I'm so glad you were able to do this interview. It's still not really clear to me. I feel much more confident with records that show where my ancestors were than with identifying ethnicity from DNA. Aaron mentioned using family trees as part of the algorithm but didn't address accuracy (or lack thereof) in those trees.
I totally agree with the aspect on the accuracy of a family tree, because I have tree with little over 2,000 people so I have made the decision to slow down and clean up my different branches in my tree before moving on because I want my tree as accurate as possible...yes it makes me wonder if Ancestry took this aspect in consideration when doing this year's update to enthic backgrounds...awesome comment.
Thanks for reaching out to Ancestry about this update. I did not realize Ancestry used family trees as much as they do for the Journeys and Regions. Good to know.
Personally I don't get it. Your family tree may verify your heritage, but it doesn't determine your ancestry. Whomever is born to who is what determines our dna ethnicity.
So this explains how I suddenly show dna from the Netherlands and Germanic Europe? I can’t trace my genealogy to either. Some of my relatives show this same result change. I like the previous updates more than this latest one.
For anyone who is thinking their Ethnicity Estimates are wrong or have moved in the wrong direction, like some of mine have, go and look at the ranges because using these might mean that they haven't moved at all.
I don't have a problem with this update. I am glad to see they have separated France to it's own DNA region. Before half of the country was including in the England DNA region. My DNA now balances out to what I know of my family ancestry.
That's interesting. I have just the one known French ancestor, a Huguenot refugee who lived in the Drôme region and. came to England, via Switzerland. Other family members on that line ended up in Saxony. I am hoping that his line is part of my new Germanic Europe ancestry. I'm stuck on the paperwork side and DNA has so far not helped as there were few relatives who survived I think.
Connie, you rock. I so much appreciate you going through the extra effort to respond to viewers comments in this way. And I must confess, I'm one of those commentors to the previous video who unfortunately put my negative comment before my positive one.
I missed your poll. My DNA estimates have gotten a great deal more accurate over the years. This latest update had a little change and is the most accurate. In general, the communities/journeys have been more helpful to me than the general ethnic breakdowns.
Thank you for this interview, which really helped clear up some of the dramatic changes I saw. So rather than be disappointed that I am less Scandinavian I can herald the fact that tree more accurately reflects a more recent period that I might see in my tree and not that my much older ancestors may well be Scandinavian based on migration patterns, but not on the period reflects by Ancestry. This is what I got out of this interview. Ancestry updated their ethnicities recently to be called regions which I like, and they have dramatically increased the number of regions. They have also made journeys more granular. On the other hand, I found that some or the regions matched less what I found in my trees based on well documented sources. Today we hear from the Senior Genetics on how it works and what to expect. He says regions are based on where your DNA snippets were clustered 500 -1000 years ago. If you are multi-race and the other race was introduced in 1850 the origins doesn't indicate where that person lived at the time or when they immigrated to the U.S., but 500-1000 years ago or 1000 CE - 1500 CE, rather than 400 CE. Prior to these changes people with ancestors from SE England often showed up with Scandinavian origins, which was a more distant past for that DNA. So many saw their Scandinavian reduced and other regions increased. Ancestry is able to use the largest set of trees and DNA to map out these regions. Your DNA inheritance is random with roughly 50% from each parent, so your siblings may show a considerable difference even though the DNA shows you share the same parents. Ancestry has a comparison tool so I can see my siblings and mom or distant relatives side by side. So, your origins might be more fully described by the combination of your siblings origins rather than thinking of them in isolation. My ancestors are not more Scottish than my siblings as they are the same ancestors. Journeys rely more on a community of trees in combination with DNA. For example, African Americans can now see the migration of their ancestors down to the county level in the 1850s. Thrulines is not impacted by these changes, which cuts off matches at 8 cm due to false positives.
I noticed a lot my English relatives lost Scandinavian ancestry but gained 10-25% German ancestry. The Germanic Anglo-Saxon invasion pre-dates the Scandinavian Vikings so that contradicts what Aaron said. I had always assumed that German ancestry was already built into the English genetic group. Only thing i can think as that many Germans were previously getting high English ancestry, and i think they have tried to balance that out so their results are more accurate.
Hi Connie, amazing the you got to someone from Ancestry working at the coalface of what's being developed at Ancestry. I have a number of comments so i hope that's ok. 1. Firstly, when you mentioned about your Danish grandmother and that your estimate has gone down quite a bit to 9%. I've had something similar happen to my Irish estimate, which at first i was disappointed at, but then i looked closer and if you take into account the range and not just the value given front and centre it could be the same, i personally think for me it's being underestimated, which brings me into my second point. 2. I think using user trees, whilst it could be helpful is a mistake (unless it's only used for refinement, so fit example 90% DNA matches and actually known locations of you and maybe your parents - if this is being done then fine, but it didn't sound like the to me from this interview). 3. I was thinking you were going to answer the question i thought you were going to ask when you started talking about family DNA kits and using them in combination which was not what you asked, although it would be cool to try and rebuild your grandma's DNA from matches (i don't think Ancestry will ever do this, not released to the public anyway), but refining your matches, especially distant ones based on having a parent or grandparent test after you've been tested. I am pretty sure this isn't being done and if you can get both your parents tested, maybe even a grandparent as well, it should remove some of the guesswork into clarifying which segment of DNA came from which parent. This i think would incentivise sales of more DNA kits. 3. Your guest, and to a certain extent you as well, talked about how far back some it the regions you are said to have come from and the Anglo Saxons and Vikings came up, which I am sure is true, but as far as I'm aware the reference groups used are based on people and their grandparents living in quite a small area in that region and so the oldest person alive today will only be able to verify back to around the early 1800s at best, parents of them could have come from other areas/regions so surely unless DNA segments are unidentified from reference groups they wouldn't go this far back. I have often wondered what happens if the same segment appears in 2 different reference groups, maybe then you try and use member trees (I hope this makes sense). 4. This isn't a huge thing, but I'd like to have kept the weird estimate in what is now called Origins because too many people already believe this to be an accurate reading whereas it's a range (as i mentioned before). 5. I'm not sure I like Journeys as a name either because whilst I can understand why they weren't with this nomenclature some of the areas these identify, which I love, are from direct ancestors journey to where my parents and grandparents came from, others are from cousins and distant cousins and where they migrated to. I also don't think it makes it very clear the distinctions between Origins and Journey because from what I previously said some of the "journey" regions are actually "origin" regions. 6. Lastly, and this has never been explained to me, but why are both of these different to the communities on the Matches By Parent page (not completely, but there are some extra ones on there that I would have expected to see on either Origins or Journeys. I wonder how many people this happens for, did this happen for you? When you get the chance to talk to someone from Ancestry could you query this and why it's the case. Apologies for such a long message. Great video again, keep up the amazing work you do. Love from the UK!!!
Connie, Thanks for the interview and Ancestry's explanation of the new DNA results. I didn't realize that Ancestry used the family trees also to determine the ethnic regions.
In my case I am from the UK so was interested when they identified an outlier ancestor in Yoro, Honduras. On investigation he was actually born in York, England in 1686 and they must have lifted the info from my family tree. Presumably some bot had confused York with Yoro. I had a frustrating discussion with a lady in Ancestry and got nowhere!
Excellent interview. As someone with ancestry in the Netherlands, it was nice to see most of my Scandinavian ancestry changed and matches the names in my tree. Certainly, that can't be easy considering how closely those groups lived.
Makes me nervous that they are giving genetic results that are in part gathered from family trees! At least that’s what it seems I heard. I get that changes occur, however I went from 42% Scottish to 13%. Makes me think it’s just all smoke and mirrors.
Totally agree with you. My 9% Norwegian totally gone even though my grandfather's side is Scandinavian. North African gone even though we know definitively that it exists through an all-female bloodline. My other ethnicities like you mentioned Scottish totally flip-flopped in percentages. My results like from 4 updates ago were more in line with my family tree. I put zero faith in my latest Ancestry update. I have submitted my raw data to 3 other websites and got results similar to the one that originally matched up with my family tree. So why does Ancestry now disagree with 3 other websites using the same data?
