No matches in over 30 days. Market saturation?

[Taz85]

I've seen no credible evidence that there are significant problems with the ancestry autosomal test.

As for FTDNA being the best, by what authority is that statement being made? Is there a certifying board out there that I'm not aware of that has given that award to FTDNA? What criteria are being used to make that judgent?

Don't get me wrong, while FTDNA has their warts on the operational and marketing side of things they seem to do a great job of getting accurate results and I appreciate that but they are quickly becoming a backwater with the entry of Ancestry into this market.

Odds are good the Ancestry.com tools will be improving in the future too so hopefully FTDNA has some tricks up their sleeves.

FTDNA has the largest DNA databases. FTDNA gives you your raw data. FTDNA allows you to view DNA segments. Which then allow's you to upload to GEDmatch to check for even more matches AND use various tools. You can't do that when testing with Ancestry. With Ancestry you basically get your results with ZERO ability to check and see if your results are accurate. You can't check admixture calculators, You can't verify matches through other sites like GEDmatch, You can't access any medical information, etc.

[1_mke]

When it comes to autosomal, which is what many people care most about FTDNA does not have the largest DB. Both 23andMe and Ancestry clearly have much larger databases. Raw data? 23andMe offers that.

For MtDNA and Y you probably have a point but that is only part of the picture.

Speaking of gedmatch, nobody can upload right now as they are oversubscribed and in the process of acquiring new hardware.

[Taz85]

When it comes to autosomal, which is what many people care most about FTDNA does not have the largest DB. Both 23andMe and Ancestry clearly have much larger databases. Raw data? 23andMe offers that.

For MtDNA and Y you probably have a point but that is only part of the picture.

Speaking of gedmatch, nobody can upload right now as they are oversubscribed and in the process of acquiring new hardware.

23andMe has the largest database when it comes to Autosomal Testing. I was talking about Ancestry, and how they do not allow users their raw data. I'm not sure what 23andMe has to do with it. It's totally Illogical to use Ancestry, and then test at 23andMe to get raw data. GEDmatch won't be down forever, and If you tested at Ancestry it wouldn't matter anyway, cause you wouldn't have any data to use.

[travers]

23andMe has the largest database when it comes to Autosomal Testing. I was talking about Ancestry, and how they do not allow users their raw data. I'm not sure what 23andMe has to do with it. It's totally Illogical to use Ancestry, and then test at 23andMe to get raw data. GEDmatch won't be down forever, and If you tested at Ancestry it wouldn't matter anyway, cause you wouldn't have any data to use.

Ancestry announced that raw data is going to be available in early 2013. I can't provide the link to the announcement as it is on the ancestry website but it can be found on their blog.

[mkdexter]

I have taken all three autosomal tests. To summarize I have found both the FTDNA and the Ancestry tests very useful.

FTDNA doesn't have the largest database by the way. What they do have is the best features as to our data. They have a surname list and search, a chromosome browser and provide the raw data. They lack in a few things too. Most of my matches do not have gedcoms (trees), some do not have surnames listed, and the biggest issue is there are just not that many people who have tested with FTDNA compared to Ancestry or 23andMe.

The problem I have found with 23andMe is that they have a lot of customers but hardly any of my matches have actually been useful to my family tree research.

Ancestry appears to have the largest database, or will by the time they are done. They are still limiting their customer intake, which no other company is having to do. Most of my matches have attached trees, not all but more than FTDNA customers do. Ancestry's strength is the number of matches and the included trees in most kits. They don't have a chromosome browser nor can we search all kits for a certain surname. I have to use the FTDNA test for that.

If we could take the best of the FTDNA and Ancestry features we would have a really great test. Ancestry is just starting, FTDNA has been offering Family Finder for a few years now. I expect Ancestry will add features in the future however not as many as the FTDNA test offers. The problem is FTDNA doesn't have the customer base Ancestry does. I get matches almost every day with Ancestry. Part of this has to do with phasing segments too of course.

I wouldn't knock Ancestry, especially if I hadn't taken the test to begin with.

Between both FTDNA and Ancestry I now have (and still checking more kits) 21 (yes that is twenty one) confirmed ancestors I never knew about prior to Ancestry. These are not all different ancestors, some are the same ones three or four times, thus confirming they are correct for one thing. The fact is, I have had to use information from both FTDNA and Ancestry to find them. I had only 1 (one) confirmed previously unknown relative with FTDNA.

This is on my paternal side where I believe I still have half of the tree missing. I'll have to go back someday and check the rest once I fill it in. On my maternal side I have 15 confirmed ancestors with Ancestry, only 4 with FTDNA. I call that success but as I said, I had to use both tests to start that ball rolling.

Try Ancestry yourself if you haven't, then make comments. For me, I have had a ton of success with the Ancestry test.

[1_mke]

Well said Matt.

It's illogical not to test on multiple sites if you can afford it since there is a limited amount of overlap between the various databases. I get matches on Ancestry two or three times a week. I've gotten matches here twice in the past two or three months. 23andMe is somewhere in between.

[Javelin]

Well said Matt.

