View Full Version : Ancestry Grouping Crisis?!!
So, I've created a few groups (4) and now I've got despondent/confused.
My 4th group has 11 people in it. Most of these individuals either have no tree or a tree of Americans who I don't recognise. However, two people in the group have a Common Ancestor leaf thing. I clicked one of these and then realised the owner is someone I used to email about FH about ten years ago so I know who he is related to (he is on my tree!) and his tree on Ancestry reflects this. Our common ancestors are my FMM's parents. He is my 3rd cousin once removed.
As I looked at this one first, I named the group after this branch of my tree.
I then looked at the tree of the other Common Ancestor match, only to find our common ancestor is in a completely different part of my tree, so I'm confused. Instead of being connected via my FM line, they are connected via my FF line in a different part of the country. This person is my 5th cousin once removed.
They both show up as potentially being 4th-6th cousins, so that part seams reasonable.
So, how is this DNA shared when one person is connected through my FM and the other through my FF? I feel like I now have no idea about the other people in the group and I the name of the group is now misleading.
Advice please :D
Also, I have looked at some other people who have matching trees but don't come up in shared matches. What's that all about?
kiterunner
18-10-19, 16:30
Also, I have looked at some other people who have matching trees but don't come up in shared matches. What's that all about?
Are they on your DNA match list but with less than 20 cM's of shared DNA? Ancestry only lists someone as a shared match if they have 20 cM or more. I wish they would have another option to show those with less, because you can go through the lower matches checking each one to see who (of the > 20 cM matches) is shown as a shared match, but it is so time-consuming.
Or they share less than 20 cM with the other person.
kiterunner
18-10-19, 16:33
So, I've created a few groups (4) and now I've got despondent/confused.
My 4th group has 11 people in it. Most of these individuals either have no tree or a tree of Americans who I don't recognise. However, two people in the group have a Common Ancestor leaf thing. I clicked one of these and then realised the owner is someone I used to email about FH about ten years ago so I know who he is related to (he is on my tree!) and his tree on Ancestry reflects this. Our common ancestors are my FMM's parents. He is my 3rd cousin once removed.
As I looked at this one first, I named the group after this branch of my tree.
I then looked at the tree of the other Common Ancestor match, only to find our common ancestor is in a completely different part of my tree, so I'm confused. Instead of being connected via my FM line, they are connected via my FF line in a different part of the country. This person is my 5th cousin once removed.
They both show up as potentially being 4th-6th cousins, so that part seams reasonable.
So, how is this DNA shared when one person is connected through my FM and the other through my FF? I feel like I now have no idea about the other people in the group and I the name of the group is now misleading.
Advice please :D
Well, the problem is that Ancestry doesn't have a chromosome browser like some other sites do, so you can't tell whether all the people in a shared match group share the same segment(s) of DNA with you and with each other. So some of them may be related to each other in a different way from how they are related to you. But in many cases (but not all!), the connection will be the same for all or most in the group.
Are they on your DNA match list but with less than 20 cM's of shared DNA? Ancestry only lists someone as a shared match if they have 20 cM or more. I wish they would have another option to show those with less, because you can go through the lower matches checking each one to see who (of the > 20 cM matches) is shown as a shared match, but it is so time-consuming.
Or they share less than 20 cM with the other person.
OK, so I think they must have less than 20 cM with the other person/people as they are around 30-50 with me.
So, would I add them to the group they look like they belong to? (of course that's the group that has these two conflicting people in it and I'm not sure which one perhaps shouldn't be in the group! So, which to put them with?!)
I suppose I could re-title the group to reflect the two branches and then bung 'everyone' in it?
Well, the problem is that Ancestry doesn't have a chromosome browser like some other sites do, so you can't tell whether all the people in a shared match group share the same segment(s) of DNA with you and with each other. So some of them may be related to each other in a different way from how they are related to you. But in many cases (but not all!), the connection will be the same for all or most in the group.
OK, so I need to think more flexibly. Thanks Kate.
Are you sure someone hasn't just dropped all my results on the floor and then mudded them up?
I have matches where one person has a tree full of my dad's ancestors and they apparently share DNA someone whose tree is all my mum's ancestors. One lot in Bristol and the other in London.
Then I have people with matching trees but no shared DNA.
Is the idea to put shared matches in all the groups they share matches with even when they make no sense at all? (even though I don't know if any of the matches are true?)
My dad, his nephew and three grand-daughters all have their DNA on Ancestry (mine is on FtDNA alas). They have dozens of matches on Dads FF side and distant MM side, but few on his MF side.