I went from over 60% Scots to 48%....The 60% would be more accurate. I’ve been doing my tree since the late 70s. Many trees that are supposedly on my branches have incorrect information. It does no good to inform them, even when the information is about my father and grandfather, etc. They will certainly take my pictures and put them on their non-related person. Using various trees for estimates doesn’t sound professional nor scientific. I’m feeling scammed by ancestry.
Thank you for the interview. It still doesn't change my opinion about the inaccuracy of my last origins update. I think it was because I live in the Oceania region and not in USA. From the region/journey details included in the last update, our region was sadly missing any advancement. I was surprised that "journeys" are based on 50-300 years re our ancestral movements. I only have one journey, and from DNA matching it is totally insignificant of my ancestors' movements. Being an Aussie, you can imagine that my ancestors moved quite dramatically in a 50-300 year time-frame, which wasn't reflected at all in the last update that I was given. Oh well, in the past five years, I have learnt to adjust my focus onto the research of the actual DNA matches and ignore the "origins", "journeys" and "traits" features. Re accuracy by testing more of your immediate family. I come from a small immediate family. I only have one uncle (who was adopted into my family) and one half-aunt, and 2 half-cousins; thankfully one of them tested last year. Many of us don't come from either large families or have family members that are willing to DNA test. So, ancestry won't be able to rely on all family units having large DNA coverage. Re a chromosome browser, I wouldn't mind if it was just a table with chromosome segment details in it. They should think about including this segment detailed table in Pro-Home Tools for "the more serious researchers"; wasn't that the phrase he used? I would love to see a table included in the drop-down menu re DNA segment summary on a match's screen. Then those who don't want to use it, won't be bothered by it's appearance. You don't need a chromosome browser for every match, just the segment details. I'm sure that Jonny Perl would fix his chromosome painter to include a copy/paste function for a table from ancestry, then you can gain build your own chromosome browser. Overall, it was an interesting interview and thank you for arranging it, Connie.
Fellow Aussie here. My journeys reflect movement in Yorkshire, which I have on both parent lines, and to Tasmania, where all my ancestors arrived. So it worked for me.
@@carokat1111 My paternal grandfather was born in Yorkshire, my maternal grandmother's ancestors were from the early days of the colony of Van Diemen's Land. Even, my 4GGF on my maternal grandfather's side was one of the first triplets born in the Colony of New South Wales. Yep, I have no doubt that it works for some Aussies, as my hubby has the Aussie journeys. However, I have one journey: Birmingham, Warwickshire, UK. I also assist many with their Aussie DNA kits, and the "origins" results I have seen are on the two ends of the spectrum: either extremely accurate or extremely baffling, LOL.
@@advancedloiterer1820 I've just been delving in to my results a bit further and it's saying that the Yorkshire journey is all passed on by my Dad, when in fact both my parents have deep Yorkshire roots (although Dad's is stronger). So, I agree, there are anomalies. I have lost most of my Scottish, picked up a lot more Irish and Germanic Europe. I expect that is correct.
@@carokat1111 That is an interesting outcome when you study your timeline association. I really appreciated how Connie showed us that whilst the interview was being conducted. What I discovered today is that my "journey" algorithm combined neighbouring UK counties and labelled it 'Birmingham, Warwickshire, England'. So, it included my 2GGP plus ancestors on my Paternal Maternal family branch born in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Oxfordshire and Lincolnshire and combined them under "Birmingham". Whoops, I am certain that my UK cousins would be a touch offended with this title instead of naming it "West Midlands, England". I only had one paternal ancestor born in Stratford upon Avon, Warwickshire, England in my entire tree. So now, I can see how the algorithms processed my tree and used 3 close family DNA matches in its conclusion. However, I have more ancestors and close family DNA matches that should have generated other "journeys" inside Australia before reaching this outcome. I suppose these IT experts used the assistance of AI in their update too; which is in its infancy and can generate some very shaky facts and sell them as credible. As I mentioned before, we should not be so focused on estimations re our bio geographical markers, when we have actual DNA matches which will reveal more about our ancestors and is accurate.
Connie: thank you for doing the DNA poll and then following that up with an Ancestry representative. I disagree with DNA results being twisted into our ancestors journeys. With Anestry database of about 25B tests need to be based on the actual DNA of the person paying for their DNA test.
Your DNA is your DNA. The journey is showing how people with whom you match in more recent times connect and where they went in the world. In my case it shows the movement of people from the UK to Australia during the penal and settlement times, and movement to the USA and Canada as well for some of my matches.
For me I think it would be a game changer if they develop the ability to divide cousin matches by grandparents. I have some brick walls especially concerning my paternal grandparents that I think it would help. They are from the same small community in KY and base on some confusing cousin matches on that side I am wondering if my grandparents are distantly related.
Connie the concept you mentioned at 11:32 about reconstructing a grandparents DNA is partially possible already using the Lazarus tool on Gedmatch. You wouldn’t be able to create a full DNA kit but you can generate approximately 50% of the grandparents DNA by using the Spouse’s DNA and comparing it to children and grandchildren to eliminate the spouses DNA and leave just the target ancestor.
What they should do and probably can right now is have the ability to generate a pseudo DNA kit for a deceased person that has a certain amount of descendants who have DNA tested. If Gedmatch can do a Lazarus kit with a fraction of the user base, Ancestry certainly can as well with their far greater user base. Then you can see DNA matches from the point of view of say your great-grandparent.
I just commented on another thread, here's what I wrote, "Totally agree with you. My 9% Norwegian totally gone even though my grandfather's side is Scandinavian. North African gone even though we know definitively that is exists through an all-female bloodline. My other ethnicities like you mentioned Scottish totally flip-flopped in percentages. My results like from 4 updates ago were more in line with my family tree. I put zero faith in my latest Ancestry update. I have submitted my raw data to 3 other websites and got results similar to the one that originally matched up with my family tree. So why does Ancestry now disagree with 3 other websites using the same data?"
When I started with my DNA, it started off from 40,000 year old Neanderthal from lower Africa. As time it went through Mesopotamia to Iran. Lately, I have been updated to minor Wales, England, Ireland, and Scotland. My Y-DNA says that I am a Campbell clan from Scotland and somehow to Nicholson. One of my mother's side came over on the Mayflower, but others were in America in the 1700's and my Scottish blood came in the mid 1800's. Very confusing.
Something that has helped me over the last few months was taking a full sequence mtDNA test. I had about 300 matches, 90% of which were from finland. I only had 1% finnish in the ethnicity estimate. I made of group out of everyone I could find with finnish ethnicity, and the majority of them were auto labelled as "maternal", which a major portion of those were matching people who matched my 5GGmother, who is a brick wall. I have pieced together several clusters. I havent broken the brick wall, but I feel closer than I have been in 10 years of researching.
That's exciting. I finally have traced my brick wall matrilineal ggg-grandmother to Ireland and it was mtDNA testing which provided the breakthrough. Took five years though before I got a good match.
The changes now finally match my genealogical research on paper. The two communities of origin are marked on the map absolutely accurately! The area of north-east Germany (now partly Polish territory) of my German ancestors and the small, demarcated area of my Polish ancestors near Danzig on the map. ------------------------------ Die Änderungen stimmen jetzt endlich überein mit meiner Ahnenforschung auf dem Papier. Absolut treffend sind die beiden Herkunftsgemeinschaften auf der Karte eingezeichnet! Bereich Nord-Ost-Deutschland ( jetzt teilweise polnisches Gebiet ) meiner deutschen Vorfahren und der kleine abgegrenzte Bereich meiner polnischen Vorfahren nahe Danzig.
Meine deutschen Herkunftsgemeinschaften sind noch nicht im Meinem. Vielleicht wird es später sein. Es zeigt nur Deutschland, doch nichts spezifisch, obwohl ich weiss, dass sie von Hessen-Kassel herkommen.
Thanks for doing this video. I need to get my head around the big changes in my results. Interesting that they use trees as part of the information as so many users nowadays seem to have completely wrong locations in their trees; right towns/cities but wrong country. Does that make a difference? My ethnicity has changed a lot now; no Norway or Sweden any more.
For each DNA journey on your test you can click through to a list of matches with the same journey, which is probably equivalent to what you are suggesting, just without it utilising a search function to generate it.
