Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AutosomalGeddon has begun

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AutosomalGeddon has begun

    For those of you who also utilize AncestryDNA, beware that that your matching database has decreased dramatically.

    Mine went from 13,000 to 3000 (almost exactly), which seems to be about average. Presumably these are the IBS matches.

    The rating system of percentages has been replaced by qualitative descriptors. Extremely high, Very High, etc . Moderate is now the lowest. On the Learn More page, cM ranges are given.



    There is a new feature called DNA Circles but no tools or browsers

    If you are upset about all the missing matches, you can download the old matches under Settings.

    *****

    The new system isnt perfect. I persuaded one of my AncestryDNA matches to test at GedMatch. We have 0cM in common. But we are still listed at Very High Confidence. I dont know what to make of that. So much for the cM range. (We do have a paper trail that suggests 6th cousins)

  • #2
    Ancestry: DNA Circles

    I haven't noticed the loss of matches but I did notice the new DNA circles feature. So far, I'm only in 2 circles(a 4x great-grandfather and a 2x great-grandfather, connected to my maternal grandfather and grandmother's branches of the family tree). I sort of like new feature but truthfully, I was curious to know the opinions of others who have tested with Ancestry. What do they think about it?

    Comment


    • #3
      I haven't checked for new features at Ancestry (yet). But with my shaky internet connection, fading vision, and limited patience, I don't deep dive into zillions of pages of matches anyway. I usually just go to the sub-category with trees. The time frame I'm interested in (colonial period) only has weak DNA matches, if any. Strong DNA matches would be downstream from the colonial period.

      Comment


      • #4
        Unless she removed her data from Ancestry in the last day or so, (or their search feature isn't working and she's no longer in the first dozen pages I browsed at Ancestry) I just lost a match at Ancestry that is my top paternal match here at FTDNA (found by running NICW my mom). This is a 19.21, over 2700 SNP segment that I have been working on for some time since I have a tad over a half dozen others who overlap at this same segment (4 of my top 10 on my NICW first page).

        According to the blogs I've read today, this would be due to a pileup region being eliminated. I have a number of questions about this, such as Ancestry's database being only American, and therefore subject to a large number of Colonial ancestor lines. I'd like to know the scientific methodology of this decision. The bloggers talk about how many of their matches shared same segments, but this is information that Ancestry hasn't provided to the rest of us since there is no chromosome browser. I'm sure they have an explanation, but in the meantime, I'm grateful for my chromosome browser. Thank you, FTDNA!

        Comment


        • #5
          My mother had 165 pages of matches at Ancestry and I was beginning to see some patterns. Today she has 33 pages and 9 of them are new matches!!!

          Almost every one of her Hampton matches who were in the correct Y-DNA haplogroup are gone. Almost every one of her Duncan matches are gone. This afternoon she had about 10 Quisenberry matches. Now she has 2. I suppose I should consider myself lucky that a known 1st cousin once removed and a known 3rd cousin are still there! Considering that half of these matches have no trees or very tiny ones, there's nothing left!!!

          Are they really saying that their former calculations were so terrible that none of those 165 pages of matches were actually related to me???

          Comment


          • #6
            Ugh...

            Before they did this, I had 54 matches (with the leaves). They were people who were indeed related to me, we had the paper trail back to the common ancestors to prove it. Now with this reduced number of matches nonsense, I've only got 26 of those matches. All but two lines on my dad's side were in America in the colonial times. And my number of matches overall went from 199 pages to 45.

            On my mom's matches, it went from 188 pages overall down to 36. She didn't have that many confirmed matches to begin with, so I think the 15 listed now is right around the same number she had before this changeover.

            I'm also not thrilled with that circles nonsense. They want me to pay $49 a year just to view my matches' trees and photos because I'm not an Ancestry member at the moment. But you can see the first 7 direct generations of the tree on the match page for that person, and you can email the person yourself and can share photos and info that way, so why would I pay Ancestry?

            Comment


            • #7
              Roberta Estes has a nice post about this on her blog at http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/19/...p-dna-circles/

              Comment


              • #8
                And the DNA part of ancestry is off line to my computer
                at 11:30 AM CST Thursday 11/20

                Comment


                • #9
                  Clueless...

                  What would be a name for a pileup region using FTDNA nomenclature?

