• Is familytreedna really as hopeless as it seems?

    From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 30 13:02:20 2020
    I have an email from them "Your myOrigins Results are Updated for kit
    xxxxxxx"; obviously I must have sent them my DNA results at some point.

    I'm ignoring the geographical origins part, as I do with all the others
    (this lot give me 3% Magyar and 3% Baltic, which none of the others do).
    But it also has a "Compare Origins" bit, which when clicked, shows me
    198 "Matches", which it lists - saying what they are: they're all either
    "2nd Cousin - 4th Cousin" or "3rd Cousin - 5th Cousin". (I think about a
    third the former.)

    The thing is, of the 198, I only know one - and don't recognise the
    surnames of any others - and yet I've been doing genealogy for some
    decades, and know all 32 of my G3GP (and all but about 9 of my 64 G4GP).
    So I'd expect to already know at least some if they really are 4C or
    less - or at least recognise some surnames.

    Has anyone any thoughts? Has anyone contacted a
    previously-unknown-to-them cousin via this company?
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Anything you add for security will slow the computer but it shouldn't be significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not the primary use of the computer.
    - VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 1 14:23:05 2020
    On 30/11/2020 14:02, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    I have an email from them "Your myOrigins Results are Updated for kit xxxxxxx"; obviously I must have sent them my DNA results at some point.

    I'm ignoring the geographical origins part, as I do with all the others
    (this lot give me 3% Magyar and 3% Baltic, which none of the others do).
    But it also has a "Compare Origins" bit, which when clicked, shows me
    198 "Matches", which it lists - saying what they are: they're all either
    "2nd Cousin - 4th Cousin" or "3rd Cousin - 5th Cousin". (I think about a third the former.)

    The thing is, of the 198, I only know one - and don't recognise the
    surnames of any others - and yet I've been doing genealogy for some
    decades, and know all 32 of my G3GP (and all but about 9 of my 64 G4GP).
    So I'd expect to already know at least some if they really are 4C or
    less - or at least recognise some surnames.

    Has anyone any thoughts? Has anyone contacted a
    previously-unknown-to-them cousin via this company?

    It isn't just that service. I've had my DNA data loaded on several sites
    and have the same problem of cousins unknown to my tree from all of
    them. I've not used familytreedna so don't know how detailed the
    information they provide is?

    Ancestry work on statistical calculations and there are wide ranges in comparing the DNA matches.
    This Ancestry page gives an outline of their estimate calculations https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/AncestryDNA-Match-Categories?

    Taking someone they say is my 3rd-4th cousin, the possible relationship calculation is more complex
    Percent Relationship
    50%
    2nd cousin 1x removed
    Half 2nd cousin
    1st cousin 3x removed
    Half 1st cousin 2x removed
    35%
    2nd cousin
    1st cousin 2x removed
    Half 1st cousin 1x removed
    Half 2nd great-aunt/uncle
    Half 2nd great-niece/nephew
    12%
    3rd cousin
    2nd cousin 2x removed
    Half 2nd cousin 1x removed
    Half 1st cousin 3x removed
    1%
    1st cousin 1x removed
    Half 1st cousin
    2nd great-grandparent
    2nd great-grandchild
    See more
    1%
    3rd cousin 1x removed
    Half 3rd cousin
    Half 2nd cousin 2x removed
    2nd cousin 3x removed

    That 3rd-4th cousin person wasn't in my known family tree. However, I
    have no information at all on one of my grandfathers so I'm missing a
    large section of my tree. Also, my known grandfather was a fisherman and
    could well have had relationships in various North
    Sea/Scandinavian/Icelandic ports. There were also rumours concerning a
    maid...

    The problem is several of the close matches do not have trees on
    Ancestry and/or no longer have an account and cannot be contacted. It
    does seem many just took a DNA test as part of a fun Christmas or other present, etc. just to get geographical origins, etc. and had no real
    interest in genealogy.