Actually scrub that, you only get three matches for each journey, as the click through takes you to literally all your matches, and not just all the ones for that journey, and the side arrows take you to other journeys on that test and not to other matches on that journey.
@@MrDannyDetail Even seeing 3 is nice though. :D I think it lists the top cM matches (both sides) of my Indigenous Americas-North. Sadly my top two people are twins, and the third person is on my maternal side (my dad has the Indigenous Americas-North not my mom) . So maybe not as helpful as I thought.
would like to know if they are considering legacy documents such as if I die who can access my tree and how an basic ly a living well type of things. like son, which nephews etc
As for the Journeys part, it would be interesting to see religious group movement. In my case I am working on the Moravians who early on started in Maine, went to Salem (now Winston-Salem) North Carolina and some broke off and went to Hope, Indiana area. Good info Connie!
Thrulines used to show multiple lines for one match and I noticed that went away. Wish that was back, as I have a lot of overlap and once a thruline is glommed onto, it doesn't show others that may be more reasonable.
People lie…DNA doesn’t. What is recorded as fact is not always accurate. DNA takes a scientific, unbiased look at who your ancestors were and can help you to solve mysteries that pop up as a result. I found a 1st cousin my dad never knew he had by matching with him and reaching out. He was raised by a miserable abusive man and was ecstatic when he realized he and 3 of his 4 siblings weren’t actually related to the man he believed to be his father. His mother died when he was young and now in his 60s he is just now finding out about his biological father’s family and his half siblings and many cousins.
@ Wrong. If DNA was all the companies looked at the results would not varyover time. They take information from other relatives and apply it. I saw this with my mother, my sister and I. You can't go from 0 German to 23% German in two years if DNA was accurate. It's all a big hoax.
Vikings…”Scotland was also colonized by Vikings and Norse settlers from Scandinavia between the 8th and 15th centuries. This period is known as Scandinavian Scotland. The Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland, the Hebrides, and the islands of the Firth of Clyde were all Scandinavian-held territories.”
I just think it's weird that the part I'm most interested in researching (Scottish- which I've always felt more connected to) is now only 10%. I've always thought I was Scottish/German/English since that is what the family names are, but now I'm 50% German, 29% English, 10% Scottish
Is there any thought being given to journeys expanding to include results for non-U.S.-based families such as 1820 Settlers in South Africa, Red River Colony in Canada, Cornish migrations to Australia, etc.?
Same here with my Scottish disappearing. But now that he explained that these new origins are more recent it makes sense, as they moved into Northern Ireland and migrated from there during Colonial times.
I was heavy Scottish from the Isles. Now, it lessened my Scottish bloodline to Ireland by 1%. I get more confused as each test comes out. I do know that my ancestors on my father's side came from Scotland to America in the mid 1800's.
@@kevinyork7073 I don't know what you mean by that. I had Channel Islands showing for two days and then they disappeared. Not relevant to me as far as I know.
Something I notice was the gallery changed. When you uploaded a picture the garbage can was there is now gone. I uploaded pictures because you did not have access to the pics of census etc if you stopped your membership. I would download anything that was not free without a paid membership and upload to have access after stopping paid membership.
I wish there were a way to use my dna results to find people that are dna matches that are alienated from, say, my 3 grandparents. I'm trying to find a line beyond my great grandfather but I can't tell what dna matches i have that already belong to my other trees.
Antiquity, I gave in and upgraded my ancestry account to pro, so that I can get the detailed DNA matches, shared matches, all of our cM values, and projected relationships between me and the match that I’m looking at. This has proved to be very helpful. I think Ancestry was holding back on DNA matches that were common to both of us. Sometimes I did not even see a parent as a shared match! Now, I am getting many more DNA common matches when I am comparing. And, the added benefit of pointing out very high cM common matches to whomever I’m comparing, has allowed me to find people that I would never had suspected been so close a relative to that person, because their profile names didn’t give that away. These people often have trees and surnames and places that will help me do my research. As I keep clicking onwards down a shared match’s list of further shared matches, I can see relationships open up, and solve the lineage connection.
I’m getting mixed messages here. Aaron Wolf claims that with the current update, Ancestry are bringing the results into a more “familiar” time frame, yet on their website, Ancestry state that the results are an indication of ancestry 1000+ years ago. ?
My Origins should reflect some Swedish ancestry for me but it doesn't. I have many matches that go to that Swedish origin line. I was a little surprised to see less German and more Netherlands in my update. I may turn some of my research in that direction. It's always fun to get an update
For years, Ancestry showed me to be extremely English and a little Welsh, Scottish and Irish. Then came Swedish, which knocked down a little of the English and Scottish. I was distressed somewhat because I knew through my research I should have had German from both sides of my family and at least a little Dutch, French and maybe even Swiss. Well, the Swiss hasn't shown up and it was many years ago, so I get it. But the recent updates did pickup on my on my Germanic European ancestry and circles that included my Dutch and French ancestors. I feel that my DNA report of 2024 is much more accurate. Question? Cornwall has been listed from my father's side. Is it in England or a separate country or county or what? I was planning to do some research on Cornwall soon.
I was wondering if you or your subscribers can help me... My mother is 87 and I want to submit her dna to Ancestry... how do I do that? Do I have to open an account for her, or can I add her dna to my tree? I also have a brother that I would like to test as well. He's the last male on my father's side. I've tried looking it up on youtube and krista cowen at ancestry and just can't find the process. Thank you.
Buy the kit, add her to your account under the DNA tab>Activate a Test>You may need to set up a free account for her and then from her free account, share the DNA kit back to your account... or have her give you management rights.
This latest estimate update matches much more closely to my paper trail. I have two major endogamous groups in my tree (French Canadians and "Skogfinsk" Finns that colonized Swedish wilderness in the 1600s). The French really did not show up until this newest release. The Finnish ancestry always showed up in a correct proportion
PLEASE HELP I need a new laptop. What should I buy for basic genealogy?? I do basic things on my computer. Nothing fancy. No EXCEL or that kind of stuff. But I do want to do the WORLD ANCESTRY on it. Please give me some suggestions. THANK YOU ❤
Some of mine changed, less Scottish, more English. German and Dutch were added. Other than the Dutch, this actually makes sense according to what family members have said. My full Dutch husband is amused!
My changes were quite significant (and on some branches I go back to the late 16th century, and most go at least to the early 18th century): less diversity but, from what I know, much more accurate: Before: - Portugal: 47% - Spain: 26% - France: 11% - England & NW Europe: 6% - Basque: 5% - N Italy: 3% - N Africa: 1% - Sardinia: 1% Now: - Portugal: 48% [range: 44-65%] - Spain: 51% [range: 32-51%] - Basque: 1% [range: 0-4%] All my known ancestors are from Northern Portugal (where I was born and live) or from Galicia (NW Spain), just N of the border. The amount of Spanish was somewhat a surprise, but I guess the two populations overlap a lot, so figuring out which one won't be easy. And I have a lot of unknown parentage, some more Galicians may be hidden there. 😁
Actually, with this new update, my ancestral regions are aligning more with my research. I have mostly northwestern Europe and Scotland, and each update they have only fluctuated by 3% up or down. My mother's side are all from scotland and i have confirmed that with documentation, and also 48 dna matches in Scotland.
Knowing that Ancestry uses family trees as part of the Origins feature makes me much less confident in its accuracy. Thrulines is an example. Can be very inaccurate. Their own disclaimer is that it’s only as accurate as the connected trees are. I’ve ran into frequent errors in Thrulines. Probably influenced by the merge feature. Glaring discrepancies that would have been caught by evaluating records not just names and merging with others. Just a reminder that doing your own research is not obsolete.
I agree!!! It's like they're going down a path, "LA, la, la...." which they created but not pertinent to what we, as consumers, wanted. DNA results, please!!!😂
My daughter was assigned our Italian subregion but I wasn't, same thing happened for my uncle and cousin. My uncle was not assigned it but cousin was. Since me and my uncle are older shouldn't we match the subregions first? Timber likely caused what should have been with my half 2nd cousin, to be cut off but yet he and my daughter match and it is showing their match is via me.....
