I took the AncestryDNA test in 2012, a long time ago, and I have largely been disappointing. It hasn't lead to any revelations about my dad's father's birth family (my dad was adopted, not me).
The other day I saw that a 1st or 2nd cousin connection appeared and I didn't recognize the name, so it wasn't on my mom's side of the family. What is often frustrating about AncestryDNA is the person who has taken the AncestryDNA test either doesn't have a family tree or doesn't share it. So, I can't see how this person is related to me.
I messaged them and they did get back to me quickly. Turns out she is my grandmother's brother's daughter...is that a 2nd cousin? It was good to see that AncestryDNA was able to prove a closely related person that I had previously not been aware of. Unfortunately, it didn't provide any further hints to my dad's biological father.
What occurred to me was that AncestryDNA was a nice proof point of the fact that the documented family members and the biological family members matched up. What do I mean by that? I have been reading a little bit recently that DNA research has uncovered a surprising number of children who aren't the children of the father they believed to be their biological parent. Not something we probably think about too much. However, it appears that being descended from the milkman wasn't just a joke, but in some cases a reality.
Which brings me to AncestryDNA hints. These are interesting, because not only do they indicate that you are related, but will show your common ancestor. This is only possible if you and the other AncestryDNA user have built out your family trees to the point where you both capture those people you share in common.
By seeing DNA matches to people you share an ancestor with it does help to reduce the possibility of a 'milkman" situation in your family tree research.
Of the 16 AncestryDNA matches with hints (only 12 made their trees public) it was interesting to see that the following showed a DNA connection (of course, these could be wrong and we could be relates through unknown relatives, but with multiple DNA connections with the same ancestors, that seems unlikely).
In 3 of the 12 AncestryDNA hint matches I can see we shared the common ancestors of Moses Godfrey and Deborah Cooke.
This was significant because Deborah Cooke was the granddaughter of Stephen Hopkins of the Mayflower. Further proof that I am a Mayflower descendant.
If you haven't looked at your AncestryDNA hints, check it out as it may lead to some interesting information.
Showing posts with label AncestryDNA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AncestryDNA. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2018
Sunday, October 20, 2013
New AncestryDNA Updated Review
****10/20/13 Ancestry DNA Updated Review*******
I originally posted my review of AncestryDNA on 11/20/12. In this post I outlined the Good, Bad and Frustrating of AncestryDNA. You may want to read that post, too. Since some of the reasons that investing in the AncestryDNA test still may not be worth it for you are still true today.
In October 2013, AncestryDNA just launched their "new" AncestryDNA results. They have made some updates and refinements. As with the original AncestryDNA results, it is exciting, but it is still not perfect.
In my original results, it showed that I had 40% of my ancestry originating (DNA wise) from Scandinavia. Which was directly at odds with all my research which showed I had a large number of my ancestors from Scotland and England.
I was interested seeing if the new refinements were any different.
The updated information was dramatically different from my previous results. It showed the following:
I originally posted my review of AncestryDNA on 11/20/12. In this post I outlined the Good, Bad and Frustrating of AncestryDNA. You may want to read that post, too. Since some of the reasons that investing in the AncestryDNA test still may not be worth it for you are still true today.
In October 2013, AncestryDNA just launched their "new" AncestryDNA results. They have made some updates and refinements. As with the original AncestryDNA results, it is exciting, but it is still not perfect.
In my original results, it showed that I had 40% of my ancestry originating (DNA wise) from Scandinavia. Which was directly at odds with all my research which showed I had a large number of my ancestors from Scotland and England.
I was interested seeing if the new refinements were any different.
The updated information was dramatically different from my previous results. It showed the following:
- <1 Scandinavia
- 2% Finnish/Northern Russia
- 2% Italy/Greece
- 6% Great Britain
- 21% Ireland
- 26% European West (Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg)
- 43% European East (Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Austria, Hungary, Ukraine, etc.)
