Ancestry Autosomal DNA Transfer

[georgian1950]

All their Facebook posts say the same thing that resuming Ancestry transfers are a priority and they are still working on it.

"The issue of not being able to upload newer AncestryDNA files is ongoing. Our IT team is aware of this and is working on a fix. There is no current ETA on the completion, but it is high priority."

Any fix will be less than satisfactory. If FTDNA yields to the pressure to transfer the new AncestryDNA kits, I hope it will give us a way to see which kits on its database are them.

Jack

[Renegade6008]

... My mother's Ancestry results just came in - I couldn't wait to see the DNA Circles, only to find out that I have to subscribe in order to get the full genealogical benefits out of our DNA results. What's worse is that if customers don't renew their subscription, they lose access to what they've already paid for, including documents that they've added to their trees.

Vinnie,

First, if you thought your mother would be in DNA Circles just by doing a DNA test at Ancestry, you were misinformed OR didn't do your homework. To be in a DNA Circle, one must match a minimum of 3 others (not close relations) AND have a tree with the common ancestor's name and dates that match the other members of the Circle. IOW, no matches OR no tree = no DNA Circle; a private tree = no DNA Circle; a tree with only the tester in it = no DNA Circle.

Second, if you build a tree on Ancestry, access to your tree remains, as well as YOUR uploaded documents, if and when you cancel your subscription. You, of course need to build that tree. It is NOT given to you simply when you test, as many seem to believe.

Renegade6008

[RichardMW2]

gedmatch accepts transfers from new AncestryDNA kits

I can transfer a recent AncestryDNA kit to gedmatch and use their tools. It seems to work.

Does anyone understand why gedmatch allows these transfers and can analyze them and why ftDNA will not allow these transfers?

Does anyone know when ftDNA will accept recent results from ancestry?

[georgian1950]

I can transfer a recent AncestryDNA kit to gedmatch and use their tools. It seems to work.

Actually, they do not work well on GEDmatch. While they might find the recent big segment, they do not work well when you look at smaller segments.

New AncestyDNA kits are polluting the GEDmatch database. I hope FTDNA never relents and permits the recent AncestryDNA kits to ruin its database.

Spend the money and get you an autosomal DNA test that has the SNP's.

Jack

[amich]

Ancestry DNA transfers

Unfortunately, some of us can only rely on the Ancestry DNA test. I had my father take the test back in May. Shortly thereafter, he got very ill and died.

He was an only child and his parents are both dead. I have no other options, and it's really annoying when people complain about this test and suggest that we should just get a different DNA test done. You've already expressed your opinion on this thread, so unless you have something different to contribute, move on to another thread.

The new Ancestry DNA test works well enough for me on GEDmatch, and I'm sure well enough for many others out there as well. I can't discern any difference between the new and old Ancestry tests I manage on GEDmatch.

[Jim Barrett]

After Ancestry CHEATED their Y-DNA and mtDNA customers I wonder why anyone would buy a DNA test from them.

[mattn]

After Ancestry CHEATED their Y-DNA and mtDNA customers I wonder why anyone would buy a DNA test from them.

I doubt many of their customers cared. The mtDNA and Y-DNA weren't very popular. Like here many take the test and look at the results and file it away and forget about it. When they announced they were getting rid of those tests I sent a message to over 50 there who had a surname that I have projects for at FTDNA letting them know they can transfer their results to FTDNA not one person replied.

[Germanica]

After Ancestry CHEATED their Y-DNA and mtDNA customers I wonder why anyone would buy a DNA test from them.

The yDNA and mtDNA tests aren't very relevant to recent genealogy, which is what Ancestry specializes in, so it made sense. I don't think Ancestry had a huge database of y/mtDNA testers to begin with.

Anyway, you can still download any yDNA or mtDNA raw data to upload and use elsewhere, so it's not like you've lost everything, they just don't offer any analyses or matching for it anymore.

[Jim Barrett]

When they announced they were getting rid of those tests I sent a message to over 50 there who had a surname that I have projects for at FTDNA letting them know they can transfer their results to FTDNA not one person replied.