Wow! I watched this as I’m always curious and eager to understand more. I come out of it EXTREMELY disappointed in what he had to say. That they are actively trying to hide the Nordic contributions to English DNA to match customer expectations is disturbing to me. Personally, I’m very interested in my ancestry as deep and wide as it can be ascertained. To intentionally try to obscure that is completely the opposite of what I want and expect. So I am not happy whereas I was perfectly content before watching this. It seems anti intellectual to me. 🤷🏻 My Scottish amount halved and it moved to English. I’m surprised, I expected Welsh or Scottish to be more logically mistaken for Scottish than English. Any guesses as to why this occurred? Was a gene labelled Scottish incorrrectly?
I have a question about my father's DNA, I had finally got it, His mother was born in Scotland and his father in England. It says he is 54% Scottish, his mother's paternal grandfather was born in Ireland, so he is 2% Irish which makes sense, so I would like he would be 48% Scottish, but by parent it says 8% Paternal, which I have not found any Scottish Ancestry on his father's side. My real question is under Scotland it says Scottish Highland (have found any), but when you go to Journeys it says Scotland Central Belt, which is accurate, so why does it say Scottish Highlands?
I wish I could answer that for you, but I don't know. Keep in mind these are just estimates. Don't put a lot of weight into them. Plus, they are covering the migratory ancestors over several hundred years... based on member trees that have a DNA connection with you. So if, collectively, those trees are not correct, it might be misleading you.
Personally, I’m thrilled that I now show 13% Germanic Europe. It’s in my tree and documented, but wasn’t showing up. The new one that surprised me was Cornwall. How cool! I was reminded as I listened further, that my brother has even more Scottish and Irish, but no Germanic…but his totals don’t add up to 100% either, does anyone have insight on that?
It was an Ok result of generalities. I know what I have on my chromosomes, and it missed out on a lot. It was rough estimate of ethnicities, with one engulfing others. I prefer breakdowns.
If I remember correctly, the further back an ancestor is, the less DNA you may have from them. For me, 74% of my DNA is somewhere in Great Britain, (England, Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall) But, all of the ancestors on my tree have been in the US since colonial times, late 1600s early 1700s. I find it interesting that I still have 74% British DNA when the connection to that region is so old.
@@siobhan28483no I would expect to be only British with a little bit of Irish. I haven’t found any ancestors from anywhere else. So I guess that makes sense.
There is no such thing as genetically American ethnicity, except native Americans (i.e. "American Indians"). The ancestors of everyone else in the U.S. came from other countries, so those are the ethnicities you will see.
Why is Ancestry, not giving me all the Ethnicities/ Regions. For an example, my mother has a middle Eastern percentage, on Family Tree DNA site, but not Ancestry.
Keep in mind they are different reference panels. Therefore the family trees of the DNA cousins on each site are different. This is why they are just estimates. I would not worry too much about it. They will change again as the reference panel grows and more research on those cousins trees are accomplished.
Do you know if Ancestry has tested a reference panel for Hungarian DNA? My boyfriend has a great-grandfather who allegedly was Hungarian (he lived in the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and his great grandmother definitely was Slovak. The Hungarian a big debate in their family.
He said ancestry talks about ethnicity estimates giving you a window into your origins 500-1000 yrs ago but because of customer complaints about their ethnicity estimates not matching what they knew about their family history, and maybe not being useful for genealogy, they moved towards providing results they thought customers would find more recognizable in their tree and they did that by relying more on user generated trees they had before, or leaving out smaller percentage/location results? Ancestry's origins results are about moving away 500-1000 yrs ago to something more like journeys 300 yr mark? Because this update's results were more general for me than before (losing two out of three sub regions that are in my family tree) I thought that ancestry was trying to make their ethnicity results less specific to better represent the 500-1000 yrs ago origins time frame that they've made about their ethnicity percentages. It does make me wonder if the reason I lost those subregions had to do with some users deleting their trees/DNA results or making them private. The Italian Swiss sub region arriving on the first day of the update and disappearing on the second was very strange.
My new results reflected accurately 1800's and before, but underestimated mid 1800's - 2024. My personal documentation can't reflect the older 1700's mid 1800's records. From 1880's it reflected a relatively 'OK' reflection. My problem is with England and Northwest EU which I imagine includes a large part of Flemish Belgian DNA .. but is vaguely grouped.
We have been asking Ancestry for a chromosome browser for years. If the answer is no, maybe a reasonable substitute is an additional feature associated with the longest shared segment. In the shared match list, it would be great if we could identify which of the shared matches are associated with the largest segment, vs other smaller segments, vs the smallest segment, etc.
Aaron could have been a bit clearer on the whole "ethnicity" thing in regards to time and place. The so called "ethnicity" calculators are measuring *your **_similarity_** to other people who are also testing* . Your DNA does _not_ have location markers. Your DNA can _not_ tell you where an ancestor lived. All that it can tell you is how similar you are to someone else. Everything about geography is inferred by comparing people who are similar to each other with claims of some of those people about the histories they have written about their past.
As someone whose ancestry of last 5 generations are traceable to 6 counties in West Slovakia and East Czechia the current match of ethnicity is very reasonable. But i wish i had saved regions from the past. I say that, because those regions were reasonable. Because i have found Balkan and Baltic surnames. Now my mom’s dna is showing 2% Russian, but it would still be more reasonable to point to the Eastern Baltic republic region, since that is a region that i noticed some surnames in our pedigree to show up in. Considering that our ancestors lived along the Amber road, having dna from people that would travel along that route would be plausible. In the past mom also had 1% match to some Greek islands, which would also be plausible, because of Balkan migrations north 400 years ago.
Your last results are still there but a little hard to find. I’m not at my computer so I can’t remember exactly but it is a link at the bottom of one of the ethnicity estimates pages.
After listening to the part on using multiple family DNA test results to recreate ancestors’ DNA profiles, intrepid genealogist heads off on world grave sampling tour to dig up ancestral teeth or other DNA-rich skeletal remains for forensic genealogical investigations… Other family members point out that journey should have begun on Halloween (31 October 2024) to be appropriate for such a ghoulish endeavour. Know-it-all head genealogical grave robber retorts that journey is scheduled to start tomorrow, i.e. All Souls’ Day or Day of the Dead, noting that motivation is entirely pure and aboveboard, relying heavily on inspiration for investigation’s having arrived in genealogical noggin on All Saints’ Day (1 November 2024). November 3rd, after being found by shocked verger in church crypt, overly enthusiastic genealogist observed by prison officer through gaolhouse grill ruminating on cunning plan to dig one’s way out of current temporary (!) setback wherein genealogical brick walls have become literal ones…
This cracked me up but if you want to avoid prison you can always use the more socially acceptable Lazarus tool on gedmatch to “resurrect” a DNA sample for an ancestor 😂
People should finally understand that these ethnicities estimates or origins are totally useless for serious genealogic research and they tell absolutely nothing about our ancestors. Even if the update is right or wrong, it tells totally nothing about our real ancestry. The only proper way to do the genetic genealogy is the chromosome mapping in connection with Y-DNA testing. Only this way of research can provide proper view on our ancestry. If people understand this, they will finally start testing with companies that provide the appropriate tools. Then Ancestry stops investing their time and resources into these useless updates and rather provide us the common tools that ALL other DNA companies have.
So, the results of Ancestry really mostly go back only 300 years as far as the communities. I kept wondering why I had no communities in the UK or in the rest of Europe. My ancestral lines have been in the US since the 1600s, with only one line coming to the US in 1755 from the Inner Hebrides in Scotland. Yet, I only have two communities ... one in NC and one in SC. Maybe My Heritage is a better bet than Ancestry for me.
Apparently I have no regions from my father and they are all from my mother. They both have long term ancestry in their regions. My father is from Connacht and my mother from Munster. However I have no regions from Connacht. I also have North Leinster which is apparently from my mother but it would make more sense if it was from my father.
I'm not the least worried about ethnicity "estimates". My grandfathers family and generations were born in Scotland. Family records show there there for 300 yrs. Whats curious is Ancestry had me at 64% Scottish a few yrs ago now its 49%. 41% England and Northern Europe for the other side of the family. Funny anecdote on my Scottish grandfather, my mom and her mom always referred to grand ad Irish because of his red hair. Ancestry on me as 2% Irish. It's all "magic algorithms" and I think it will only get better. One odd note. I have a black friend, she has very pronounced features of blacks folks I grew up with in Tennessee. She is 45% Scandinavian. I know it's horrible to put that way but the her mother and father are as white as can be. Their DNA shows Scandinavian for both and have no recollection of black family members at all. Fluke or? Just how the numbers roll.