There results seem to be more inline with what my research has uncovered with the exception of the Ireland and Italy/Greece ancestry. The only Irish ancestry I know that I have is from my 3rd Great Grandparents - William and Margaret Armstrong, who came here from Ireland in the early 1800's. Interestingly, this is a separate Armstrong family than I have written extensively about. It isn't clear to me if this Armstrong family (William and Margaret) may have come to Ireland from Scotland. So there may not be ANY Irish ancestry from this part of the family, too.
The unknown in this analysis is that my grandfather on my father's side is unknown. Does this indicate that he was Irish with some tiny amount of Italian/Greek ancestry? Or are the results just inaccurate? Maybe further refinements in the AncestryDNA results over time will provide better information.
A five months ago, I did receive a DNA match for a 2nd cousin. It is a person that I wasn't aware of before. He/She appear to be descended from my great aunt. Which was exciting to see.
What made it less exciting was that when I tried to reach out to them, I am yet to hear back from them. Which continues to confound me that people invest in the AncestryDNA test and aren't more interested in connecting with their distant cousins.
Still waiting for the "surprising" DNA results which are going to open some previously unopened doors for the genealogical research.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Tech Tuesday - AncestryDNA Review
The Good, The Bad and the Frustrating. My experience with AncestryDNA.
I was one of the early guinea pigs to pay to try Ancestry.com's latest DNA service, AncestryDNA. The new offering really appealed to me for several reasons, but the most compelling was the ability to find male and female relatives through Ancestry.com's new process of being able to tell the degree of relationship between you and other people pursuing their family histories. As anyone who has read my blog will notice, I have dug deep into my family history and continue to find great stories. There is one line in my family which has been a total mystery to me, my father's father's family. My father was adopted. I have uncovered his mother and have been researching his mother's family. However, there is no record of his father. AncestryDNA may be the only chance I have to try to track down any connection to my dad's father's family.
So I do have high hopes for the results from AncestryDNA.
The Good
Taking the test is very easy. They send you a kit with explicit instructions on how to provide a "sample" to send to them. You collect saliva and gently drool or spit it into a vial that you send back to Ancestry.com. It sounds a lot grosser than it is. Then you wait.
It took a little over a month to get my results. I think it may be faster now. My results came back July 11, 2012. I immediately followed the link to the results on Ancestry.com and linked my results to one of my several family trees.
The results were interesting.
They showed that my DNA indicated that I was 45% Eastern European, 40% Scandinavian and 15% Central European. My research indicates that my mother's family was from present day Poland/Ukraine (which would count as Eastern European) and Germany (which would count as Central European). The results seem to capture this part of my ancestry, but I am not sure I understand the percentages.
But what about the 40% Scandinavian heritage? The part of my father's family I am aware of is almost exclusively English, Scottish and Irish. Not a 6'5" tall, blond anywhere to be found. My DNA was telling me that I had no lineage from the British Isles. Regardless of my research, I knew I had a British lineage. My dad had very red hair and as as family, we don't tan very well. Where else could we be from?
As it turns out this is a common complaint about the AncestryDNA results. There have been quite a number of people who have received their DNA results that believe them to be in error, because they know they have British heritage and the DNA results state Scandinavian.
An interesting fact about the history of Great Britain is that it was invaded multiple times by the Vikings in 8th and 9th centuries. The good folks at AncestryDNA use the instances of Viking influence in the British Isles to explain the results. I guess I have to trust them on this, but it does sound unlikely. I must have 100's or 1,000's of British ancestors and the fact that most or all of them were of Scandinavian descent seems unlikely. Of course, I don't know about my dad's birth father, so that is a wildcard to my DNA.
Another good thing about the AncestryDNA results.......are they keep coming. Almost daily, I can see that there are additional people that show up on Ancestry.com as being DNA relatives. Since July 2012, close to 400 DNA matches have appeared.
The Bad
AncestryDNA is supposed to help you connect with unknown relatives. Ok. Where are the close relatives?