    I did manage to contact that 3rd-4th cousin and it is now probable we
    agree on the most likely link (= my unknown grandfather) helped by dates
    and location is someone who married several times, was convicted as a
    bigamist and had (at least) 15 children. Based on that, the 3rd-4th
    cousin person is probably a 2nd cousin 1x removed. Hopefully the 1921
    census will provide some more location/occupation clarification?

    I have about 500 unique surnames in my 5000+ tree. From that, for my
    Ancestry DNA results, I do know the one 2nd-3rd cousin listed but only
    two of the seven 3rd-4th cousins.

    The 1300+ person tree from the 2nd cousin 1x removed added three more
    but I still do not know the link to two and they are not contactable.

    So far only fourteen of the 150 individuals Ancestry identified as
    4th-6th cousins have trees on Ancestry has identified as including
    common ancestors. Many are in North America or Australasia so are
    probably descendants of 18C/19C relatives whose birth was never recorded
    or disappeared from censuses, etc and emigrated (or were transported)
    and do not appear as complete entries in my tree. Once females marry the surname link can be easily lost.

    There is also the problem of errors in the trees on Ancestry (especially
    the confusion in families living at the same time with common surnames
    and a lot of common names of children leading to incorrect family relationships) so links are broken/not made. Trying to correct those can
    be problematic, even if they are provided with birth/marriage
    certificates to show they have wrong links. And then often those errors
    have been taken up by others so even if one tree is corrected, others
    are not.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 2 01:40:06 2020
    On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 14:23:05, john <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr>
    wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
    On 30/11/2020 14:02, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    I have an email from them "Your myOrigins Results are Updated for kit >>xxxxxxx"; obviously I must have sent them my DNA results at some
    point.
    I'm ignoring the geographical origins part, as I do with all the
    others (this lot give me 3% Magyar and 3% Baltic, which none of the
    others do). But it also has a "Compare Origins" bit, which when
    clicked, shows me 198 "Matches", which it lists - saying what they
    are: they're all either "2nd Cousin - 4th Cousin" or "3rd Cousin -
    5th Cousin". (I think about a third the former.)
    The thing is, of the 198, I only know one - and don't recognise the >>surnames of any others - and yet I've been doing genealogy for some >>decades, and know all 32 of my G3GP (and all but about 9 of my 64
    G4GP). So I'd expect to already know at least some if they really are
    4C or less - or at least recognise some surnames.
    Has anyone any thoughts? Has anyone contacted a >>previously-unknown-to-them cousin via this company?

    It isn't just that service. I've had my DNA data loaded on several
    sites and have the same problem of cousins unknown to my tree from all
    of them. I've not used familytreedna so don't know how detailed the >information they provide is?

    Oh, I agree. I was a bit surprised that they gave me exactly 198
    matches, all either 2-4C or 3-5C, and I only knew one of them (one of
    the 3-5s as it happens). A lot of them seemed to have no tree,

    Ancestry work on statistical calculations and there are wide ranges in >comparing the DNA matches.

    They also give the cM overlap. Of the top few on Ancestry, I have
    actually made the connection with quite a few of them.

    This Ancestry page gives an outline of their estimate calculations >https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/AncestryDNA-Match-Categories?

    This one https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcm/ gives both the
    theoretical correlations, and the range and average of what's actually
    been found in practice.
    []
    That 3rd-4th cousin person wasn't in my known family tree. However, I
    have no information at all on one of my grandfathers so I'm missing a

    That's sad. What _do_ you know - can we help? (Maybe start a new
    thread.)

    large section of my tree. Also, my known grandfather was a fisherman
    and could well have had relationships in various North >Sea/Scandinavian/Icelandic ports. There were also rumours concerning a >maid...
    "A wife in every port", as they used to say!

    The problem is several of the close matches do not have trees on
    Ancestry and/or no longer have an account and cannot be contacted. It
    does seem many just took a DNA test as part of a fun Christmas or other >present, etc. just to get geographical origins, etc. and had no real
    interest in genealogy.