@@LauriPlaysOfficial She is 56 and had questioned both parent while growing up. Her parent met and married after College in Sweden. Moved to Ohio when she was a teenager. No DNA since they were killed in a car crash when she was in her 40's.
I don't want my family tree used to determine my DNA. There are branches of my family whom I don't have documentation of their their origins. I want my DNA test to tell me my origins.
I’m English and can’t quite understand going from zero to 19% Germanic Europe. However I do have an unknown grandfather and My Heritage has me down as 10% North European so maybe there is some truth in it.
Origins is a "that's nice" feature for me, but I'm not American and 75% of my family is from the same region (which is now what it says as well, so I guess that's right). What I want is a chromosome browser so I can use all the Ancestry matches not uploaded elsewhere to confirm or disprove hypothese about things like NPEs more easily. I suspect most AncestryDNA users want the originals, even if they're not accurate.
Mines more accurate.. I have less Scottish that is correct for me as I don’t have any Scottish ancestors going back to around the 1600’s… used to be 30% which was incorrect.
I think Ancestry should be using AI and obituaries, birth records and marriages etc to paint a true picture of the users family origins. It should even use private trees to match families.
1% Norway and 4% Sweden is wrong as I have no Norwegian or Swedish ancestor. 20 Wales is wrong as I have only 1 great grandfather from Wales(22% from my late maternal grandma 10-13% and 9-12% from her parents). Shropshire is from 4th-6th great grandparents on my papa’s side(my dad’s father).11% France is roughly accurate as my mama’s side is Arcadian(with native and Spainish mixture on my paternal grandmother). 16% England & MW Europe is wrong as I have two GGs from England and my Scottish side from the Foleman’a goes back to England(Colwman). Yet the McIntoshs ans McDonalds were from Scotland as same as the Blair’s. The Blair’s are Scoreish(with Irish and Scotch Irish/Anglo Irish Durch and German), the Bayleys were English with Irish mixture). That is Nana and Papa and my maternal gg Rith’S sides. Still wanting to know my maternal grandpa’s fsther’s aide? I don’t think he was Scoreish? Even though ancestry has me at 45% Scorland when Scottish is my 4th-5th GGs from my Nana and Papa and GG Rith’S sides. 3% Irish is wrong as well I do have Ieish andestoes on my dad’S side thst are 4th-6th Grest grandparents.
Mine is wrong it says 4% Swedish and 1% Norway when I have no Swedish or Nkrwegian ancestors. I have 20% Wales when I have only 1 welsh Great grandpa(11% not 20%). I have 1 6x GG from Spain. 11% Francs is almost complete accurate soth having Arcadian ancestors with Miqmaq, 3% Ireland when I have 3-4 known Irish ancestors from my dad’s side. I have 45% Scorland yet my 4th-6th GGs were Scoreish and Scotch Irish, 16% England when I have two 1st GG from England and 1-6th from England(even some of my Scoreiah ancestors were from England before immigrating to Scotland).I’m still trying to figure out my lost great grandpa.
Ancestry needs to realize a chromosome browser is absolutely essential for research. People probably do not know what it is or how to use it and they need it. I have so many matches that match multiple lines , I cannot verify how we actually relate.
I think these DNA tests detect close relatives who have also taken the tests. Then it summarizes the information in which they put into their family trees on those websites. So technically, these aren't real hardcore DNA tests. For example: I have a relative who was adopted on my maternal side. She's a cousin. Her parents were Italian. When I did my DNA test with My Heritage it proclaimed that I was Italian. I can assure you that I am not Italian! Well, not from what I have confirmed from my family tree. Mind you, there is always a chance of people having illegitimate children somewhere in our family tree; however, I am pretty sure it was due to my cousin. I never saw any evidence of my father's ethnicity in my results either! It's probably because where I live, French Canada, My Heritage is lesser known and used. Take your results from these DNA tests with a grain of salt.
I'm so glad you were able to do this interview. It's still not really clear to me. I feel much more confident with records that show where my ancestors were than with identifying ethnicity from DNA. Aaron mentioned using family trees as part of the algorithm but didn't address accuracy (or lack thereof) in those trees.
I totally agree with the aspect on the accuracy of a family tree, because I have tree with little over 2,000 people so I have made the decision to slow down and clean up my different branches in my tree before moving on because I want my tree as accurate as possible...yes it makes me wonder if Ancestry took this aspect in consideration when doing this year's update to enthic backgrounds...awesome comment.
Thanks for reaching out to Ancestry about this update. I did not realize Ancestry used family trees as much as they do for the Journeys and Regions. Good to know.
Personally I don't get it. Your family tree may verify your heritage, but it doesn't determine your ancestry. Whomever is born to who is what determines our dna ethnicity.
So this explains how I suddenly show dna from the Netherlands and Germanic Europe? I can’t trace my genealogy to either. Some of my relatives show this same result change. I like the previous updates more than this latest one.
For anyone who is thinking their Ethnicity Estimates are wrong or have moved in the wrong direction, like some of mine have, go and look at the ranges because using these might mean that they haven't moved at all.
I don't have a problem with this update. I am glad to see they have separated France to it's own DNA region. Before half of the country was including in the England DNA region. My DNA now balances out to what I know of my family ancestry.
That's interesting. I have just the one known French ancestor, a Huguenot refugee who lived in the Drôme region and. came to England, via Switzerland. Other family members on that line ended up in Saxony. I am hoping that his line is part of my new Germanic Europe ancestry. I'm stuck on the paperwork side and DNA has so far not helped as there were few relatives who survived I think.
Connie, you rock. I so much appreciate you going through the extra effort to respond to viewers comments in this way.
And I must confess, I'm one of those commentors to the previous video who unfortunately put my negative comment before my positive one.
It’s okay. It shows you’re passionate.
I missed your poll. My DNA estimates have gotten a great deal more accurate over the years. This latest update had a little change and is the most accurate. In general, the communities/journeys have been more helpful to me than the general ethnic breakdowns.
Thank you for this interview, which really helped clear up some of the dramatic changes I saw. So rather than be disappointed that I am less Scandinavian I can herald the fact that tree more accurately reflects a more recent period that I might see in my tree and not that my much older ancestors may well be Scandinavian based on migration patterns, but not on the period reflects by Ancestry.
This is what I got out of this interview. Ancestry updated their ethnicities recently to be called regions which I like, and they have dramatically increased the number of regions. They have also made journeys more granular. On the other hand, I found that some or the regions matched less what I found in my trees based on well documented sources. Today we hear from the Senior Genetics on how it works and what to expect. He says regions are based on where your DNA snippets were clustered 500 -1000 years ago.
If you are multi-race and the other race was introduced in 1850 the origins doesn't indicate where that person lived at the time or when they immigrated to the U.S., but 500-1000 years ago or 1000 CE - 1500 CE, rather than 400 CE.
Prior to these changes people with ancestors from SE England often showed up with Scandinavian origins, which was a more distant past for that DNA. So many saw their Scandinavian reduced and other regions increased.
Ancestry is able to use the largest set of trees and DNA to map out these regions.
Your DNA inheritance is random with roughly 50% from each parent, so your siblings may show a considerable difference even though the DNA shows you share the same parents.
Ancestry has a comparison tool so I can see my siblings and mom or distant relatives side by side. So, your origins might be more fully described by the combination of your siblings origins rather than thinking of them in isolation. My ancestors are not more Scottish than my siblings as they are the same ancestors.
Journeys rely more on a community of trees in combination with DNA. For example, African Americans can now see the migration of their ancestors down to the county level in the 1850s.
Thrulines is not impacted by these changes, which cuts off matches at 8 cm due to false positives.
I noticed a lot my English relatives lost Scandinavian ancestry but gained 10-25% German ancestry. The Germanic Anglo-Saxon invasion pre-dates the Scandinavian Vikings so that contradicts what Aaron said. I had always assumed that German ancestry was already built into the English genetic group. Only thing i can think as that many Germans were previously getting high English ancestry, and i think they have tried to balance that out so their results are more accurate.
