I have an email from them "Your myOrigins Results are Updated for kit
xxxxxxx"; obviously I must have sent them my DNA results at some point.

I'm ignoring the geographical origins part, as I do with all the others
(this lot give me 3% Magyar and 3% Baltic, which none of the others do).
But it also has a "Compare Origins" bit, which when clicked, shows me
198 "Matches", which it lists - saying what they are: they're all either
"2nd Cousin - 4th Cousin" or "3rd Cousin - 5th Cousin". (I think about a
third the former.)

The thing is, of the 198, I only know one - and don't recognise the
surnames of any others - and yet I've been doing genealogy for some
decades, and know all 32 of my G3GP (and all but about 9 of my 64 G4GP).
So I'd expect to already know at least some if they really are 4C or
less - or at least recognise some surnames.

Has anyone any thoughts? Has anyone contacted a
previously-unknown-to-them cousin via this company?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anything you add for security will slow the computer but it shouldn't be significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not the primary use of the computer.
- VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 30/11/2020 14:02, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I have an email from them "Your myOrigins Results are Updated for kit xxxxxxx"; obviously I must have sent them my DNA results at some point.

I'm ignoring the geographical origins part, as I do with all the others
(this lot give me 3% Magyar and 3% Baltic, which none of the others do).
But it also has a "Compare Origins" bit, which when clicked, shows me
198 "Matches", which it lists - saying what they are: they're all either
"2nd Cousin - 4th Cousin" or "3rd Cousin - 5th Cousin". (I think about a third the former.)

The thing is, of the 198, I only know one - and don't recognise the
surnames of any others - and yet I've been doing genealogy for some
decades, and know all 32 of my G3GP (and all but about 9 of my 64 G4GP).
So I'd expect to already know at least some if they really are 4C or
less - or at least recognise some surnames.

Has anyone any thoughts? Has anyone contacted a
previously-unknown-to-them cousin via this company?

It isn't just that service. I've had my DNA data loaded on several sites
and have the same problem of cousins unknown to my tree from all of
them. I've not used familytreedna so don't know how detailed the
information they provide is?

Ancestry work on statistical calculations and there are wide ranges in comparing the DNA matches.
This Ancestry page gives an outline of their estimate calculations https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/AncestryDNA-Match-Categories?

Taking someone they say is my 3rd-4th cousin, the possible relationship calculation is more complex
Percent Relationship
50%
2nd cousin 1x removed
Half 2nd cousin
1st cousin 3x removed
Half 1st cousin 2x removed
35%
2nd cousin
1st cousin 2x removed
Half 1st cousin 1x removed
Half 2nd great-aunt/uncle
Half 2nd great-niece/nephew
12%
3rd cousin
2nd cousin 2x removed
Half 2nd cousin 1x removed
Half 1st cousin 3x removed
1%
1st cousin 1x removed
Half 1st cousin
2nd great-grandparent
2nd great-grandchild
See more
1%
3rd cousin 1x removed
Half 3rd cousin
Half 2nd cousin 2x removed
2nd cousin 3x removed

That 3rd-4th cousin person wasn't in my known family tree. However, I
have no information at all on one of my grandfathers so I'm missing a
large section of my tree. Also, my known grandfather was a fisherman and
could well have had relationships in various North
Sea/Scandinavian/Icelandic ports. There were also rumours concerning a
maid...

The problem is several of the close matches do not have trees on
Ancestry and/or no longer have an account and cannot be contacted. It
does seem many just took a DNA test as part of a fun Christmas or other present, etc. just to get geographical origins, etc. and had no real
interest in genealogy.

I did manage to contact that 3rd-4th cousin and it is now probable we
agree on the most likely link (= my unknown grandfather) helped by dates
and location is someone who married several times, was convicted as a
bigamist and had (at least) 15 children. Based on that, the 3rd-4th
cousin person is probably a 2nd cousin 1x removed. Hopefully the 1921
census will provide some more location/occupation clarification?

I have about 500 unique surnames in my 5000+ tree. From that, for my
Ancestry DNA results, I do know the one 2nd-3rd cousin listed but only
two of the seven 3rd-4th cousins.

The 1300+ person tree from the 2nd cousin 1x removed added three more
but I still do not know the link to two and they are not contactable.

So far only fourteen of the 150 individuals Ancestry identified as
4th-6th cousins have trees on Ancestry has identified as including
common ancestors. Many are in North America or Australasia so are
probably descendants of 18C/19C relatives whose birth was never recorded
or disappeared from censuses, etc and emigrated (or were transported)
and do not appear as complete entries in my tree. Once females marry the surname link can be easily lost.

