Going down the Rabbit Hole

[Phoenix]

I click on a DNA match, to try to work out how we are related.
No joy, so I look at the shared matches, choosing someone with a tree. I don't get the colour coding, so I can't really tell, unless I explore them and their shared matches....

Two minutes later, I have no idea who I was looking at to start with.

How do you keep tabs on this, to actually record useful information?

[kiterunner]

I write them down in a set of notebooks.

[marquette]

I started with the easy ones - I filtered the matches by "common ancestor", they mostly have a family tree of some description. Then the Public Linked trees.

I used the colour coding to note which family they belong to. Yellow for father's side, Red for mothers. Specific families got an extra colour so I didn't have to keep checking - Green for Worner/Rodford, Pink for Brazill, Purple for Dawson/Page (mostly because there are not many of them). I used Starred Matches to be able to keep track of any matches I want to investigate more, or check to see if there are more matches coming up. I only had one Tupper match but now i have two, they don't match each other, but their family trees match.

On the page which shows Pedigree and Surnames, Shared Matches and Maps and Locations - there is a box above these headings and I use it to note as much as I need. I do note the common ancestor, because you can look at the note box on the first matches page, without having to page through again. I write who their ancestor was (in a family of 4 siblings who came to Australia, the MRCA is their parents, so I note the child's name. I also note shared matches as sometimes this helps and also likely names or places in their tree, so I can go back to them later.

Sometimes I write "tree of 6 people, all private" or "mostly USA, Wakefield name" (I have several matches with no known link, but they all have the Wakefield family in their trees). A couple of matches have now add more to their tree, which is helpful.

[maggie_4_7]

I started with the easy ones - I filtered the matches by "common ancestor", they mostly have a family tree of some description. Then the Public Linked trees.

I used the colour coding to note which family they belong to. Yellow for father's side, Red for mothers. Specific families got an extra colour so I didn't have to keep checking - Green for Worner/Rodford, Pink for Brazill, Purple for Dawson/Page (mostly because there are not many of them). I used Starred Matches to be able to keep track of any matches I want to investigate more, or check to see if there are more matches coming up. I only had one Tupper match but now i have two, they don't match each other, but their family trees match.

On the page which shows Pedigree and Surnames, Shared Matches and Maps and Locations - there is a box above these headings and I use it to note as much as I need. I do note the common ancestor, because you can look at the note box on the first matches page, without having to page through again. I write who their ancestor was (in a family of 4 siblings who came to Australia, the MRCA is their parents, so I note the child's name. I also note shared matches as sometimes this helps and also likely names or places in their tree, so I can go back to them later.

Sometimes I write "tree of 6 people, all private" or "mostly USA, Wakefield name" (I have several matches with no known link, but they all have the Wakefield family in their trees). A couple of matches have now add more to their tree, which is helpful.

That is pretty much what I am doing.

I have sorted all 4th cousins and closer now into groups by which family name on my direct ancestors they are descended from and by English and Scottish, and also by country, because some from the same line are in 3 or 4 countries. I have also added a note on about their direct ancestor and how they are descended. So people are sometimes in three groups but at least two.

Of course there is an unknown group for 4th cousins and closer, and I have 23 in that :confused: some without trees and some with that I can't see the link for the life of me.

Distant ones I am trawling through those with trees and having a quick look, a couple were quite fruitful in that I spotted the link immediately.

[kiterunner]

The vast majority of mine are "unknown", Maggie.

[maggie_4_7]

The vast majority of mine are "unknown", Maggie.

I still don't understand why people haven't uploaded a tree, it baffles me.

I have sent a few messages, I think about 10 and have only had 2 replies and then asked another question of both and no reply since.

On two I can actually fill in some blanks for them and explained a bit of the information and still no reply.

I had contact already with a few of my matches so we converse regularly on new finds anyway.

[ElizabethHerts]

Someone mentioned that a lot of people have done DNA testing to discover their ethnicity and stop there. Hence the lack of trees.

I can't understand either why these people wouldn't want to take it further.

[Margaret in Burton]

Someone mentioned that a lot of people have done DNA testing to discover their ethnicity and stop there. Hence the lack of trees.

I can't understand either why these people wouldn't want to take it further.

That was me

My friend and her husband tested for ethnicity reasons only. Neither have a paid sub to Ancestry and don’t want to. They just aren’t interested in finding distant relatives.

[ElizabethHerts]

It seems a waste of money, Marg.

[Margaret in Burton]

It seems a waste of money, Marg.

Quite possibly but their decision. I offered to be the manager and use my account but they still said they weren’t interested.

I’m sure they aren’t the only ones who have that attitude.

[ElizabethHerts]

Yes, it's their decision, Marg. Not everyone is infected with the genealogy bug like we are!

[kiterunner]

I still don't understand why people haven't uploaded a tree, it baffles me.

I have sent a few messages, I think about 10 and have only had 2 replies and then asked another question of both and no reply since.

On two I can actually fill in some blanks for them and explained a bit of the information and still no reply.

I had contact already with a few of my matches so we converse regularly on new finds anyway.

A lot of my "unknowns" do have trees; I just don't know how we are related! Well, at least I do know which are on my Dad's side and which are on my Mum's side. But I have a lot of shared match groups, especially on Mum's side, where I have figured out the shared ancestors of the others in the group but have no idea how they connect to me.

[Sue from Southend]

Someone mentioned that a lot of people have done DNA testing to discover their ethnicity and stop there. Hence the lack of trees.

I can't understand either why these people wouldn't want to take it further.


One of my first cousins (who I don't actually know due to an acrimonious divorce!), his son and a couple of granddaughters all seem to have had DNA tests for Christmas a couple of years ago with absolutely no interest in their family history. However I am eternally grateful to them as it means I can identify my paternal matches so much more easily.

[Phoenix]

Sib doesn't want their DNA to be recognisable - I know quite a few people who do not want that information in the public domain. Out of respect to sib, my tree looks rather strange. I have only put in names four or five generations back, and that where the surnames are interesting.

[Kit]

On ancestry people can't see your DNA, just if you are a match which should make Sib feel better. Some sites you can inspect the segment and things but to me you might as well just hand it over.