I deleted all the Ancestry groups I'd made, in Dads profile and called up the matches shared by Dad and his nephew and marked them with one group and did the same with each of his grand-daughters. This showed me that all Dad's second cousins on the FF side match with all 5 of them. 3rd cousins and further out match with some but rarely all. I have yet to work out if there are any patterns, but further down the tree (if you get my meaning) the matches are less (and maybe just Dad and one other).
I also did the same for my girls tests, which shows where their paternal and maternal matches are.
Then I picked one of Dad's known maternal matches and made a group of their common matches. I tried to do this with each different common ancestor. I still have no idea who some people are, and how they fit into the tree but they match with Dad and someone else. His MM family and further back have a great bunch of matches, but there are less than 10 on his MF lines.
One match matched a bunch of others on his MMFM line, and was in Canada but all the others are in Australia. This person had no tree. So I went back to my family tree and chased down the tree in 4gggf's brother, and lo, one of his gg grandsons went off to Canada. I had only built the family tree down to his g grandsons, thinking I was getting to far away from my main tree.
This method brought up some matches I had not already identified but still leaves a large pool of matches, even over 20cMs, who have no trees and I have no idea beyond they match with Dad and one other person.
Some of the matches with Dad who showed up when we first tested have now put up or updated their family tree, or match with someone else who has a tree, so it pays to re-check them occasionally.
Does this help at all, or just make you more confused? It did my head in for a time.
Di
kiterunner
18-10-19, 21:54
Then I have people with matching trees but no shared DNA.
Either they didn't take a DNA test, or they are distant enough that they don't actually share DNA with you even though you have shared ancestors, or their trees (or yours!) are wrong.
kiterunner
18-10-19, 21:56
Is the idea to put shared matches in all the groups they share matches with even when they make no sense at all? (even though I don't know if any of the matches are true?)
It's up to you, but I usually leave them out if they look likely to confuse the issue.
Does this help at all, or just make you more confused? It did my head in for a time.
Di
Um, well, I would probably have to read it again (maybe more than once!) - I will do that a bit later.
Either they didn't take a DNA test, or they are distant enough that they don't actually share DNA with you even though you have shared ancestors, or their trees (or yours!) are wrong.
How very dare you (that last bit)!!!!!!! I know there are people 'out there' with both sides of my tree on their tree even though they are extremely unlikely to be related to both. I don't know if that could be having an impact?
What do you mean, "they didn't take a DNA test" - I had assumed (yeh, I know) everyone in my DNA results would have taken a DNA test ;(
It's up to you, but I usually leave them out if they look likely to confuse the issue.
OK. As I have no idea who is confusing the issue (where I can only identify a tree connection in two people in a group of 20 people and those two people appear to be connected to me in completely different ways), I'm going to delete all the groups I've made and go back to just looking at the ones that show a common ancestor and see if I can work out if I can safely group some of those together. I'll worry about all these other people later!
I'm not yet feeling as if my mental block with this is clearing yet! :o
I'm really wishing my mum was in a fit state to have a DNA test done. It would be simple enough to collect a sample as she dribbles all the time, but that feels unethical. Having said that, as my blood pressure raises it feels less so!
I'm really wishing my mum was in a fit state to have a DNA test done. It would be simple enough to collect a sample as she dribbles all the time, but that feels unethical. Having said that, as my blood pressure raises it feels less so!
I agonised for ages over having my aunt's DNA tested. She agreed, but there was no sense of informed consent.
Perhaps the questions are:
Who got you interested in family history?
Do you have Power of Attorney?
My Mum, who started me off on this journey over half a century ago, would have been fascinated. (And so would I: I'm just not picking up recognisable results for her side of the family) Her sister would have been actively hostile.
It would have felt completely wrong to have tested my other aunt, but for Mum, I would simply have grieved that I could not share the results with her.
Who got you interested in family history?
Do you have Power of Attorney?
Q1) my dead father (and his now dec'd sisters)
Q2) No, though the paperwork has been in a solicitors office waiting to be set up for the last 30 years or so. I haven't actually needed it yet.
My mum was only ever interested in the FH if I could show she was related to anyone famous/rich/royal etc, so mostly it was sad news that we are not from the shopkeeper Sainsburys, or the shoemaker Clarks or the sweet maker Maynards and only distantly married in to the chocolate making Cadburys. We are also not related to Bombardier Billy Wells :rolleyes:
She was annoyed when I found my paternal aunts went to school with Archibald Leach (Cary Grant) as if they had no right to do that, given they were working class people!!!!!!!!!