There is also the problem of errors in the trees on Ancestry (especially
the confusion in families living at the same time with common surnames
and a lot of common names of children leading to incorrect family relationships) so links are broken/not made. Trying to correct those can
be problematic, even if they are provided with birth/marriage
certificates to show they have wrong links. And then often those errors
have been taken up by others so even if one tree is corrected, others
are not.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 14:23:05, john <[email protected]>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):

On 30/11/2020 14:02, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I have an email from them "Your myOrigins Results are Updated for kit >>xxxxxxx"; obviously I must have sent them my DNA results at some
point.
I'm ignoring the geographical origins part, as I do with all the
others (this lot give me 3% Magyar and 3% Baltic, which none of the
others do). But it also has a "Compare Origins" bit, which when
clicked, shows me 198 "Matches", which it lists - saying what they
are: they're all either "2nd Cousin - 4th Cousin" or "3rd Cousin -
5th Cousin". (I think about a third the former.)
The thing is, of the 198, I only know one - and don't recognise the >>surnames of any others - and yet I've been doing genealogy for some >>decades, and know all 32 of my G3GP (and all but about 9 of my 64
G4GP). So I'd expect to already know at least some if they really are
4C or less - or at least recognise some surnames.
Has anyone any thoughts? Has anyone contacted a >>previously-unknown-to-them cousin via this company?

It isn't just that service. I've had my DNA data loaded on several
sites and have the same problem of cousins unknown to my tree from all
of them. I've not used familytreedna so don't know how detailed the >information they provide is?

Oh, I agree. I was a bit surprised that they gave me exactly 198
matches, all either 2-4C or 3-5C, and I only knew one of them (one of
the 3-5s as it happens). A lot of them seemed to have no tree,

Ancestry work on statistical calculations and there are wide ranges in >comparing the DNA matches.

They also give the cM overlap. Of the top few on Ancestry, I have
actually made the connection with quite a few of them.

This Ancestry page gives an outline of their estimate calculations >https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/AncestryDNA-Match-Categories?

This one https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcm/ gives both the
theoretical correlations, and the range and average of what's actually
been found in practice.
[]

That 3rd-4th cousin person wasn't in my known family tree. However, I
have no information at all on one of my grandfathers so I'm missing a

That's sad. What _do_ you know - can we help? (Maybe start a new
thread.)

large section of my tree. Also, my known grandfather was a fisherman
and could well have had relationships in various North >Sea/Scandinavian/Icelandic ports. There were also rumours concerning a >maid...

"A wife in every port", as they used to say!

The problem is several of the close matches do not have trees on
Ancestry and/or no longer have an account and cannot be contacted. It
does seem many just took a DNA test as part of a fun Christmas or other >present, etc. just to get geographical origins, etc. and had no real
interest in genealogy.

Yes; for Ancestry, you can see how long someone has been a member, and
when they last logged in. In general, if someone's not connected for
some months, I don't even bother trying to contact them, assuming they
just got a DNA test as a present and did it so as not to hurt the
feelings of the giver. (I _sometimes_ break my rule if they've been a
member for _many_ years and it's only a few months in case they're a
winter genealogist: a few people do the hobby only for the part of the
year when it's unpleasant out.)

I did manage to contact that 3rd-4th cousin and it is now probable we
agree on the most likely link (= my unknown grandfather) helped by
dates and location is someone who married several times, was convicted
as a bigamist and had (at least) 15 children. Based on that, the
3rd-4th cousin person is probably a 2nd cousin 1x removed. Hopefully the

Or half-, or similar.

1921 census will provide some more location/occupation clarification?

Only another 13 months to wait! But then a _very_ long wait - might see
me out; I'll be 92 in 2052. (Though at present, fully intend to be still
doing genealogy then!)
[]

So far only fourteen of the 150 individuals Ancestry identified as
4th-6th cousins have trees on Ancestry has identified as including
common

Yes, I think mine's of that order.
[]

There is also the problem of errors in the trees on Ancestry
(especially the confusion in families living at the same time with

Yes - the Weightmans of Shilbottle for example from my tree. And once
(when doing someone else's) I came across a village in Wales in one of
the censuses, where I think more than half of the village were indeed
called Jones!

common surnames and a lot of common names of children leading to

Yes, the common - or at least limited - choice of forenames can be
depressing. It does help sometimes when you've got to choose between
candidate families, but it can lead to inter-generational confusion.

incorrect family relationships) so links are broken/not made. Trying to >correct those can be problematic, even if they are provided with >birth/marriage certificates to show they have wrong links. And then
often those errors have been taken up by others so even if one tree is >corrected, others are not.