Hi Connie, amazing the you got to someone from Ancestry working at the coalface of what's being developed at Ancestry. I have a number of comments so i hope that's ok.
1. Firstly, when you mentioned about your Danish grandmother and that your estimate has gone down quite a bit to 9%. I've had something similar happen to my Irish estimate, which at first i was disappointed at, but then i looked closer and if you take into account the range and not just the value given front and centre it could be the same, i personally think for me it's being underestimated, which brings me into my second point.
2. I think using user trees, whilst it could be helpful is a mistake (unless it's only used for refinement, so fit example 90% DNA matches and actually known locations of you and maybe your parents - if this is being done then fine, but it didn't sound like the to me from this interview).
3. I was thinking you were going to answer the question i thought you were going to ask when you started talking about family DNA kits and using them in combination which was not what you asked, although it would be cool to try and rebuild your grandma's DNA from matches (i don't think Ancestry will ever do this, not released to the public anyway), but refining your matches, especially distant ones based on having a parent or grandparent test after you've been tested. I am pretty sure this isn't being done and if you can get both your parents tested, maybe even a grandparent as well, it should remove some of the guesswork into clarifying which segment of DNA came from which parent. This i think would incentivise sales of more DNA kits.
3. Your guest, and to a certain extent you as well, talked about how far back some it the regions you are said to have come from and the Anglo Saxons and Vikings came up, which I am sure is true, but as far as I'm aware the reference groups used are based on people and their grandparents living in quite a small area in that region and so the oldest person alive today will only be able to verify back to around the early 1800s at best, parents of them could have come from other areas/regions so surely unless DNA segments are unidentified from reference groups they wouldn't go this far back. I have often wondered what happens if the same segment appears in 2 different reference groups, maybe then you try and use member trees (I hope this makes sense).
4. This isn't a huge thing, but I'd like to have kept the weird estimate in what is now called Origins because too many people already believe this to be an accurate reading whereas it's a range (as i mentioned before).
5. I'm not sure I like Journeys as a name either because whilst I can understand why they weren't with this nomenclature some of the areas these identify, which I love, are from direct ancestors journey to where my parents and grandparents came from, others are from cousins and distant cousins and where they migrated to. I also don't think it makes it very clear the distinctions between Origins and Journey because from what I previously said some of the "journey" regions are actually "origin" regions.
6. Lastly, and this has never been explained to me, but why are both of these different to the communities on the Matches By Parent page (not completely, but there are some extra ones on there that I would have expected to see on either Origins or Journeys. I wonder how many people this happens for, did this happen for you? When you get the chance to talk to someone from Ancestry could you query this and why it's the case.
Apologies for such a long message. Great video again, keep up the amazing work you do. Love from the UK!!!
Great interview which provided great insight into the new update. So the new results represents our recent heritage! That makes sense.
Connie, Thanks for the interview and Ancestry's explanation of the new DNA results. I didn't realize that Ancestry used the family trees also to determine the ethnic regions.
In my case I am from the UK so was interested when they identified an outlier ancestor in Yoro, Honduras. On investigation he was actually born in York, England in 1686 and they must have lifted the info from my family tree. Presumably some bot had confused York with Yoro. I had a frustrating discussion with a lady in Ancestry and got nowhere!
Yes, it does. And it’s a lot more complicated than just a simple ethnicity breakdown.
Excellent job Connie. Great guest. I learned a lot.
Thank you!
Excellent interview. As someone with ancestry in the Netherlands, it was nice to see most of my Scandinavian ancestry changed and matches the names in my tree. Certainly, that can't be easy considering how closely those groups lived.
Thank you for this new information and explanations.
I’m glad it was helpful.
Makes me nervous that they are giving genetic results that are in part gathered from family trees! At least that’s what it seems I heard. I get that changes occur, however I went from 42% Scottish to 13%. Makes me think it’s just all smoke and mirrors.
Totally agree with you. My 9% Norwegian totally gone even though my grandfather's side is Scandinavian. North African gone even though we know definitively that it exists through an all-female bloodline. My other ethnicities like you mentioned Scottish totally flip-flopped in percentages. My results like from 4 updates ago were more in line with my family tree. I put zero faith in my latest Ancestry update. I have submitted my raw data to 3 other websites and got results similar to the one that originally matched up with my family tree. So why does Ancestry now disagree with 3 other websites using the same data?
I went from over 60% Scots to 48%....The 60% would be more accurate. I’ve been doing my tree since the late 70s. Many trees that are supposedly on my branches have incorrect information. It does no good to inform them, even when the information is about my father and grandfather, etc. They will certainly take my pictures and put them on their non-related person. Using various trees for estimates doesn’t sound professional nor scientific. I’m feeling scammed by ancestry.
Thank you for the interview. It still doesn't change my opinion about the inaccuracy of my last origins update. I think it was because I live in the Oceania region and not in USA. From the region/journey details included in the last update, our region was sadly missing any advancement. I was surprised that "journeys" are based on 50-300 years re our ancestral movements. I only have one journey, and from DNA matching it is totally insignificant of my ancestors' movements. Being an Aussie, you can imagine that my ancestors moved quite dramatically in a 50-300 year time-frame, which wasn't reflected at all in the last update that I was given. Oh well, in the past five years, I have learnt to adjust my focus onto the research of the actual DNA matches and ignore the "origins", "journeys" and "traits" features. Re accuracy by testing more of your immediate family. I come from a small immediate family. I only have one uncle (who was adopted into my family) and one half-aunt, and 2 half-cousins; thankfully one of them tested last year. Many of us don't come from either large families or have family members that are willing to DNA test. So, ancestry won't be able to rely on all family units having large DNA coverage. Re a chromosome browser, I wouldn't mind if it was just a table with chromosome segment details in it. They should think about including this segment detailed table in Pro-Home Tools for "the more serious researchers"; wasn't that the phrase he used? I would love to see a table included in the drop-down menu re DNA segment summary on a match's screen. Then those who don't want to use it, won't be bothered by it's appearance. You don't need a chromosome browser for every match, just the segment details. I'm sure that Jonny Perl would fix his chromosome painter to include a copy/paste function for a table from ancestry, then you can gain build your own chromosome browser. Overall, it was an interesting interview and thank you for arranging it, Connie.
Fellow Aussie here. My journeys reflect movement in Yorkshire, which I have on both parent lines, and to Tasmania, where all my ancestors arrived. So it worked for me.
@@carokat1111 My paternal grandfather was born in Yorkshire, my maternal grandmother's ancestors were from the early days of the colony of Van Diemen's Land. Even, my 4GGF on my maternal grandfather's side was one of the first triplets born in the Colony of New South Wales. Yep, I have no doubt that it works for some Aussies, as my hubby has the Aussie journeys. However, I have one journey: Birmingham, Warwickshire, UK. I also assist many with their Aussie DNA kits, and the "origins" results I have seen are on the two ends of the spectrum: either extremely accurate or extremely baffling, LOL.
@@advancedloiterer1820 I've just been delving in to my results a bit further and it's saying that the Yorkshire journey is all passed on by my Dad, when in fact both my parents have deep Yorkshire roots (although Dad's is stronger). So, I agree, there are anomalies. I have lost most of my Scottish, picked up a lot more Irish and Germanic Europe. I expect that is correct.
@@carokat1111 That is an interesting outcome when you study your timeline association. I really appreciated how Connie showed us that whilst the interview was being conducted. What I discovered today is that my "journey" algorithm combined neighbouring UK counties and labelled it 'Birmingham, Warwickshire, England'. So, it included my 2GGP plus ancestors on my Paternal Maternal family branch born in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Oxfordshire and Lincolnshire and combined them under "Birmingham". Whoops, I am certain that my UK cousins would be a touch offended with this title instead of naming it "West Midlands, England". I only had one paternal ancestor born in Stratford upon Avon, Warwickshire, England in my entire tree. So now, I can see how the algorithms processed my tree and used 3 close family DNA matches in its conclusion. However, I have more ancestors and close family DNA matches that should have generated other "journeys" inside Australia before reaching this outcome. I suppose these IT experts used the assistance of AI in their update too; which is in its infancy and can generate some very shaky facts and sell them as credible. As I mentioned before, we should not be so focused on estimations re our bio geographical markers, when we have actual DNA matches which will reveal more about our ancestors and is accurate.