Towards grouping results, I am now triaging ALL my DNA matches. The new style search renders this more difficult, but I am ploughing on.
First stage:
Sort by date, filter by new matches
Anything with a match = keep, make notes on both and group if I can
No tree + no match = discard
Hidden tree + no match = group as no shared matches (in case a later search reveals a name/place)
Tree + no match, but (no names + no places) = discard
Tree + no match, but (names or places) = consider on merit
Second stage:
Consider what I have got. My best matches to date have been genuine relations with less than 10 cM in common, but very good trees. I am hoping that that bracket will smash the brickwalls.
While no matches may become matches in the future, I probably only get one new 4th cousin every couple of weeks, so I don't imagine I am losing huge clues, but I am making the formidable list a little more managable. I should end with approx 5000 matches to play with.
maggie_4_7
19-10-19, 08:35
Phoenix
Do the matches you have discarded still show in shared matches or do they dissapear from both the list and shared matches?
Hmmm, that sounds like A level when I haven't passed my GCSE!
Phoenix
Do the matches you have discarded still show in shared matches or do they dissapear from both the list and shared matches?
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.
kiterunner
19-10-19, 09:12
What do you mean, "they didn't take a DNA test" - I had assumed (yeh, I know) everyone in my DNA results would have taken a DNA test ;(
Sorry, I misunderstood this bit:
Then I have people with matching trees but no shared DNA.
I took it to mean they didn't share DNA with you. If you mean they have matching trees but don't come up as shared matches with each other, it could just be that they are below the 20 cM cutoff.
Sorry, I misunderstood this bit:
I took it to mean they didn't share DNA with you. If you mean they have matching trees but don't come up as shared matches with each other, it could just be that they are below the 20 cM cutoff.
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.
kiterunner
19-10-19, 10:40
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
19-10-19, 10:47
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?
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.
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
Interesting. I just need to prepare our dinner and then I will have some time to have another try.
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!
Margaret in Burton
19-10-19, 23:51
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
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 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. :mad::mad:
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?*)
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.
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?*)
Marg. I will have a go at the Leeds method thing today and if I get somewhere I will post a thread for the 'truly not incredibly thick' which hopefully will be at infant school level whilst most others on here are at uni! I don't care, if it means we can learn something!!
Time to go and delete my Ancestry groups again, because I don't want them confusing me!
The useful thing about Ancestry's groups is that you can let a match be associated with any number of groups.
Phoenix, this is the bit my brain can't deal with. Not the idea of people appearing in different groups, but the practical assignment of naming the groups. I just got so confused because I kept renaming the groups as the title would make sense for one person but not another. If I use a spreadsheet (bit worried about how big it will be lol) I won't have to name the groups at the start (I don't think?). I'm sure this seems a silly concern to you, but it's been a complete block to me!
lol I love the part at the top of the Leeds Method webpage that says this should take you about ten minutes! I opened a new Excel Spreadsheet 25 minutes ago, but I haven't put anything on it yet!!
Before I'd heard of the Leeds method, I started off with spreadsheets. This was for best mate.
I went through all the close cousins, and as notes, listed all their shared matches.
I exported that all into excel, did masses of editing, so that I had one line for each person, and then sorted by shared matches.
There are two problems:
there were a lot of close cousins. I did neatly group her cousins into four roughly equal groups for each side of the family. But this all took several days hard work. My DNA doesn't work out like that at all. Mum's family appear to have no interest, so nobody is showing up. Which means I am getting nothing meaningful from the results (perhaps I should be going to that Rootstech conference!)
Spreadsheets are not dynamic. If you leave them, there is so much to update.
Off to work at triaging. 5100 down, only 21,200 to work through. How I wish the matches were still on pages.
I agree about a spreadsheet not being dynamic, but I need something to make my head understand what I'm doing. Having ten groups with one or two people in each of them clearly is not the way to go so I don't really have any choice until I've done this (other than a brain transplant!). If I can understand the spreadsheet maybe I can then transfer the information to Ancestry's coloured dots?
I suppose part of my problem is that I'm not hugely interested in my tree when it gets back to the 1600s. I have found it pretty boring (sorry!), because I don't know enough to consider them real people.
I only really have a handful of brick walls more recently than that where I'm very interested in finding cousins in the hope of knocking down the walls. I have probably tried to short circuit all this grouping stuff in the hope of finding something helpful straight away, but this hasn't worked!