It seems errors in trees propagate far faster than the truth )-:; I
often give more credence to the one tree that's different from all the
others!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... the greatest musical festival in the world that doesn't involve mud.
- Eddie Mair, RT 2014/8/16-22

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Following on a bit from John's post, I haven't used FamilytreeDNA, only Ancestry. I can identify all but one of my 1st-3rd cousins on there (the unidentified one hasn't replied ... might try again), but I'd like to understand a bit more about the more distant ones.

Now, I am no scientist, so please don't baffle me with technicalities! I
have heard that under, say, 20cM, the DNA matches can be by chance
rather than being a certain relative. Does that sound right? (I have
still found a known 3rd cousin with a smaller than expected DNA match)

Now, I understand that we don't inherit DNA in equally shared amounts. I
have lots of matches from Great grandfather G - is that because his DNA
has been passed on in greater amounts, or because he had lots of
descendants and they have taken DNA tests in large numbers? Does that
mean I will have proportionately less DNA from Great grandfather M and
will need to look further down the list for possible matches? (I hope
this makes sense and you see what I am asking!)

I know on my paternal line, the matches will be more distant. Of my great-grandfather's children, only my grandfather had
children/grandchildren who lived to adulthood.

I have a lot of matches with an identifiable group who emigrated from
Argyll to Canada, although we can't pin down a line. Does the fact that
I have matches with at least 6 of this line make a pretty strong
likelihood of a shared descent? (they do share a family surname - Craig
- that I had tentatively linked to eastern Scotland, but need more proof
- or otherwise. Of course, a couple of female generations, or
illegitimacy, and it could link into another of my Scottish lines!)

It seems John is a bit dubious about it, but is it worth uploading DNA
results to other sites? Family Tree DNA does get good reviews.

Thanks

Ruth

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 17:54:34, Ruth Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):

Following on a bit from John's post, I haven't used FamilytreeDNA, only >Ancestry. I can identify all but one of my 1st-3rd cousins on there
(the unidentified one hasn't replied ... might try again), but I'd like
to understand a bit more about the more distant ones.

I can identify most of those high in my Ancestry matches (though I think
I knew most of them before I did DNA).

Now, I am no scientist, so please don't baffle me with technicalities!
I have heard that under, say, 20cM, the DNA matches can be by chance
rather than being a certain relative. Does that sound right? (I have
still found a known 3rd cousin with a smaller than expected DNA match)

I _presume_ the various companies are only looking at DNA that I/we
share with other _humans_, rather than, say, gorillas, or even tulips.

Certainly, I don't expect many successes below 20cM on Ancestry - except
ones that have the "shared ancestor" marker, where I generally find them
to be much closer relatives than the cM number would imply. I think
their "Thrulines" thing is quite good.

Now, I understand that we don't inherit DNA in equally shared amounts.
I have lots of matches from Great grandfather G - is that because his
DNA has been passed on in greater amounts, or because he had lots of >descendants and they have taken DNA tests in large numbers? Does that

AFAIK, it could be either or both (-:
[]

I have a lot of matches with an identifiable group who emigrated from
Argyll to Canada, although we can't pin down a line. Does the fact that
I have matches with at least 6 of this line make a pretty strong
likelihood of a shared descent? (they do share a family surname - Craig
- that I had tentatively linked to eastern Scotland, but need more
proof - or otherwise. Of course, a couple of female generations, or >illegitimacy, and it could link into another of my Scottish lines!)

Have _they_ - the Canadians - identified a common ancestor? Do they have matches with each other? (If they've found a common ancestor, might be
time to start looking at ships' manifests, though a name like Craig is
probably common enough to be difficult.)

It seems John is a bit dubious about it, but is it worth uploading DNA

Well, I was a bit underwhelmed when FamilytreeDNA gave me a list of only
198 (far fewer than, say, Ancestry), which I thought must be only those
above quite a high threshold (they didn't actually state the match
levels, but they said for each that they were either 2C-4C or 3C-5C),
but then when looking through them, I recognised hardly any of the
surnames (none, I think, other than the cousin I already knew). Of
course, they may have found a whole new set of cousins I didn't know
about!

results to other sites? Family Tree DNA does get good reviews.

