Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > DNA Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 19-10-19, 11:40
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merry View Post
Oh, so sorry, that was me misleading you! I didn't type what I meant to say...…

I meant (expanded version!), I have come across three people now with detailed trees of my maternal grandmother's ancestors where the common link doesn't appear to be very far back and have around a 40 cM match with me. These people don't seem have shared DNA with my second cousin but they should (as she is also descended from my maternal grandmother's parents and she shows up 'correctly' in my own matches, yet they appear to have shared DNA with my dad's side, which they shouldn't! (and that apparent shared DNA to my dad is on two separate lines!)

I am now wondering, if I were to study these trees more carefully, whether I would find they were originally copied from me and these individuals have copied both my mum and dad's sides? Ancestry had then showed me a link from my tree to their tree rather than a link that actually leads through to them? I don't recognise their user names, but I do know there are a couple of people on Ancestry who had Gedcoms from me years and years ago which included 'everyone' and so they added 'everyone' to their trees. They may have then passed them on to others. I can usually tell because notes I made on my original tree also appear.

When I have stopped losing the will to live, and hopefully after you have told me whether I'm talking a lot of nonsense or not, I might go back and have another look.
Oh, that makes sense, yes. If they have linked their DNA tests to their trees then you should be able to see whether they are descended from your maternal grandmother's ancestors or not, but if they have "unlinked trees" then it could well be that they have copied a load of unnecessary stuff from your tree.
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 19-10-19, 11:47
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
You cannot delete them, Maggie. Under Groups, you can select Hidden matches and see them all. You can then filter and unhide them if necessary.


I have just looked at mine and discovered I didn't obey my own rules when I hid one in April. It is 6cM, private tree, but a common ancestor! Infuriatingly, there may be more than one link in common, (or we may not have those ancestors in common at all) as this person also has links to the other side of the family.
Maybe they didn't have a tree in April, or they have improved their tree since then, or it only shows as common ancestor now because of ThruLines which was only in its early days then?
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 19-10-19, 13:17
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiterunner View Post
Oh, that makes sense, yes. If they have linked their DNA tests to their trees then you should be able to see whether they are descended from your maternal grandmother's ancestors or not, but if they have "unlinked trees" then it could well be that they have copied a load of unnecessary stuff from your tree.
OK thank you. I think I'm going to start again in case I've gone wrong.
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 19-10-19, 15:01
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

The useful thing about Ancestry's groups is that you can let a match be associated with any number of groups.

Best Mate and I are are not related (so far as we know!) but an obstinate little group of her matches also crop up among mine. So I have a group for her matches (just for fun) which doesn't stop me also using more sensible groupings as well
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux

Last edited by Phoenix; 19-10-19 at 15:03.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 19-10-19, 15:31
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

Interesting. I just need to prepare our dinner and then I will have some time to have another try.
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 19-10-19, 17:24
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

Well, I have ten groups now, but only half of them have more than one person in!

I still feel despondent.

Also, on this laptop I am running out of coloured dots from Ancestry as several of them look the same as each other. Maybe a spread sheet would be better as it would be more instant to see who is in which group and not have to keep clicking back and forth?

I have sorted out the people who seemed to be connected through my father and mother - they are all my father's relatives.

Time for another lie down!
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 20-10-19, 00:51
Margaret in Burton's Avatar
Margaret in Burton Margaret in Burton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire
Posts: 5,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merry View Post
Well, I have ten groups now, but only half of them have more than one person in!

I still feel despondent.

Also, on this laptop I am running out of coloured dots from Ancestry as several of them look the same as each other. Maybe a spread sheet would be better as it would be more instant to see who is in which group and not have to keep clicking back and forth?

I have sorted out the people who seemed to be connected through my father and mother - they are all my father's relatives.

Time for another lie down!
I need a lie down just reading the posts on here. I really don’t get this dna thing and how you sort it out. I must be incredibly thick
__________________
Marg
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 20-10-19, 05:15
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,716
Default

I think using a spreadsheet might be the best bet. Then when you have sorted groups you can colour code them on ancestry.

Using the Leeds method just start at the first match and work your way down.

I put all names from the ancestry match list on a spreadsheet, picked the first match, gave them a colour and coloured all shared matches. Then I looked at the second match. If they did not match the first one, they got a second colour and repeat.

Don't try and work anything out at first, not until you are fed up with assigning colours. The issue is that the further down the tree you get the more spread the DNA is so it might look like people aren't related although they really are.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 20-10-19, 08:20
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Margaret in Burton View Post
I need a lie down just reading the posts on here. I really don’t get this dna thing and how you sort it out. I must be incredibly thick
No, you are not incredibly think. I refuse to allow that comment!

I know I am not incredibly think, but on this I feel I am! Why don't I get it? I did statistics as part of my A Level maths course and that was the only part I was any good at. I should get this as it seems similar, but I really don't.

It doesn't help when the only DNA match I've come across where there really looked like the connection between me and the other person was earlier than the line on my tree currently goes back to, involves me having an earlier ancestor who I believe was buried aged 4 or 5, growing up and having children! That didn't fill me with confidence! I can't un-see the burial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit View Post
I think using a spreadsheet might be the best bet. Then when you have sorted groups you can colour code them on ancestry.

Using the Leeds method just start at the first match and work your way down.

I put all names from the ancestry match list on a spreadsheet, picked the first match, gave them a colour and coloured all shared matches. Then I looked at the second match. If they did not match the first one, they got a second colour and repeat.

Don't try and work anything out at first, not until you are fed up with assigning colours. The issue is that the further down the tree you get the more spread the DNA is so it might look like people aren't related although they really are.
I will go back to the Leeds method thing and go past the first sentence! Thanks Toni. (*wonders if cheese sandwiches will do for meals today?*)
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 20-10-19, 08:20
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Margaret in Burton View Post
I need a lie down just reading the posts on here. I really don’t get this dna thing and how you sort it out. I must be incredibly thick
No, you are not incredibly thick. I refuse to allow that comment!

I know I am not incredibly thick, but on this I feel I am! Why don't I get it? I did statistics as part of my A Level maths course and that was the only part I was any good at. I should get this as it seems similar, but I really don't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit View Post
I think using a spreadsheet might be the best bet. Then when you have sorted groups you can colour code them on ancestry.

Using the Leeds method just start at the first match and work your way down.

I put all names from the ancestry match list on a spreadsheet, picked the first match, gave them a colour and coloured all shared matches. Then I looked at the second match. If they did not match the first one, they got a second colour and repeat.

Don't try and work anything out at first, not until you are fed up with assigning colours. The issue is that the further down the tree you get the more spread the DNA is so it might look like people aren't related although they really are.
I will go back to the Leeds method thing and go past the first sentence! Thanks Toni. (*wonders if cheese sandwiches will do for meals today?*)
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:25.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.