I don't expect a long lost brother to show up, but someone that I can connect to my family somehow.
Of those 400 DNA matches, about 120 were better than 8th cousins. These matches are described as being "moderate confidence" of a match. To put that in perspective, it would mean that as 5th cousins that we share a great-great-great-great grandparent.
As it turns out most people haven't been able to complete their family trees to their great-great-great-great grandparents. So it is very difficult to find how are families are connected. I am sure I am not the only one to experience this.
My closest DNA match results are 4th cousins. I have 8 of those matches. We share a great-great-great grandparent. Of those 8 "close" matches, I haven't been able to find any genealogy evidence of family connections.
Out of the 400 matches, I have found exactly ONE DNA match that I can connect to my family. I share
Thomas Woodbury with that person, our 7th great grandfather.
The Frustrating
I am disappointed with not finding any close relatives, but it is ongoing and I have hope that a breakthrough will come. I will update this post when and if I find any great matches.
My frustration has more to do with how other Ancestry.com members "use" their AncestryDNA results.
It seems reasonable to assume anyone who pays to get their DNA information will be interested with finding and potentially connecting with unknown relatives. If so, they aren't making it easy.
Overall
My overall assessment is I am glad I am participating in AncestryDNA and that I expect that eventually an amazing match will emerge. The one that will open up some incredible insights into the family history.
Everyone's results will vary, so your experience could be very different from mine.
AncestryDNA does have it drawbacks, but the offering is still fairly new and I have faith that the good folks at Ancestry.com will continue to improve and enhance it.
My suggestion to Ancestry.com would be to provide guidance to AncestryDNA participants about how to get the most out of their DNA results. Everyone's DNA experience could be improved if they made their family trees public and they be open to connecting and corresponding to other DNA matches.
If you decided to take the DNA plunge, good luck!
You never know, maybe we are related.
I was one of the early guinea pigs to pay to try Ancestry.com's latest DNA service, AncestryDNA. The new offering really appealed to me for several reasons, but the most compelling was the ability to find male and female relatives through Ancestry.com's new process of being able to tell the degree of relationship between you and other people pursuing their family histories. As anyone who has read my blog will notice, I have dug deep into my family history and continue to find great stories. There is one line in my family which has been a total mystery to me, my father's father's family. My father was adopted. I have uncovered his mother and have been researching his mother's family. However, there is no record of his father. AncestryDNA may be the only chance I have to try to track down any connection to my dad's father's family.
So I do have high hopes for the results from AncestryDNA.
The Good
Taking the test is very easy. They send you a kit with explicit instructions on how to provide a "sample" to send to them. You collect saliva and gently drool or spit it into a vial that you send back to Ancestry.com. It sounds a lot grosser than it is. Then you wait.
It took a little over a month to get my results. I think it may be faster now. My results came back July 11, 2012. I immediately followed the link to the results on Ancestry.com and linked my results to one of my several family trees.
The results were interesting.
They showed that my DNA indicated that I was 45% Eastern European, 40% Scandinavian and 15% Central European. My research indicates that my mother's family was from present day Poland/Ukraine (which would count as Eastern European) and Germany (which would count as Central European). The results seem to capture this part of my ancestry, but I am not sure I understand the percentages.
But what about the 40% Scandinavian heritage? The part of my father's family I am aware of is almost exclusively English, Scottish and Irish. Not a 6'5" tall, blond anywhere to be found. My DNA was telling me that I had no lineage from the British Isles. Regardless of my research, I knew I had a British lineage. My dad had very red hair and as as family, we don't tan very well. Where else could we be from?
As it turns out this is a common complaint about the AncestryDNA results. There have been quite a number of people who have received their DNA results that believe them to be in error, because they know they have British heritage and the DNA results state Scandinavian.
