Ancestry shared matches - more added

[kiterunner]

I'm slowly working through my list of matches to see who is a shared match to whom, and a couple of the most recent ones I've looked at had quite strange shared match lists, where some were on my mother's side and some on my father's side.

Of course I realise this can happen.

But then another one that I looked at gives my Dad and "Joe Bloggs" as shared matches on the "Compare" screen, but then when I click through to the next page (called "Ancestry DNA Match Details" on the browser tab) and click to view shared matches, it says I don't have any with that person.

Then when I view the Compare screen for "Joe Bloggs", it lists my Dad and two other people as shared matches, but I have notes I made when I looked at "Joe Bloggs" before and it said no shared matches. And again, if I click through to the other page where it shows shared matches, it does still say there are none.

"Joe Bloggs" is estimated as 5th-8th cousin to my Dad and 4th-6th cousin to me, because of a second small segment. And as far as I knew up to now, it would therefore not show Dad as a shared match because the shared matches have to be at least 4th-6th cousin to both of us.

So, are the "shared matches" on the Compare screen wrong at the moment, or are they trying something out on that screen, but not the other one, whereby they show a shared match if they are at least 4th-6th cousin to you but more distantly related to the other person? Anyone have any idea? I don't know whether to give up for now or carry on!

[kiterunner]

I'm having another look now, and I think that what has happened is that they are trying out a new system where it shows you all the shared matches with the other person who are at least as close to you as estimated 4th - 6th cousin (or 20 cM), whereas previously it only showed those who were also that close to the other person. Now they could be pretty distantly related to the other person, so worth bearing that in mind! I have had a look at one which has shared matches on both sides of my tree and it does also appear on the match list for a relative on the "wrong side", so I think it is right and Ancestry hasn't just gone mad.

So - I'm going back to the top of my list now and will go through them all again to see what shared matches have been added! Hoping it might help with some mysteries. At least with those I have made notes on previously, I can note the new shared matches down as updates and will know they are perhaps more distantly related to the other person than to me.

It says Beta at the top of the shared match list which you get if you click "View all shared matches" on the Compare screen (rather than the one you get if you click on the person's name.)

I have edited the thread title because I think it is a feature and not a bug!

[Phoenix]

Wow, thank you Kite. I had assumed the lists would be the same, so had not bothered to look at them is detail. This is helping to narrow down the "too difficult". Though I may get overwhelmed by detail!

[Kit]

I haven't looked into the matches properly recently but things had changed and someone who didn't have shared matches with another match now did. I got to the point where I thought I needed to redo my leeds chart thingy. I decided to look at it the next day but haven't got back to it yet.

[Sue from Southend]

Wow, thank you Kite. I had assumed the lists would be the same, so had not bothered to look at them is detail. This is helping to narrow down the "too difficult". Though I may get overwhelmed by detail!

Wow indeed! I've only looked one but it's one that's been bugging me ever since I got my results! One match of 75 cM with no tree who's only shared match was with another one with no tree - using the compare button she now shares with someone who I can trace and indeed have communicated with!


Thanks again Kite :):):):)

[ElizabethHerts]

The matches I get are infuriating in that very, very few have trees, and when they do they are tiny. This week I had a match with a tree of about 30 people and I have so far constructed a large tree for them going back to the 1600s and 1700s on the Hampshire lines, but I'm still none the wiser who our common ancestor is.

How many trees have you constructed to determine a link? I have been making trees on Family Historian to help. One I did last week for my Scottish family took me back to the right surname and location in Scotland, but unfortunately the records for that time mean I can't get any further generations back.

[kiterunner]

I've drawn up loads on sheets of paper, Elizabeth. I feel it's easier to compare a few with each other that way.

[maggie_4_7]

The matches I get are infuriating in that very, very few have trees, and when they do they are tiny. This week I had a match with a tree of about 30 people and I have so far constructed a large tree for them going back to the 1600s and 1700s on the Hampshire lines, but I'm still none the wiser who our common ancestor is.

How many trees have you constructed to determine a link? I have been making trees on Family Historian to help. One I did last week for my Scottish family took me back to the right surname and location in Scotland, but unfortunately the records for that time mean I can get any further generations back.

I have done that on a couple of mine and I am still none the wiser either :confused:

Some of mine have trees but have made all the names private!

[Phoenix]

I really really REALLY object to the way Ancestry is leading us to demand that others publish full public trees online.
Why should we, and why should our cousins be interested in being cousins with us?
I have lines I am interested in, and lines that are dull as ditchwater. Guess which come up as close matches?
My tree is flagging the particular surname I'm interested in, but nobody else who has done a DNA test is.

[maggie_4_7]

This has confused me, I don't understand how this works.

I have people matching with someone they couldn't possibly be related to.

Edit: and now it isn't working but I am not sure it was before :confused:

[kiterunner]

Yes, it's gone back to the old list for me too. Maybe they released it by accident! I wish I'd looked at more of them while I had the chance instead of going out shopping.

[maggie_4_7]

Yes, it's gone back to the old list for me too. Maybe they released it by accident! I wish I'd looked at more of them while I had the chance instead of going out shopping.

How does it work though, it confused me.

[kiterunner]

I haven't seen anything official about it, Maggie, but my guess is that whereas the list of shared matches with, say "Mr X", usually only shows people who are 4th-6th cousins or closer to both of you, it was temporarily also including people who were 4th-6th cousins or closer to you, but more distantly related to "Mr X".

I did send in some feedback while it was doing that. I suggested that it should either flag those which were only distantly related to the other person, or sort them in descending order of amount of DNA shared with the other person, though I wouldn't want it to actually show the specific amounts. But just so we would get an idea of roughly how closely they were related to the other person.

[maggie_4_7]

I haven't seen anything official about it, Maggie, but my guess is that whereas the list of shared matches with, say "Mr X", usually only shows people who are 4th-6th cousins or closer to both of you, it was temporarily also including people who were 4th-6th cousins or closer to you, but more distantly related to "Mr X".

I did send in some feedback while it was doing that. I suggested that it should either flag those which were only distantly related to the other person, or sort them in descending order of amount of DNA shared with the other person, though I wouldn't want it to actually show the specific amounts. But just so we would get an idea of roughly how closely they were related to the other person.

Ahh okay thank you, it confused me.

[maggie_4_7]

The shared matches list is temporarily unavailable for me so perhaps they are working on it.

[kiterunner]

I saw a copy of a post from an ancestry staff member who confirmed it was including more distant matches to the other person and they said it was done by mistake and that's why it was changed back to how it was before. I quite liked it myself! Though it wouldn't be so useful if we didn't have the other list to compare it to.

[maggie_4_7]

I saw a copy of a post from an ancestry staff member who confirmed it was including more distant matches to the other person and they said it was done by mistake and that's why it was changed back to how it was before. I quite liked it myself! Though it wouldn't be so useful if we didn't have the other list to compare it to.

Oh that's a shame, why change it back if it works.;(

[Kit]

I saw a copy of a post from an ancestry staff member who confirmed it was including more distant matches to the other person and they said it was done by mistake and that's why it was changed back to how it was before. I quite liked it myself! Though it wouldn't be so useful if we didn't have the other list to compare it to.

Send in feedback and comment on the post that you like the change. It seems they are listening to feedback.

[kiterunner]

I already submitted feedback before they changed it back, Toni.