Weird DNA matches

[Phoenix]

My cousin 's matches are proving really odd. 400 odd on our mutual ancestors, 258 allocated to the other side and 15k unallocated.
258 seems a reasonable number to sort, so I have been checking to see what patterns emerge. So far every one that does have matches is related to a single person (less than 30cM, no tree , no matches)

Does anyone else have such an odd distribution?

Mine is roughly equal numbers of parent 1, parent 2 and unassigned.

[kiterunner]

Looking at mine, I apparently have 8,151 paternal, 7,781 maternal and 25,267 unassigned, and my test was done ages ago. My Dad also has about 20,000 unassigned and his test was done before mine. Everyone else whose tests I have access to, has more assigned than unassigned.

[maggie_4_7]

9,432 Paternal matches

5,400 Maternal matches

3,949 Unassigned matches

My 2 closest matches are assigned to both sides.

[kiterunner]

I just realised that one reason why my Dad and I have so many unassigned matches is probably because when Ancestry warned that they were going to cull the matches below 8 cM, I went through mine and saved them from being culled, and so did the person who manages my Dad's test. So those low matches probably account for a lot of our unassigneds.

[ElizabethHerts]

9,795 paternal matches

7,135 maternal matches

4,800 unassigned matches - some of which I have already identified and assigned as paternal or maternal.

[Phoenix]

Me
Parent 1 1354
Parent 2 1060
Unassigned 1455

Aunt
Parent 1 1096
Parent 2 1755
Unassigned 1082

Best Mate
Parent 1 901
Parent 2 770
Unassigned 1595

While I kept the 6-8 cM for the above, I have been weeding out the no hopers, which is why we have so few unassigned.

But

Sib's child
Parent 1 5938
Parent 2 5635
Unassigned 2761

and cousin, again with no weeding
Parent 1 436
Parent 2 258
Unassigned 12512

None of the tests were done recently, and the contrast between sib's child and cousin is really stark.

[Phoenix]

Since there are so few parent 2 matches, I have been going through each one, to see what I can glean. And the answer is: absolutely nothing. No trees with useful names, the lot of them so far only match with four over 20cMs, one of whom relates to parent 1, and of the others, only one is a Parent2, with no tree and no clue how cousin is related.

[kiterunner]

Had you already hidden some of the cousin's DNA matches, Phoenix?

[maggie_4_7]

I just realised that one reason why my Dad and I have so many unassigned matches is probably because when Ancestry warned that they were going to cull the matches below 8 cM, I went through mine and saved them from being culled, and so did the person who manages my Dad's test. So those low matches probably account for a lot of our unassigneds.

I kept some but not that many.

[maggie_4_7]

Since there are so few parent 2 matches, I have been going through each one, to see what I can glean. And the answer is: absolutely nothing. No trees with useful names, the lot of them so far only match with four over 20cMs, one of whom relates to parent 1, and of the others, only one is a Parent2, with no tree and no clue how cousin is related.

I have a group of 63 people that are all connected to each other and, although I haven't checked through them lately will do later, were not connected to anyone else except me. All but one have been assigned to my paternal side which if correct helps me because now I only need to look at my father's side.

[Phoenix]

Had you already hidden some of the cousin's DNA matches, Phoenix?

300 of them. They do have far fewer matches in total. Father was an only child, and I think there was a single cousin. But the hidden matches are sorted too, and there were only 2 parent2 matches amongst the lot of them.

I watched an Ancestry video, saying what an amazing thing this was, and how the speaker had found masses of new matches, but she also said that it was a huge process, taking every match for all the millions who have submitted DNA samples, and that Ancestry hadn't determined even if to do an update. I suspect that, for whatever reason, the process simply wasn't completed for my cousin's data. Otherwise the over 100cM matches that I have identified ought to be included.

[Phoenix]

I have a group of 63 people that are all connected to each other and, although I haven't checked through them lately will do later, were not connected to anyone else except me. All but one have been assigned to my paternal side which if correct helps me because now I only need to look at my father's side.

I have a group like that of well over 300, but unfortunately, while those with the highest DNA (25cM and below) are Mum's side, many with 15cM and below link to most of the group, but are on Dad's side. I suspect these must be obdurate little bits of DNA that go back to before the Mayflower sailed.

[Durham Lady]

11,937 Parent 1 my mum's side
8,744 Parent 2 my dad's side
3252 unassigned. most of which are 4-6 or 5-8 cousins and have no trees.

My family's go back to the 1500's in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Cumberland, Northumberland and Durham so interesting that most must be lumped into larger areas.
I assume the Scandinavian area's and Scotland are from my Northumberland, Cumberland and Durham families.

England & Northwestern Europe
54%
Devon & Cornwall, England
Yorkshire & East Midlands, England
North Yorkshire, East Riding & Lincolnshire
Scotland
28%
Ireland
12%
Sweden & Denmark
2%
Norway
2%
Wales
2%

[crawfie]

Is there anyone else who does not yet have this breakdown into Parent 1 and Parent 2 facility? Is it still being rolled out or is it just that I do not have enough matches at an appropriate level for Ancestry to work things out.

At the moment I have a total of 10.478 matches of which 214 are 4th cousin or closer. Only 50 count as close family.

[kiterunner]

It is still being rolled out, Crawfie.

[Mary from Italy]

I haven't got it yet, either.