It's illogical not to test on multiple sites if you can afford it since there is a limited amount of overlap between the various databases. I get matches on Ancestry two or three times a week. I've gotten matches here twice in the past two or three months. 23andMe is somewhere in between.

Though I agree with your sentiment, I must note that because there is a cap at 23andme, once you max out your matches at something less than 1,500, you won't get any more matches unless you make a concerted effort to share with everyone possible.

There are a few FTDNA customers who have already passed 1,500. I haven't, but I still have 2,000 matches at 23andme only because I have invited absolutely everyone I could for 4 years solid. So I have not been getting any new matches in my Relative Finder for a very long time, other than the ones I find myself.

[NYMark]

23andMe is a rip-off if you have substantial Ashkenazi ancestry and are looking for non-Jewish relatives. They've been aware of this issue for a very long time and have not fixed it. It's disgraceful or worse. For this reason alone, 23andMe is the worst of the bunch, and until they deal with it, I will never recommend them, even if they're cheaper.

Though I agree with your sentiment, I must note that because there is a cap at 23andme, once you max out your matches at something less than 1,500, you won't get any more matches unless you make a concerted effort to share with everyone possible.

There are a few FTDNA customers who have already passed 1,500. I haven't, but I still have 2,000 matches at 23andme only because I have invited absolutely everyone I could for 4 years solid. So I have not been getting any new matches in my Relative Finder for a very long time, other than the ones I find myself.

[Javelin]

23andMe is a rip-off if you have substantial Ashkenazi ancestry and are looking for non-Jewish relatives. They've been aware of this issue for a very long time and have not fixed it. It's disgraceful or worse. For this reason alone, 23andMe is the worst of the bunch, and until they deal with it, I will never recommend them, even if they're cheaper.

Very true.

[1_mke]

I'm only in the mid 400's at 23andMe. I'm not worried about the limit even if I do get near it some day as my understanding is the lowest matches drop off first. There is a very good chance that a lot of the 8cm matches aren't real anyway.

[Javelin]

I'm only in the mid 400's at 23andMe. I'm not worried about the limit even if I do get near it some day as my understanding is the lowest matches drop off first. There is a very good chance that a lot of the 8cm matches aren't real anyway.

And yet Ancestry is using segments much lower than that, huh?

[1_mke]

Have they published what they use?

I ignore anything lower than "Low" probability in any case.

I just got my third 4th cousin match which are at 95% probability. I have thirty six additional matches there that are distant and of "Moderate" probability. I have fifty one total here.

I'm going to be surprised if my high+moderate matches on Ancestry don't pass my total matches here within the next month or two

[myskeptic]

I have to agree here. After a few years here with only a few confirmed matches, I got my Ancestry results last week -- at least 30 with common ancestors. I also found a few very promising leads for brick walls.

I did not immediately have my DNA linked to a tree, and it still gave me these results. The interface was very easy to use as well. I don't see how these results could be described as "useless".

Please... I have things I'd like to see improved too but what matters is that almost all my matches have trees. The last 3 months of matches here have no trees, no names, mostly small segment matches and frequently misleading or nicknames. I have only contacted 2 people so far at ancestry because I'm quite happily comparing all my cousins to each other. I suppose when I run out of matches to compare I'll start reaching out to those without trees/locked trees. In a few years, assuming I don't' find my family before then (I'm adopted) I might have time to ponder raw data. But so far, by cross referencing where cousins trees overlap, identifying locations at different periods in time etc. I've been able to quite confidently find ancestors for 4 lines along one great grandfather and have hundreds of other potential cross matches to check out.

Ancestry beats FTDNA in the only way that matters, it's effective.

[NYMark]

Problem is that if you're of mixed AJ descent all but very close non-AJ matches get blocked out. They make an adjustment (inadequate imo) for full AJ to mixed AJ matches but they don't adjust the mixed to mixed comparison, so there's an enormous amount of noise.

I have not found a single non-AJ match through Relative Finder, and I don't seem to have any in my Ancestry Finder either (although I can't be sure.) I also know that I have shown up in at least one non-AJ person's Ancestry Finder when that person is not in mine, and this is someone who's a genuine if distant match based on partially phased results (in fact she's one of the 4 closest phased matches I have.)

All three sites have their issues, but 23andMe's failure to resolve a problem that has been known to exist for over a year (and their failure to disclose it to customers in advance) is indefensible.

Sorry to go off topic, but I thought I should explain.

I'm only in the mid 400's at 23andMe. I'm not worried about the limit even if I do get near it some day as my understanding is the lowest matches drop off first. There is a very good chance that a lot of the 8cm matches aren't real anyway.

[T E Peterman]

The sensible thing would have been, rather than Ancestry.com re-inventing the wheel, they should have negotiated a deal so that Family Tree DNA could become a "content partner". They have done this with lots of other independent producers of genealogically relevant data.

That is really what Ancestry.com does best. They bring together an immense pool of content from a wide variety of different sources & then have high quality search engines to mine through all of this data.

Had they done this, based upon what I know about another content partner deal, the customers of Family Tree DNA would have had the opportunity to have opted out of inclusion in the Ancestry data.

Timothy Peterman