    Yes; for Ancestry, you can see how long someone has been a member, and
    when they last logged in. In general, if someone's not connected for
    some months, I don't even bother trying to contact them, assuming they
    just got a DNA test as a present and did it so as not to hurt the
    feelings of the giver. (I _sometimes_ break my rule if they've been a
    member for _many_ years and it's only a few months in case they're a
    winter genealogist: a few people do the hobby only for the part of the
    year when it's unpleasant out.)

    I did manage to contact that 3rd-4th cousin and it is now probable we
    agree on the most likely link (= my unknown grandfather) helped by
    dates and location is someone who married several times, was convicted
    as a bigamist and had (at least) 15 children. Based on that, the
    3rd-4th cousin person is probably a 2nd cousin 1x removed. Hopefully the

    Or half-, or similar.

    1921 census will provide some more location/occupation clarification?

    Only another 13 months to wait! But then a _very_ long wait - might see
    me out; I'll be 92 in 2052. (Though at present, fully intend to be still
    doing genealogy then!)
    []
    So far only fourteen of the 150 individuals Ancestry identified as
    4th-6th cousins have trees on Ancestry has identified as including
    common

    Yes, I think mine's of that order.
    []
    There is also the problem of errors in the trees on Ancestry
    (especially the confusion in families living at the same time with

    Yes - the Weightmans of Shilbottle for example from my tree. And once
    (when doing someone else's) I came across a village in Wales in one of
    the censuses, where I think more than half of the village were indeed
    called Jones!

    common surnames and a lot of common names of children leading to

    Yes, the common - or at least limited - choice of forenames can be
    depressing. It does help sometimes when you've got to choose between
    candidate families, but it can lead to inter-generational confusion.

    incorrect family relationships) so links are broken/not made. Trying to >correct those can be problematic, even if they are provided with >birth/marriage certificates to show they have wrong links. And then
    often those errors have been taken up by others so even if one tree is >corrected, others are not.

    It seems errors in trees propagate far faster than the truth )-:; I
    often give more credence to the one tree that's different from all the
    others!
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    ... the greatest musical festival in the world that doesn't involve mud.
    - Eddie Mair, RT 2014/8/16-22

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ruth Wilson@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 4 17:54:34 2020
    Following on a bit from John's post, I haven't used FamilytreeDNA, only Ancestry. I can identify all but one of my 1st-3rd cousins on there (the unidentified one hasn't replied ... might try again), but I'd like to understand a bit more about the more distant ones.

    Now, I am no scientist, so please don't baffle me with technicalities! I
    have heard that under, say, 20cM, the DNA matches can be by chance
    rather than being a certain relative. Does that sound right? (I have
    still found a known 3rd cousin with a smaller than expected DNA match)

    Now, I understand that we don't inherit DNA in equally shared amounts. I
    have lots of matches from Great grandfather G - is that because his DNA
    has been passed on in greater amounts, or because he had lots of
    descendants and they have taken DNA tests in large numbers? Does that
    mean I will have proportionately less DNA from Great grandfather M and
    will need to look further down the list for possible matches? (I hope
    this makes sense and you see what I am asking!)

    I know on my paternal line, the matches will be more distant. Of my great-grandfather's children, only my grandfather had
    children/grandchildren who lived to adulthood.

    I have a lot of matches with an identifiable group who emigrated from
    Argyll to Canada, although we can't pin down a line. Does the fact that
    I have matches with at least 6 of this line make a pretty strong
    likelihood of a shared descent? (they do share a family surname - Craig
    - that I had tentatively linked to eastern Scotland, but need more proof
    - or otherwise. Of course, a couple of female generations, or
    illegitimacy, and it could link into another of my Scottish lines!)

    It seems John is a bit dubious about it, but is it worth uploading DNA
    results to other sites? Family Tree DNA does get good reviews.