An interesting fact about the history of Great Britain is that it was invaded multiple times by the Vikings in 8th and 9th centuries. The good folks at AncestryDNA use the instances of Viking influence in the British Isles to explain the results. I guess I have to trust them on this, but it does sound unlikely. I must have 100's or 1,000's of British ancestors and the fact that most or all of them were of Scandinavian descent seems unlikely. Of course, I don't know about my dad's birth father, so that is a wildcard to my DNA.
Another good thing about the AncestryDNA results.......are they keep coming. Almost daily, I can see that there are additional people that show up on Ancestry.com as being DNA relatives. Since July 2012, close to 400 DNA matches have appeared.
The Bad
AncestryDNA is supposed to help you connect with unknown relatives. Ok. Where are the close relatives?
I don't expect a long lost brother to show up, but someone that I can connect to my family somehow.
Of those 400 DNA matches, about 120 were better than 8th cousins. These matches are described as being "moderate confidence" of a match. To put that in perspective, it would mean that as 5th cousins that we share a great-great-great-great grandparent.
As it turns out most people haven't been able to complete their family trees to their great-great-great-great grandparents. So it is very difficult to find how are families are connected. I am sure I am not the only one to experience this.
My closest DNA match results are 4th cousins. I have 8 of those matches. We share a great-great-great grandparent. Of those 8 "close" matches, I haven't been able to find any genealogy evidence of family connections.
Out of the 400 matches, I have found exactly ONE DNA match that I can connect to my family. I share
Thomas Woodbury with that person, our 7th great grandfather.
The Frustrating
I am disappointed with not finding any close relatives, but it is ongoing and I have hope that a breakthrough will come. I will update this post when and if I find any great matches.
My frustration has more to do with how other Ancestry.com members "use" their AncestryDNA results.
It seems reasonable to assume anyone who pays to get their DNA information will be interested with finding and potentially connecting with unknown relatives. If so, they aren't making it easy.
 |
| Matches |
- Private Family Trees - I see I have new DNA matches, but they have made their family trees private. Only the tree owner or people they invite to see their family trees can see them. So I can't see how we are related. I can send them a message and they may invite me to view their tree, but since most of the DNA results haven't had a known connection, I don't want to be sending 100 or so requests to strangers to see their trees. It gets a bit unmanageable.
- Small Family Trees - I have been seeing a lot of trees with DNA results with less than 12 people in them!! With completed family trees this small you are only going to connect with people you know. Not sure the purpose of participating in AncestryDNA with a tree this small. I have two 4th cousin matches where one tree has 4 people and another has 16 people. I can suspect where we are related, but I almost feel compelled to do research for them to complete their family trees so we can prove some kinship.
- No Family Trees - Ok, having 4 people in a tree is not optimal, but some people have NO TREES! Ugh! Nothing attached to their DNA results. One of my 4th cousins.....no tree. Nothing. Very frustrating. In some cases, they have trees, but haven't associated the DNA results to any of their family trees.
- No Response to Messages - Since I have about 400 DNA matches, I don't try to contact everyone. I try to target the ones that seem likely to be closely related. I have contacted all of my 4th cousin matches. Of those 8, I have received responses from 3. Now, not everyone is as interested in connecting with relatives as I may be, but it does seem to be the reason why you would participate in AncestryDNA. It is possible that many participants are only interested in connecting with 2nd or 3rd cousins and aren't interested in connecting with someone so distantly related. Who knows.
Overall
My overall assessment is I am glad I am participating in AncestryDNA and that I expect that eventually an amazing match will emerge. The one that will open up some incredible insights into the family history.
Everyone's results will vary, so your experience could be very different from mine.
AncestryDNA does have it drawbacks, but the offering is still fairly new and I have faith that the good folks at Ancestry.com will continue to improve and enhance it.
My suggestion to Ancestry.com would be to provide guidance to AncestryDNA participants about how to get the most out of their DNA results. Everyone's DNA experience could be improved if they made their family trees public and they be open to connecting and corresponding to other DNA matches.
If you decided to take the DNA plunge, good luck!
You never know, maybe we are related.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