However, I manage a tree for someone who doesn't know who one of her grandfathers was, so I'm going through the motions on my own tree, hoping to understand things so that when I have a go at hers I will be able to work out if she has connections to her unknown branch.
Over an hour in on that ten minute slot and I've typed one name on my spreadsheet!
kiterunner
20-10-19, 09:35
However, I manage a tree for someone who doesn't know who one of her grandfathers was, so I'm going through the motions on my own tree, hoping to understand things so that when I have a go at hers I will be able to work out if she has connections to her unknown branch.
Do you mean you manage her DNA test, Merry? If so, then maybe do her DNA matches first, because that motivation of finding out who her grandfather was will make you think up strategies to use for her particular situation and by the time you've (hopefully) solved that one, you will have a better understanding of how it all works.
lol Yes, I did mean that!!
I'm 100% sure you are right, but now I've started mine, I'm going to carry on with the initial stages, as I may be about to be on a roll, after another hour in!
I've added and deleted a load of people and am about to begin again as I've had a revelation that I misunderstood something in my adaptation of the Leeds instructions where I needed to incorporate 4-6th cousins as I only have four people closer than that.
I am also getting dressed (lol :o 11.10am) and going downstairs so I can type on my laptop whilst viewing Ancestry on my desktop screen.
If I can make some sense of mine, I will then move on to the other managed DNA person before I forget what I'm doing.
Your suggestion that I do hers will still work, as I will be feeling guilty whilst doing mine and that will make me get my act together!
maggie_4_7
20-10-19, 11:16
Phoenix, this is the bit my brain can't deal with. Not the idea of people appearing in different groups, but the practical assignment of naming the groups. I just got so confused because I kept renaming the groups as the title would make sense for one person but not another. If I use a spreadsheet (bit worried about how big it will be lol) I won't have to name the groups at the start (I don't think?). I'm sure this seems a silly concern to you, but it's been a complete block to me!
You can just call them Group 1, 2, 3 etc because until you have worked out where they are connected it doesn't matter what they are named.
Good point Maggie!
I'm recuperating in Costa at the moment. Currently I have 240 names on my spreadsheet and I have done the grouping thing for 105 of those. There have been a few with no matches (when I started feeling pleased about those I knew it was probably time to stop!) and the most has 25 matches. Most with 2-8 or so. Ive got 40 groups so far (surely a lot more to come) which is more than the number of coloured dots on Ancestry. I've not thought about what happens if I reach the end of the grouping thing. Grouping groups?
The only think I did 'see' at the start when I'd just grouped the matches for the people who are more closely related (only four of those - that's the 10 minute job I guess?!), was that only three groups appeared and I could work oit there was nothing for my maternal grandfather's line. Don't know if this is helpful?!
So, about 210 people in 64 groups. About 30 people with no matches with anyone else. What's next?
I feel a massive Venn diagram coming on!
Pass! I have one group of 33 close and 50+ distant matches and no clue how any of them are related.
kiterunner
20-10-19, 21:34
Start with the largest groups.
Oooh! Finally! The penny has dropped!! Unfortunately it hasn't yet for my OH as he is still wearing the expression i had until yesterday. I needed the visual spreadsheet for me to finally get it!
Had a quick look at the other tree where a grandfather is unknown. Helpfully this person has a several known close cousins who have their DNA on Ancestry so I can quite easily see they my contact has three 2nd cousin matches related to each other but not to the other known lines of my contact's tree. Something to work on!!!
maggie_4_7
21-10-19, 11:49
Oooh! Finally! The penny has dropped!! Unfortunately it hasn't yet for my OH as he is still wearing the expression i had until yesterday. I needed the visual spreadsheet for me to finally get it!
Had a quick look at the other tree where a grandfather is unknown. Helpfully this person has a several known close cousins who have their DNA on Ancestry so I can quite easily see they my contact has three 2nd cousin matches related to each other but not to the other known lines of my contact's tree. Something to work on!!!
Well done.
BIB
:D:D
Sounds like you are getting somewhere Merry.
The idea of the Leeds sorting is that you don't know who most, if not all, of them are and you group them and hope some of them have enough of a tree to work it out.
For ancestry I have 2 groups called maternal and paternal and I try to get everyone into one of those. I also have an NFI group. The names get a bit tricky as there aren't enough dots but if you can identify any branches then you can label those, if you can't stick with numbers.
I also did the spreadsheet thing twice before I felt confident I had a grasp on it. It helped that I came across people I have seen with trees before so I had an idea of relationships and Dad had a cousin and cousins son who had tested so between them I could rule matches paternal or maternal quite easily.
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.