Thanks to Ancestry for their focus on family historians and to you for having this interview.
Thanks
Connie: thank you for doing the DNA poll and then following that up with an Ancestry representative. I disagree with DNA results being twisted into our ancestors journeys. With Anestry database of about 25B tests need to be based on the actual DNA of the person paying for their DNA test.
" need to be based on the actual DNA of the person paying for their DNA test."
Your DNA is your DNA. The journey is showing how people with whom you match in more recent times connect and where they went in the world. In my case it shows the movement of people from the UK to Australia during the penal and settlement times, and movement to the USA and Canada as well for some of my matches.
For me I think it would be a game changer if they develop the ability to divide cousin matches by grandparents. I have some brick walls especially concerning my paternal grandparents that I think it would help. They are from the same small community in KY and base on some confusing cousin matches on that side I am wondering if my grandparents are distantly related.
I agree. That would be very helpful.
Connie the concept you mentioned at 11:32 about reconstructing a grandparents DNA is partially possible already using the Lazarus tool on Gedmatch. You wouldn’t be able to create a full DNA kit but you can generate approximately 50% of the grandparents DNA by using the Spouse’s DNA and comparing it to children and grandchildren to eliminate the spouses DNA and leave just the target ancestor.
Love when you geek out... things that your are thinking about that have not even crossed my mine. Great interview... Sra. A
I’m glad you enjoyed it!
What they should do and probably can right now is have the ability to generate a pseudo DNA kit for a deceased person that has a certain amount of descendants who have DNA tested. If Gedmatch can do a Lazarus kit with a fraction of the user base, Ancestry certainly can as well with their far greater user base. Then you can see DNA matches from the point of view of say your great-grandparent.
Since we have to pay for the parent 1 & 2, is there anything new? More matches, or something worth paying for?
That I may one day sort my DNA matches by grandparent? Swoon!
I'm still confused. I have generations of Scottish ancestry, previously was 12% and now it shows I have zero dna from Scotland.
Me too. I've lost all my Norway and Denmark I've had since the beginning and now I have Spain?
Yes my England and North Western went up 10% and my Scottish now 0
I went from 45% Scottish to 14%- ridiculous.
@@317susanI’m very similar; 42% to 13
I just commented on another thread, here's what I wrote, "Totally agree with you. My 9% Norwegian totally gone even though my grandfather's side is Scandinavian. North African gone even though we know definitively that is exists through an all-female bloodline. My other ethnicities like you mentioned Scottish totally flip-flopped in percentages. My results like from 4 updates ago were more in line with my family tree. I put zero faith in my latest Ancestry update. I have submitted my raw data to 3 other websites and got results similar to the one that originally matched up with my family tree. So why does Ancestry now disagree with 3 other websites using the same data?"
When I started with my DNA, it started off from 40,000 year old Neanderthal from lower Africa. As time it went through Mesopotamia to Iran. Lately, I have been updated to minor Wales, England, Ireland, and Scotland. My Y-DNA says that I am a Campbell clan from Scotland and somehow to Nicholson. One of my mother's side came over on the Mayflower, but others were in America in the 1700's and my Scottish blood came in the mid 1800's. Very confusing.
Something that has helped me over the last few months was taking a full sequence mtDNA test. I had about 300 matches, 90% of which were from finland. I only had 1% finnish in the ethnicity estimate. I made of group out of everyone I could find with finnish ethnicity, and the majority of them were auto labelled as "maternal", which a major portion of those were matching people who matched my 5GGmother, who is a brick wall. I have pieced together several clusters. I havent broken the brick wall, but I feel closer than I have been in 10 years of researching.
That's exciting. I finally have traced my brick wall matrilineal ggg-grandmother to Ireland and it was mtDNA testing which provided the breakthrough. Took five years though before I got a good match.
Thank you so much Connie. I understand it much better now.
You're welcome!
The changes now finally match my genealogical research on paper. The two communities of origin are marked on the map absolutely accurately! The area of north-east Germany (now partly Polish territory) of my German ancestors and the small, demarcated area of my Polish ancestors near Danzig on the map. ------------------------------ Die Änderungen stimmen jetzt endlich überein mit meiner Ahnenforschung auf dem Papier. Absolut treffend sind die beiden Herkunftsgemeinschaften auf der Karte eingezeichnet! Bereich Nord-Ost-Deutschland ( jetzt teilweise polnisches Gebiet ) meiner deutschen Vorfahren und der kleine abgegrenzte Bereich meiner polnischen Vorfahren nahe Danzig.
Meine deutschen Herkunftsgemeinschaften sind noch nicht im Meinem. Vielleicht wird es später sein. Es zeigt nur Deutschland, doch nichts spezifisch, obwohl ich weiss, dass sie von Hessen-Kassel herkommen.
Thanks for doing this video. I need to get my head around the big changes in my results. Interesting that they use trees as part of the information as so many users nowadays seem to have completely wrong locations in their trees; right towns/cities but wrong country. Does that make a difference? My ethnicity has changed a lot now; no Norway or Sweden any more.
I'd love to see a DNA Match Search by ethnicity, ie search matches with Native American DNA, etc..
For each DNA journey on your test you can click through to a list of matches with the same journey, which is probably equivalent to what you are suggesting, just without it utilising a search function to generate it.
Actually scrub that, you only get three matches for each journey, as the click through takes you to literally all your matches, and not just all the ones for that journey, and the side arrows take you to other journeys on that test and not to other matches on that journey.
@@MrDannyDetail Even seeing 3 is nice though. :D
I think it lists the top cM matches (both sides) of my Indigenous Americas-North. Sadly my top two people are twins, and the third person is on my maternal side (my dad has the Indigenous Americas-North not my mom) . So maybe not as helpful as I thought.
Another great video. I learned a lot about how Ancestry handles DNA. As a fellow creator, I love your lighting setup!
Thank you for the compliment!
would like to know if they are considering legacy documents such as if I die who can access my tree and how an basic ly a living well type of things. like son, which nephews etc
As for the Journeys part, it would be interesting to see religious group movement. In my case I am working on the Moravians who early on started in Maine, went to Salem (now Winston-Salem) North Carolina and some broke off and went to Hope, Indiana area. Good info Connie!
Interesting. The Quakers made the same migration patterns... central NC to Indiana.
Thanks for posting this video.
You're welcome!
Thrulines used to show multiple lines for one match and I noticed that went away. Wish that was back, as I have a lot of overlap and once a thruline is glommed onto, it doesn't show others that may be more reasonable.
Why do you need a DNA sample if you are using family trees? My relatives are very diverse and cannot be applied to me as an individual.
People lie…DNA doesn’t. What is recorded as fact is not always accurate. DNA takes a scientific, unbiased look at who your ancestors were and can help you to solve mysteries that pop up as a result. I found a 1st cousin my dad never knew he had by matching with him and reaching out. He was raised by a miserable abusive man and was ecstatic when he realized he and 3 of his 4 siblings weren’t actually related to the man he believed to be his father. His mother died when he was young and now in his 60s he is just now finding out about his biological father’s family and his half siblings and many cousins.
@ Wrong. If DNA was all the companies looked at the results would not varyover time. They take information from other relatives and apply it. I saw this with my mother, my sister and I. You can't go from 0 German to 23% German in two years if DNA was accurate. It's all a big hoax.
I enjoyed it. My cousin and his brother are of very different ethnicities. Is it hard to distinguish between Irish and English?
How did my DNA change from Scotland to Denmark????
Vikings…”Scotland was also colonized by Vikings and Norse settlers from Scandinavia between the 8th and 15th centuries. This period is known as Scandinavian Scotland. The Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland, the Hebrides, and the islands of the Firth of Clyde were all Scandinavian-held territories.”
11:05 Yes! I just want Grandparent Sideview!
Me too
Regarding the updated "Origins", at least for myself and some of the tests I manage the update is more misleading than prior versions.
