-
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!
-
It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here
Why don't supposed DNA matches contact me?
- Thread starter JohnR65
- Start date
Most people who take a DNA test are not actively researching their family tree ,and those who are tend to be far less experienced than LostCousins members. Even if they are experienced researchers they won't have the benefit of my DNA Masterclass to guide them; people who are used to building their tree using records can find it quite difficult to work with DNA.
I suspect that if your DNA matches had the time, the motivation, and the capability to take their tree back further they would have done it already - in which case Ancestry would have identified the common ancestors and saved you the trouble.
I suspect that if your DNA matches had the time, the motivation, and the capability to take their tree back further they would have done it already - in which case Ancestry would have identified the common ancestors and saved you the trouble.
Britjan
LostCousins Star
I am reminded by Peter's recent observation that I also find it annoying that I rarely get a response to an inquiry about a (likely DNA identified) family connections now settled in the USA. They are mainly the result of "poor law" removal first to Canada of my relatives from Norfolk and Suffolk between 1841 - 1881 . By 1901 - 1911 the majority had moved on to the USA and some I believe went on to serve in WWI.
Does anybody else have a similar problem with USA follow up about relatives migrating from any region in the U.K?
I have always received much betters response from similar Australian connections even with the surname Smith!
Does anybody else have a similar problem with USA follow up about relatives migrating from any region in the U.K?
I have always received much betters response from similar Australian connections even with the surname Smith!
DNA matches not responding is a very different issue. JohnR65 was asking why his DNA matches weren't initiating contact with him.
I'm happy with the response rate from the matches I try to contact. This may be because I don't ask awkward questions and frequently volunteer helpful information.
I agree with you Britjan especially as most of the trees owned by Americans don't appear to have UK ancestors on them and seem to believe they are related to the native Americans or in exceptional cases are related to British royalty!
You can say what you like in private, but if you are going to post on a public forum please be more careful not to offend others, not least the many, many thousands of LostCousins members in North America. Perhaps the reason I get more replies from my cousins is because I treat them with respect rather than contempt?
Obviously Peter, Britjan and I speak as we find. When trying to make contact with American DNA alledged cousins, they rarely answer in my experience, similarly for normal messages on Ancestry and My Heritage. Seems to me that very few are interested in their family trees and much more interested in their ethnicity. I feel like a voice in the wilderness and am slowly losing interest in my own tree these days.
I'm not sure that nationality has anything to do with it I suspect it's more about having reasonable expectations of one's genetic cousins.
I message very few of my matches because either:
I message very few of my matches because either:
- they have a public tree, so there is no need to contact them, or
- they have no tree, or a small tree in which case there is no point in contacting them unless it is to give them information rather than ask for information
cfbandit
LostCousins Member
We're at the point as well now that there are deceased matches in the database. Even some folks that appear young in their pictures are deceased. I've had some frustratingly tantalizing matches only to find that situation, and its a bit odd mailing their other relatives to say hey, I know you're not X, but you have them in your tree, and I was hoping to get in touch with the family...
I send a LOT of messages through the system when I have the ability (I'm not a year round subscriber). My mum's line is full of adoptees so I try to contact them all and let them know I have tons of info for them that can help them if they need it. The older ones are sometimes shocked because I'm very friendly about it - previous generations were often not very kind to adoptees.
I use my profile to share my email and my other common usernames so they can find me elsewhere. That gets me a lot of questions as if you aren't a paying subscriber, you can't initiate contact with folks on Ancestry. I can always answer - even without a paid account - but you can't initiate. So that made be part of it too.
I send a LOT of messages through the system when I have the ability (I'm not a year round subscriber). My mum's line is full of adoptees so I try to contact them all and let them know I have tons of info for them that can help them if they need it. The older ones are sometimes shocked because I'm very friendly about it - previous generations were often not very kind to adoptees.
I use my profile to share my email and my other common usernames so they can find me elsewhere. That gets me a lot of questions as if you aren't a paying subscriber, you can't initiate contact with folks on Ancestry. I can always answer - even without a paid account - but you can't initiate. So that made be part of it too.
There certainly ought to be a lot of deceased relatives in the databases - the key to success is to test the earliest surviving generations. However, I suspect that in many cases the tests were managed or co-managed by relatives from the beginning.
jorghes
LostCousins Superstar
As an example, I have my paternal grandmother's results in the database and she died last year at the age of 99 (exactly 3 weeks from her 100th birthday). But as Peter says, I manage my grandmother's results and her test gives me 55,502 matches, which is a lot of opportunities to support research and assist in breaking down brick walls both for me and others. In comparison, her son's results (who I use for the paternal side of the family) have only 22,094 results.
Equally, I have been contacted by the manager of a set of results that belonged to a fairly distant cousin (who unfortunately died at a much younger age) who was still using and constructing his tree.
cfbandit
LostCousins Member
Oh for sure. But I have several now folks that look "young" but are deceased. Folks in their 40s and 50s. Its surprised people when I tell them that yep, I confirmed the death, found the obituaries, did the research, etc. I think most people are expecting the deceased ones to be the "old" people in the database, not the "younger" ones.
With some families doing DNA tests as presents for holidays, I see a lot more younger generations testing. I think its mostly us genealogy fans who really aim to get the older generations to test because we know how valuable that DNA is.
Realistically, most serious researchers who are convinced of the value of DNA will have tested, or arranged for older relatives to test by now. So whilst there have always been lots of young people testing - at least, since DNA became the must-have gift about 6 years ago - the proportion will be even higher now.
For people of my generation this means less chance of a match, lower shared DNA when we do match, and an even lower chance that the other person will have a useful tree than ever before. For example, my 20 most recent matches mostly share 8cM-10cM (the highest is 15cM) and only 3 currently have a linked tree - with 4, 22, and 1395 relatives.
But that doesn't matter - we already have quite enough matches!