Comments on: AncestryDNA discoveries made easier with the help of the shaky leaf.

By: Anne Reeves

Anne Reeves — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 15:09:58 +0000

Karen. First, I do roughly understand the mechanics of genetic descent. Thus I understand why I have zero trace of “British Isles” DNA in my personal genome, despite the documented fact of my having Welsh forebears (several, though most fairly distant). What I cannot accept as meaningful, however, is the following. Among my so-called matches, including one amongst the “4th” cousin range (!), are those who have ONLY “British Isles” DNA. MY personal genome supposedly contains ONLY Central European and Scandanavian (65% and 35% respectively). How then could there conceivably be a match with someone whose genome contains no DNA from either area (or vice versa)? Having like surnames in our respective trees is surely NOT supposed to be the point of the exercise? Yet those “matches” wherein they and I share zero DNA (apparently) seem to spring solely from coincidence of surnames.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:31:19 +0000

@Karen – I look forward to additional cross checking tools in the DNA results.

I have 5 tests in the system – I’d love to be able to search across them. I’d like to be able to search for specific Surnames among the matches

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:11:38 +0000

@ALICE LYNCH – The DNA results mean we share DNA and are related. Although, at some point in the very low confidence range, the results may not be true. If the amount of DNA that we appear to share with out matches is very small, it may be real, or it may be what is called “noise”. Just too little to actually know for sure. But I have hundreds of low confidence range matches with whom I share common ancestors.

What is lacking at Ancestry are the tools to cross check these results. Hopefully they will be forthcoming.

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:00:28 +0000

@ANNE REEVES – I have had thousands of matches and only about a dozen leaf hints – several being incorrect. The test is about the DNA, not the tree. At Family Tree DNA there are no trees until someone puts them up after receiving their results. I have matches at Ancestry that I also matched at FTDNA.

I have found common ancestors with several hundred of my matches. Most of my matches are in the 5th-8th cousin, low to very low confidence range. Most are colonials. Some matches & I share as many as 5 common ancestral couples. My results with ancestors who immigrated in the mid 1800s have not been as good. But Ancestry has not opened the testing up worldwide. I believe those results will change when that happens.

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:42:38 +0000

@PATTY MILLER – If your DNA test results are attached to YOU in your tree, then you will not receive DNA matches to your husband unless you are related.

Your cousins would have to take the new autosomal test that you took in order to “match”. The atDNA & Y-DNA tests look at different DNA segments. The tests are not interchangeable.

By: Alice Lynch

Alice Lynch — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:47:30 +0000

So, do the DNA matches really mean that we share DNA or that we just originate from the same geographic region? I’m confused. I thought that a match indicated that we were definitely related.

By: Anne Reeves

Anne Reeves — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:42:15 +0000

A further note: after checking all of my so-called DNA matches – not a ‘shaky leaf’ among them, suggesting, as I wrote earlier, that these ‘matches’ are often based simply on trees having like surnames and the ‘owners’ possibly having ancestors originating from similar regions. Hardly ‘matches.’ At least not in my understanding.

Nothing can replace documentary evidence. And that is all the more true when, as in my case, one’s personal genome clearly has no trace of DNA from known ancestors.

By: Patty Miller

Patty Miller — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:47:39 +0000

I’m confused!! Why would my dna results match to surnames of my husband????? We have no children yet I’ve rec’d dna matches from folk within his family!! Also, if my male cousins have taken the ydna test and I took the “new” dna text why aren’t we matching? I have not matched to any 1-3 level cousins.

thank you

By: Sue

Sue — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:05:44 +0000

I, for one, appreciate very much the continual enhancements and new tools that you keep rolling out. This product is only about a year old and just out of beta. It keeps getting better and better. The shaky leaf hint thing isn’t perfect yet, but it is very helpful. Last night, I got about 30 new matches, no leafs, but this morning two new leafs appeared on some of these new matches so I assume the leaf hint program just lags a bit behind uploading new matches. I have taken the DNA test with two other companies and ancestry.com’s autosomal dna results are 100% more useful to me, despite the problems with private trees etc. I also appreciated the explanation in this blog on why you only produce hints back 10 generations — a little problematic in that colonial America generations tend to be at 12-14 generations, but your explanation makes sense, and it is still possible to look for matches by viewing pedigrees of matches. (I have confirmed a good many colonial america ancestors that way even though most don’t promise results from autosomal dna tests that far back.) Anyway, great job in continuing to improve the search tools and I look forward to more in the coming months (surname search!, search “in common with” , raw data and chrom browser…and search by user name please.) along with explanations like this blog that help explain why certain features are designed one way or another.

By: Anne Reeves

Anne Reeves — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:09:07 +0000

First my complaint about the DNA test matches. IF DNA is the basis of the matching, then why do I find “matches” that can only be derived from our trees having surnames in common? Among my so called matches that Ancestry sends are some (among the 4th cousin range) that have NO Central European or Scandanavian genes, yet my DNA read out contains genetic material from ONLY those two regions.

As for the surnames in common – that is all they are: surnames. In no manner can those names be connected to the people on my tree with like surnames; or vice versa.

We need to know what the criteria are that Ancestry uses to produce these so-called DNA matches. They certainly do not seem to be based on haploid matching, at least in my experience.

As for private tree versus public tree: a) I always respond to enquiries and am more than willing to share my tree with those who turn out to be in some wise connected to people on it. For those who turn out not to be related, I provide an outline of the lines of descent on my tree, and offer to help them as best I can with whatever access to online materials that I have.

The main reason for my changing my formerly public tree to private was because there were those who would simply take documents, stories, transcriptions etc. from my tree, publish them on theirs without acknowledging the original source and very often without the reference details (citation) that I had added.