    Thanks

    Ruth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 4 18:51:42 2020
    On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 17:54:34, Ruth Wilson <ruth.wilson@virgin.net>
    wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
    Following on a bit from John's post, I haven't used FamilytreeDNA, only >Ancestry. I can identify all but one of my 1st-3rd cousins on there
    (the unidentified one hasn't replied ... might try again), but I'd like
    to understand a bit more about the more distant ones.

    I can identify most of those high in my Ancestry matches (though I think
    I knew most of them before I did DNA).

    Now, I am no scientist, so please don't baffle me with technicalities!
    I have heard that under, say, 20cM, the DNA matches can be by chance
    rather than being a certain relative. Does that sound right? (I have
    still found a known 3rd cousin with a smaller than expected DNA match)

    I _presume_ the various companies are only looking at DNA that I/we
    share with other _humans_, rather than, say, gorillas, or even tulips.

    Certainly, I don't expect many successes below 20cM on Ancestry - except
    ones that have the "shared ancestor" marker, where I generally find them
    to be much closer relatives than the cM number would imply. I think
    their "Thrulines" thing is quite good.

    Now, I understand that we don't inherit DNA in equally shared amounts.
    I have lots of matches from Great grandfather G - is that because his
    DNA has been passed on in greater amounts, or because he had lots of >descendants and they have taken DNA tests in large numbers? Does that

    AFAIK, it could be either or both (-:
    []
    I have a lot of matches with an identifiable group who emigrated from
    Argyll to Canada, although we can't pin down a line. Does the fact that
    I have matches with at least 6 of this line make a pretty strong
    likelihood of a shared descent? (they do share a family surname - Craig
    - that I had tentatively linked to eastern Scotland, but need more
    proof - or otherwise. Of course, a couple of female generations, or >illegitimacy, and it could link into another of my Scottish lines!)

    Have _they_ - the Canadians - identified a common ancestor? Do they have matches with each other? (If they've found a common ancestor, might be
    time to start looking at ships' manifests, though a name like Craig is
    probably common enough to be difficult.)

    It seems John is a bit dubious about it, but is it worth uploading DNA

    Well, I was a bit underwhelmed when FamilytreeDNA gave me a list of only
    198 (far fewer than, say, Ancestry), which I thought must be only those
    above quite a high threshold (they didn't actually state the match
    levels, but they said for each that they were either 2C-4C or 3C-5C),
    but then when looking through them, I recognised hardly any of the
    surnames (none, I think, other than the cousin I already knew). Of
    course, they may have found a whole new set of cousins I didn't know
    about!

    results to other sites? Family Tree DNA does get good reviews.

    I'd say there's no harm in uploading to any site that let you do so for
    free; that includes FTDNA if they're free (I don't know if they are).
    I'd start with GedMatch. I uploaded to MyHeritage (the Israeli company)
    when they let you upload for free - they imposed a charge about a year
    or two ago (though I think not much); they do seem to find and tell me
    about quite promising matches (I recognise either the names or those of
    the "common matches"), but as I'm not actually a member of MyHeritage, I
    can't contact the matches. GedMatch (and FTDNA) do give the email
    addresses. I didn't actually remember having uploaded to FTDNA, but a
    cousin asked if I had, and when I checked my list of kit numbers, found
    I must have; that's what triggered me to look at their site, and find
    the 198 matches (and a geographical plot, which differed a bit - Baltic
    and Magyar - from Ancestry's).

    Though not DNA, I'd say it's definitely worth uploading some details to LostCousins; that has the most rigorous of all checks - anyone they find
    for you _will_ be a cousin (and I think you'll be able to work out the
    link). The newsletter is good too. He lets free users contact matches a
    few weekends a year (he'll let you see that you _have_ matches, and
    their name, any time).