I'd say there's no harm in uploading to any site that let you do so for
free; that includes FTDNA if they're free (I don't know if they are).
I'd start with GedMatch. I uploaded to MyHeritage (the Israeli company)
when they let you upload for free - they imposed a charge about a year
or two ago (though I think not much); they do seem to find and tell me
about quite promising matches (I recognise either the names or those of
the "common matches"), but as I'm not actually a member of MyHeritage, I
can't contact the matches. GedMatch (and FTDNA) do give the email
addresses. I didn't actually remember having uploaded to FTDNA, but a
cousin asked if I had, and when I checked my list of kit numbers, found
I must have; that's what triggered me to look at their site, and find
the 198 matches (and a geographical plot, which differed a bit - Baltic
and Magyar - from Ancestry's).

Though not DNA, I'd say it's definitely worth uploading some details to LostCousins; that has the most rigorous of all checks - anyone they find
for you _will_ be a cousin (and I think you'll be able to work out the
link). The newsletter is good too. He lets free users contact matches a
few weekends a year (he'll let you see that you _have_ matches, and
their name, any time).

Thanks

Ruth

YW - hope it helped.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Norman Tebbitt has the irritating quality of being much nicer in person than
he is in print. - Clive Anderson, RT 1996/10/12-18

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/12/2020 18:54, Ruth Wilson wrote:

Following on a bit from John's post, I haven't used FamilytreeDNA, only Ancestry. I can identify all but one of my 1st-3rd cousins on there (the unidentified one hasn't replied ... might try again), but I'd like to understand a bit more about the more distant ones.

Now, I am no scientist, so please don't baffle me with technicalities! I
have heard that under, say, 20cM, the DNA matches can be by chance
rather than being a certain relative. Does that sound right? (I have
still found a known 3rd cousin with a smaller than expected DNA match)

Now, I understand that we don't inherit DNA in equally shared amounts. I
have lots of matches from Great grandfather G - is that because his DNA
has been passed on in greater amounts, or because he had lots of
descendants and they have taken DNA tests in large numbers? Does that
mean I will have proportionately less DNA from Great grandfather M and
will need to look further down the list for possible matches? (I hope
this makes sense and you see what I am asking!)

I know on my paternal line, the matches will be more distant. Of my great-grandfather's children, only my grandfather had
children/grandchildren who lived to adulthood.

I have a lot of matches with an identifiable group who emigrated from
Argyll to Canada, although we can't pin down a line. Does the fact that
I have matches with at least 6 of this line make a pretty strong
likelihood of a shared descent? (they do share a family surname - Craig
- that I had tentatively linked to eastern Scotland, but need more proof
- or otherwise. Of course, a couple of female generations, or
illegitimacy, and it could link into another of my Scottish lines!)

It seems John is a bit dubious about it, but is it worth uploading DNA results to other sites? Family Tree DNA does get good reviews.

Thanks

Ruth

I'm not dubious about uploading to other sites. You will, in all
probability get new matches as some people only do a DNA test at one
site and just do not upload the data to another site or it is a format
where they can't.

The problem is interpreting the results. The trees on any site often
have errors and I've found that even when you give someone evidence e.g.
a birth certificate, they refuse to believe their tree is incorrect and
do not make any changes. Then there are those with only a nickname and
no tree,or a tree of perhaps seven individuals, themselves, their
parents, and their grandparents, all labelled private, etc. Or those
with very large trees, all of which is private, but which the DNA
service show have no common names. So although you may have a DNA match
to someone, identifying why is usually very difficult.

In simplistic terms most of the trees everyone will have researched are
most often mainly husband/wife/children groupings frequently developed
around census data. But those trees are quite likely to be incorrect in genealogical/DNA terms.

Although it is likely the wife (or possibly a wife from an earlier
marriage) is the mother of the children in those families, the number
where the father is the husband is quite possibly less.

I have identified several children who are the offspring of unmarried
daughters (father unknown) but who appear in census records as the
children of the daughter's parents (revealed by the birth certificate).

I have wives who appear to have died in childbirth or soon after but
there is no record of a stillbirth or a child but one of about the
correct age appears in the family of a cousin, so acquires a different
surname, or a child appears in a family of childless couple who have
perhaps been married for perhaps ten or more years (so raising some
doubts).

Then there are the young (or not so young) males fathering children,
locally or anywhere else (including abroad).

So those are some of the ways the family groups can diverge from the DNA results (I'm sure someone will suggest others). In all those cases DNA
matches are very likely to show links into families which we know
nothing about from our research.

As I mentioned in another reply, my mystery grandfather was the father
of a child to a 22-year old unmarried woman in East London in the 1920s.
That is all the information there was in the family. If any of the five siblings or the mother of my grandmother knew the name of the father
they took it to their grave without divulging it. So DNA matching is
currently the only route to possible identification.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)