                  Thank you in advance - W.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Looks like the ancestry.com issue is with my version of FireFox as Explorer works fine

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      DNA Circles might be useful if it was more of a "matches in common with" tool. But it includes people who are not a DNA match to you. I think those people are DNA matches with someone else in the circle - so it's saying "you are DNA related to person A and person A is DNA related to person B and all three of you have the same ancestor in your trees, but you are not DNA related to person B". That is not as useful as a "matches in common with" tool like FTDNA has.

                      Still falling short AncestryDNA.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dna View Post
                        What would be a name for a pileup region using FTDNA nomenclature?

                        Thank you in advance - W.
                        FTDNA doesn't address this issue, AFAIK. 23andMe identified a couple of handfuls of regions that met their standard thresholds, but turned to be IBS when they tried to trace them back through their simulated pedigrees. The regions overlapped to some extent with what this article called "excess IBD." 23andMe raised their thresholds for those regions.

                        http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/...l.pgen.1004144

                        It's hard to say without knowing more specifics, but it's possible that AncestryDNA is looking at the same sort of thing.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MoberlyDrake View Post
                          My mother had 165 pages of matches at Ancestry and I was beginning to see some patterns. Today she has 33 pages and 9 of them are new matches!!!

                          Almost every one of her Hampton matches who were in the correct Y-DNA haplogroup are gone. Almost every one of her Duncan matches are gone. This afternoon she had about 10 Quisenberry matches. Now she has 2. I suppose I should consider myself lucky that a known 1st cousin once removed and a known 3rd cousin are still there! Considering that half of these matches have no trees or very tiny ones, there's nothing left!!!

                          Are they really saying that their former calculations were so terrible that none of those 165 pages of matches were actually related to me???
                          They were matching to trees :-). And we know what Ancestry's trees are. They are a 'catch 22'. That's why I keep mine 'private' there and only share when there is a good reason to.

                          I'm down to 90 pages and 4500 matches. I only lost two shaking leafs but that's okay. I want my matches to match on DNA not trees which have been copied.

                          Ancestry is great for their records repository but where the trees used to be good years ago when research was done the old-fashioned way they are now useless tools to use as a resource.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ann Turner View Post
                            FTDNA doesn't address this issue, AFAIK. 23andMe identified a couple of handfuls of regions that met their standard thresholds, but turned to be IBS when they tried to trace them back through their simulated pedigrees. The regions overlapped to some extent with what this article called "excess IBD." 23andMe raised their thresholds for those regions.

                            http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/...l.pgen.1004144

                            It's hard to say without knowing more specifics, but it's possible that AncestryDNA is looking at the same sort of thing.
                            I do think this is what they're trying to do, though I question Ancestry's methology (I wish they were more open with their matching criteria). The 19cM segment that was removed from my Ancestry match list is not in any of the areas identified in this study. It's certainly possible that the groups studied are not reflective of my DNA or of the rest of those who were removed from my list, so I'm trying to keep an open mind.

                            However, this isn't "any old distant match" but the one that FTDNA has placed first on my paternal match list.

                            So my question is: Who is correct, Ancestry or FTDNA? Is this an invalid match or is it my best paternal match? Both cannot be true.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Actually, I think she had 180 pages. My tree is private there because I add and remove experimental branches based on the DNA matches I'm getting, so I have no "DNA Circles". If anyone asks to see my tree, I send them to my website.

                              I just noticed that a 3rd cousin has one of the matches that has been taken away from my mother. They could let us have our Low Matches back. I don't see a place to leave feedback.

                              I've gone through Mom's 9 pages of new matches and I did find a couple of matches descended from her 6th great-grandparents and a couple descended from more distant ancestors in her New England line.

                              It seems reasonable that if she has matches in the line of the mother of her grandfather, she must have matches on the side of the father of her grandfather - the brickwall Hampton and Duncan lines in KY, who probably came from VA and NC. But who are they??? In the case of Hampton, she has the aid of Y-DNA, and the help of the autosomal tests of a 3rd cousin, who shares only the Hampton-Duncan line with her. And the New Jersey and Hampton and Duncan lines are the only ancestors we have who were in America prior to 1842.

                              The 3rd cousin and myself have tried everything we can think of to locate documents, without any success. I'd rather have a document, but I thought that, since we can't find one, DNA might solve the problem. It hasn't.

                              I'm getting absolutely disgusted at the changes the DNA companies keep making. I don't think I'll try to persuade any more people to test.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X