    Thanks

    Ruth

    YW - hope it helped.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Norman Tebbitt has the irritating quality of being much nicer in person than
    he is in print. - Clive Anderson, RT 1996/10/12-18

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john@21:1/5 to Ruth Wilson on Sun Dec 6 15:37:30 2020
    On 04/12/2020 18:54, Ruth Wilson wrote:
    Following on a bit from John's post, I haven't used FamilytreeDNA, only Ancestry. I can identify all but one of my 1st-3rd cousins on there (the unidentified one hasn't replied ... might try again), but I'd like to understand a bit more about the more distant ones.

    Now, I am no scientist, so please don't baffle me with technicalities! I
    have heard that under, say, 20cM, the DNA matches can be by chance
    rather than being a certain relative. Does that sound right? (I have
    still found a known 3rd cousin with a smaller than expected DNA match)

    Now, I understand that we don't inherit DNA in equally shared amounts. I
    have lots of matches from Great grandfather G - is that because his DNA
    has been passed on in greater amounts, or because he had lots of
    descendants and they have taken DNA tests in large numbers? Does that
    mean I will have proportionately less DNA from Great grandfather M and
    will need to look further down the list for possible matches? (I hope
    this makes sense and you see what I am asking!)

    I know on my paternal line, the matches will be more distant. Of my great-grandfather's children, only my grandfather had
    children/grandchildren who lived to adulthood.

    I have a lot of matches with an identifiable group who emigrated from
    Argyll to Canada, although we can't pin down a line. Does the fact that
    I have matches with at least 6 of this line make a pretty strong
    likelihood of a shared descent? (they do share a family surname - Craig
    - that I had tentatively linked to eastern Scotland, but need more proof
    - or otherwise. Of course, a couple of female generations, or
    illegitimacy, and it could link into another of my Scottish lines!)

    It seems John is a bit dubious about it, but is it worth uploading DNA results to other sites? Family Tree DNA does get good reviews.

    Thanks

    Ruth

    I'm not dubious about uploading to other sites. You will, in all
    probability get new matches as some people only do a DNA test at one
    site and just do not upload the data to another site or it is a format
    where they can't.

    The problem is interpreting the results. The trees on any site often
    have errors and I've found that even when you give someone evidence e.g.
    a birth certificate, they refuse to believe their tree is incorrect and
    do not make any changes. Then there are those with only a nickname and
    no tree,or a tree of perhaps seven individuals, themselves, their
    parents, and their grandparents, all labelled private, etc. Or those
    with very large trees, all of which is private, but which the DNA
    service show have no common names. So although you may have a DNA match
    to someone, identifying why is usually very difficult.

    In simplistic terms most of the trees everyone will have researched are
    most often mainly husband/wife/children groupings frequently developed
    around census data. But those trees are quite likely to be incorrect in genealogical/DNA terms.

    Although it is likely the wife (or possibly a wife from an earlier
    marriage) is the mother of the children in those families, the number
    where the father is the husband is quite possibly less.

    I have identified several children who are the offspring of unmarried
    daughters (father unknown) but who appear in census records as the
    children of the daughter's parents (revealed by the birth certificate).

    I have wives who appear to have died in childbirth or soon after but
    there is no record of a stillbirth or a child but one of about the
    correct age appears in the family of a cousin, so acquires a different
    surname, or a child appears in a family of childless couple who have
    perhaps been married for perhaps ten or more years (so raising some
    doubts).

    Then there are the young (or not so young) males fathering children,
    locally or anywhere else (including abroad).

    So those are some of the ways the family groups can diverge from the DNA results (I'm sure someone will suggest others). In all those cases DNA
    matches are very likely to show links into families which we know
    nothing about from our research.

    As I mentioned in another reply, my mystery grandfather was the father
    of a child to a 22-year old unmarried woman in East London in the 1920s.
    That is all the information there was in the family. If any of the five siblings or the mother of my grandmother knew the name of the father
    they took it to their grave without divulging it. So DNA matching is
    currently the only route to possible identification.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)