I did the same and had several transfer and upgrade.

[Jim Barrett]

The yDNA and mtDNA tests aren't very relevant to recent genealogy, which is what Ancestry specializes in, so it made sense. I don't think Ancestry had a huge database of y/mtDNA testers to begin with.

Anyway, you can still download any yDNA or mtDNA raw data to upload and use elsewhere, so it's not like you've lost everything, they just don't offer any analyses or matching for it anymore.

Ancestry specializes in taking your money and making a mess of REAL genealogy. They lead people to think you do research by copying garbage trees from them. I know they have some very good trees, but they have a lot more very very very bad trees.

Y-DNA without matching is worth nothing. If you'll remember they also had surname projects which they also removed. And yes, you can still transfer your Y-DNA to FTDNA and then pay again for the service Ancestry cheated you out of.

I subscribe to Ancestry for access to their digitized records and to be able to use their searches. I believe they do have the best search engines of any of the other online records companies.

[Germanica]

Ancestry specializes in taking your money and making a mess of REAL genealogy. They lead people to think you do research by copying garbage trees from them. I know they have some very good trees, but they have a lot more very very very bad trees.

I don't agree that Ancestry lead people to do research by copying other trees. They have billions of records in their database, which they don't exactly hide. The search results default to the records, and they provide the option to turn off member tree hints.

Y-DNA without matching is worth nothing. If you'll remember they also had surname projects which they also removed. And yes, you can still transfer your Y-DNA to FTDNA and then pay again for the service Ancestry cheated you out of.

There is also ysearch.org, which is free.

[Jim Barrett]

Real Research - Not

I don't agree that Ancestry lead people to do research by copying other trees. They have billions of records in their database, which they don't exactly hide. The search results default to the records, and they provide the option to turn off member tree hints.

You are correct, Ancestry does not lead people to do research. And yes they have billions of records. I really like the trees where;
1. The parents are younger than the children.
2. The parents have been dead years before the children where born.
3. The parents have many children with the same (similar) name all born the same year.
4. The only "documentation" is another Ancestry tree.

Ancestry doesn't make people do this, but they allow them to do so. When I have asked many of the owners of these trees where they documentation is the say, "It is on 100's of trees, it must be correct." Yes, that is real research!

[John McCoy]

People have been copying family trees blindly for centuries. Ancestry dot com has only made the process vastly more efficient.

[Germanica]

You are correct, Ancestry does not lead people to do research.

That is not what I said, don't misquote me.

And yes they have billions of records. I really like the trees where;
1. The parents are younger than the children.
2. The parents have been dead years before the children where born.
3. The parents have many children with the same (similar) name all born the same year.
4. The only "documentation" is another Ancestry tree.

Ancestry doesn't make people do this, but they allow them to do so.

I'm not really sure how you propose that they disallow it. The only way to do so would be to make all trees private and completely inaccessible to anyone else. But that would mean you can't share your tree with your own family members, so I wouldn't be able to show my tree to my own mother. That seems extreme and very unfair.

When I have asked many of the owners of these trees where they documentation is the say, "It is on 100's of trees, it must be correct." Yes, that is real research!

Yep, and that is their own fault, not Ancestry.com's.

[MoberlyDrake]

Actually, it is Ancestry's fault. Instead of warning people never to copy information without proof, the spend millions of dollars on commercials that tell people to do just that.

They could put warnings everywhere telling people not to copy without proving and they could send out educational email to everyone who posts a tree.

We had a person contact a rootsweb list asking how common it was for 10-year-olds to marry in NJ. We told her they never did. She replied that it was all over Ancestry. We educated her as to which items on Ancestry were trustworthy and which were not. She said she thought that if anything was on Ancestry you could trust it. I have no idea if this lady went on to research correctly or just gave up. But a major problem is that Ancestry is internationally known and people who know nothing about genealogy trust it and unfortunately for them and everyone else, they never learn otherwise.

At least the lady who contacted a rootsweb list took the time to look at the dates and spot a problem. Few even read and notice major problems with dates and that's their own fault! But if an absolutely newbie does spot a problem, they may not have a clue what to do.