternal/paternal or custom labelled equivalent? (I'm assuming you still get both after identifying parents 1 and 2).

Having looked closer if the two options disagree there is no "i" and if they agree there is no "i" e.g. Me = Maternal side Ancestry = Both sides OR me = Both sides Ancestry = Both sides - then there is no "i"
If my entry = Paternal side and Ancestry = Parent 2 then there is an "i" asking me do I want to make Parent 2 = paternal, likewise Maternal and Parent 1

My interpretation is that if a suitable alternative can be offered then it is there but if not there is no option to offer.

 

[trebor]

As I've mentioned previously, because SideView is only 95% accurate it's very likely that when there are a lot of shared segments (as with 1st cousins), some of them will be misidentified. You don't need Ancestry to tell you how you're related to a 1st cousin, so just ignore what they say.

Using your reasoning, the larger the match the smaller the likelihood that it is accurate. So if you take the opposite, the smaller the match the greater the likelihood that it will be correct. Whilst I understand your explanation for the large amount = larger percentage value it makes me wonder if a small amount increases the possibility of error - i.e. the smaller amount is possibly within the inaccurate 5% of the total. This makes me nervous about making any rash decisions from the relationships offered by Ancestry. Despite my caution I can say that the majority of my known connections are confirmed by Ancestry - or am I just lucky?

 

[peter]

Using your reasoning, the larger the match the smaller the likelihood that it is accurate. So if you take the opposite, the smaller the match the greater the likelihood that it will be correct. Whilst I understand your explanation for the large amount = larger percentage value it makes me wonder if a small amount increases the possibility of error - i.e. the smaller amount is possibly within the inaccurate 5% of the total. This makes me nervous about making any rash decisions from the relationships offered by Ancestry. Despite my caution I can say that the majority of my known connections are confirmed by Ancestry - or am I just lucky?

If each segment is evaluated separately, as I believe they are, it's inevitable that the more segments there are, the more likely it is that one or two of them are called correctly. Assuming 95% is the appropriate figure, if there is only 1 segment it'll be correct 95% of the time; if there are 2 segments both will be correct 90% of the time; if there are 3 segments they'll all be correct 86% of the time and so on. With 30 segments there is only 21.46% chance that all 30 are called correctly.

The other side of the coin is that the more segments there are, the less likely it that they will ALL be called incorrectly. With 1 segment it's 1 chance in 20, with 2 segments it's 1 chance in 400, and by the time you get to 5 segments there's only 1 chance in 3 million that they'll all be wrong.

As you'll know from the blog post the way that relationships are assessed isn't quite as simple as that, but for a 1st cousin relationship with 30 segments to be shown as one side or another, 29 or 30 would need to be called correctly. if 28 or fewer are called correctly it would be labelled as both sides.

Most people aren't going to notice that that some close relatives are incorrectly assessed as both sides because they will have entered the relationships themselves.

 

[Pauline]

Like Pauline, I don't yet have this feature in my account

I did see a post elsewhere from someone who said they'd been told by Ancestry support that this new feature would have been rolled out to everyone by the end of Thursday (the one just gone). However, here's no sign of it in our account as yet, and since the Chromosome Painter has yet to show there, I can't say I feel that optimistic about it showing up any time soon. Hopefully I will be proved wrong!

 

[peter]

the Chromosome Painter has yet to show

Wow - I assumed everyone got it around the beginning of August, when I did. Not that it is of any great value....

 

[Pauline]

Wow - I assumed everyone got it around the beginning of August, when I did. Not that it is of any great value....

Like I said, we seem to be among the last to get any new features on our account which can be frustrating, though as you say, we haven't missed much with the Chromosome Painter.

 

[Tim]

I have 6 DNA extended family, ranging from 132cM down to 105cM. All but 1 are in my tree and so I know which of my parents they belong to but Ancestry is suggesting the opposite on all 5!

The last one is not in my tree yet, but he has the same surname as me and matches other people on my fathers side. Ancestry has labelled him Maternal and there is nothing I can do to change it.

That's 100% incorrect.

But it gets worse. My Mum's sisters granddaughter (1st cousin once removed) 125cM across 7 segments they believe is paternal and of the 3 distant family shared matches that we have, they have labelled 2 as paternal and 1 as unassigned. Again they can't be changed.

Unfortunately this makes me question the accuracy of their figures.

Paternal 8,584 matches
Maternal 7,874 matches
Both sides 3 matches (1 is wrong)
Unassigned 7,136 matches

I hope this is all early teething problems because I want to see this work.

Selecting the filter to show the Maternal side (the label they have applied) and looking at the 1st 10 listed, 6 are on my Dad's side and the other 4 aren't in my tree.
Selecting the filter to show the Paternal side (the label they have applied) and looking at the 1st 10 listed, 8 are on my Mum's side and the other 2 aren't in my tree.

 

[Stuart]

Two points, based on how I think this SideView thing works:
1. It doesn't know what's in your tree - even your DNA linked one - it doesn't even look.
2. If Ancestry is using the labels maternal/paternal rather than parent 1/2, then either there is a parent's DNA test, or you've told it which parent is which.
Is that right?