Comments on: What We Might Have Missed: November 18th Edition http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2013/11/18/what-we-might-have-missed-november-18th-edition/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=what-we-might-have-missed-november-18th-edition The official blog of Ancestry.com Thu, 24 Apr 2014 03:36:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2 By: Pat Burnshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2013/11/18/what-we-might-have-missed-november-18th-edition/#comment-156288 Pat Burns Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:47:52 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=13272#comment-156288 Hi Gregg: I’m just another customer but maybe I can help. As I understand it, your DNA hasn’t changed, they are simply comparing it to a different data base. The first data base estimated where similar clusters of DNA were located about 500 years ago. The new data base is a lot more detailed with more samples from more regions and, I believe, may date back more than 500 years. There is a white paper on it at http://dna.ancestry.com/#/ethnicity/FB1685FD-E4F0-4DF6-9675-82E92734C93B . Hope that helps. Pat.

]]>
By: Gregg Lookerhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2013/11/18/what-we-might-have-missed-november-18th-edition/#comment-156262 Gregg Looker Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:17:36 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=13272#comment-156262 Can someone explain to me how my DNA results showing went from 54% “British Isles” to 8% Ireland and 7% Britain? In the two years since I got the Version 1 results, I had to rethink my entire lineage (I thought I was 85% German) to 54% “British Isles” and then to 15% in Versioin 2 of the DNA results. Surely there is a story there as the DNA results definitely changed.

]]>