I just think it's weird that the part I'm most interested in researching (Scottish- which I've always felt more connected to) is now only 10%. I've always thought I was Scottish/German/English since that is what the family names are, but now I'm 50% German, 29% English, 10% Scottish
Remember these are estimates. They will change. You do what makes you happy. If researching Scottish is your interest, go for it.
Thank you!
Is there any thought being given to journeys expanding to include results for non-U.S.-based families such as 1820 Settlers in South Africa, Red River Colony in Canada, Cornish migrations to Australia, etc.?
Great question. I don't have an answer for you, but you might be able to submit the question in one of their Feedback links.
I had Scottish and Scandinavian ancestry This new update they have totally dissappeared this can get very confusing..
Prior to the update I had 14% Scottish Ancestry which has now dropped down to 2%.
Same here with my Scottish disappearing. But now that he explained that these new origins are more recent it makes sense, as they moved into Northern Ireland and migrated from there during Colonial times.
I was heavy Scottish from the Isles. Now, it lessened my Scottish bloodline to Ireland by 1%. I get more confused as each test comes out. I do know that my ancestors on my father's side came from Scotland to America in the mid 1800's.
My Scottish went from 40% to 15%. Devastated! But I did gain Scottish Highlands which I always wanted so that was something.
Same ❤
In the new update, the Channel Islands were part of the new information. Then, less than a week that location disappeared
Thankfully. Clearly a glitch in my case.
@carokat1111 , I was told by ancestry that the update is continuous, and that is why the Channel Islands dropped off
@@kevinyork7073 I don't know what you mean by that. I had Channel Islands showing for two days and then they disappeared. Not relevant to me as far as I know.
@carokat1111 , it means when the update for ancestry happened this year, I had a region, and then it disappeared
Something I notice was the gallery changed. When you uploaded a picture the garbage can was there is now gone. I uploaded pictures because you did not have access to the pics of census etc if you stopped your membership. I would download anything that was not free without a paid membership and upload to have access after stopping paid membership.
I wish there were a way to use my dna results to find people that are dna matches that are alienated from, say, my 3 grandparents.
I'm trying to find a line beyond my great grandfather but I can't tell what dna matches i have that already belong to my other trees.
Antiquity, I gave in and upgraded my ancestry account to pro, so that I can get the detailed DNA matches, shared matches, all of our cM values, and projected relationships between me and the match that I’m looking at. This has proved to be very helpful. I think Ancestry was holding back on DNA matches that were common to both of us. Sometimes I did not even see a parent as a shared match! Now, I am getting many more DNA common matches when I am comparing. And, the added benefit of pointing out very high cM common matches to whomever I’m comparing, has allowed me to find people that I would never had suspected been so close a relative to that person, because their profile names didn’t give that away. These people often have trees and surnames and places that will help me do my research. As I keep clicking onwards down a shared match’s list of further shared matches, I can see relationships open up, and solve the lineage connection.
I’m getting mixed messages here. Aaron Wolf claims that with the current update, Ancestry are bringing the results into a more “familiar” time frame, yet on their website, Ancestry state that the results are an indication of ancestry 1000+ years ago. ?
The difference is regions 500-1000 years vs communities 300-500 years. Think about the migrations of many generations.
@@GenealogyTVAt 5:48-7:15 he was talking specifically about regions.
My Origins should reflect some Swedish ancestry for me but it doesn't. I have many matches that go to that Swedish origin line. I was a little surprised to see less German and more
Netherlands in my update. I may turn some of my research in that direction. It's always fun to get an update
Removing my Norwegian dna even though I have dna matches from there. How do I know if this is recent or ancient dna?
For years, Ancestry showed me to be extremely English and a little Welsh, Scottish and Irish. Then came Swedish, which knocked down a little of the English and Scottish. I was distressed somewhat because I knew through my research I should have had German from both sides of my family and at least a little Dutch, French and maybe even Swiss. Well, the Swiss hasn't shown up and it was many years ago, so I get it. But the recent updates did pickup on my on my Germanic European ancestry and circles that included my Dutch and French ancestors. I feel that my DNA report of 2024 is much more accurate. Question? Cornwall has been listed from my father's side. Is it in England or a separate country or county or what? I was planning to do some research on Cornwall soon.
What do you do with all the very wrong family trees where people accept all the hints that AI gives them?
That could end up with misleading "Common Ancestors", but in this regards the Ancestry DNA product is no different than old-fashioned genealogy.
Ignore them.
Thanks bunches
You're welcome!
I was wondering if you or your subscribers can help me... My mother is 87 and I want to submit her dna to Ancestry... how do I do that? Do I have to open an account for her, or can I add her dna to my tree? I also have a brother that I would like to test as well. He's the last male on my father's side. I've tried looking it up on youtube and krista cowen at ancestry and just can't find the process. Thank you.
Buy the kit, add her to your account under the DNA tab>Activate a Test>You may need to set up a free account for her and then from her free account, share the DNA kit back to your account... or have her give you management rights.
@GenealogyTV Thank you!
Thank you
This latest estimate update matches much more closely to my paper trail. I have two major endogamous groups in my tree (French Canadians and "Skogfinsk" Finns that colonized Swedish wilderness in the 1600s). The French really did not show up until this newest release. The Finnish ancestry always showed up in a correct proportion
PLEASE HELP I need a new laptop. What should I buy for basic genealogy??
I do basic things on my computer. Nothing fancy. No EXCEL or that kind of stuff.
But I do want to do the WORLD ANCESTRY on it.
Please give me some suggestions. THANK YOU ❤
I would go to Best Buy and ask for their advice. If the price is too much shop Amazon for the same they recommend. I’m not a computer expert.
Some of mine changed, less Scottish, more English. German and Dutch were added. Other than the Dutch, this actually makes sense according to what family members have said. My full Dutch husband is amused!
My changes were quite significant (and on some branches I go back to the late 16th century, and most go at least to the early 18th century): less diversity but, from what I know, much more accurate:
Before:
- Portugal: 47%
- Spain: 26%
- France: 11%
- England & NW Europe: 6%
- Basque: 5%
- N Italy: 3%
- N Africa: 1%
- Sardinia: 1%
Now:
- Portugal: 48% [range: 44-65%]
- Spain: 51% [range: 32-51%]
- Basque: 1% [range: 0-4%]
All my known ancestors are from Northern Portugal (where I was born and live) or from Galicia (NW Spain), just N of the border. The amount of Spanish was somewhat a surprise, but I guess the two populations overlap a lot, so figuring out which one won't be easy. And I have a lot of unknown parentage, some more Galicians may be hidden there. 😁
Actually, with this new update, my ancestral regions are aligning more with my research. I have mostly northwestern Europe and Scotland, and each update they have only fluctuated by 3% up or down. My mother's side are all from scotland and i have confirmed that with documentation, and also 48 dna matches in Scotland.
Knowing that Ancestry uses family trees as part of the Origins feature makes me much less confident in its accuracy. Thrulines is an example. Can be very inaccurate. Their own disclaimer is that it’s only as accurate as the connected trees are. I’ve ran into frequent errors in Thrulines. Probably influenced by the merge feature. Glaring discrepancies that would have been caught by evaluating records not just names and merging with others. Just a reminder that doing your own research is not obsolete.
You could now sort matches of matches based on how the matches are related to your match with pro tools
Yes. It’s very useful.
Excellent!
Thanks
We don't want journeys we want DNA results.
I agree!!! It's like they're going down a path, "LA, la, la...." which they created but not pertinent to what we, as consumers, wanted. DNA results, please!!!😂
My daughter was assigned our Italian subregion but I wasn't, same thing happened for my uncle and cousin. My uncle was not assigned it but cousin was. Since me and my uncle are older shouldn't we match the subregions first? Timber likely caused what should have been with my half 2nd cousin, to be cut off but yet he and my daughter match and it is showing their match is via me.....
Wow! I watched this as I’m always curious and eager to understand more. I come out of it EXTREMELY disappointed in what he had to say. That they are actively trying to hide the Nordic contributions to English DNA to match customer expectations is disturbing to me. Personally, I’m very interested in my ancestry as deep and wide as it can be ascertained. To intentionally try to obscure that is completely the opposite of what I want and expect. So I am not happy whereas I was perfectly content before watching this. It seems anti intellectual to me. 🤷🏻 My Scottish amount halved and it moved to English. I’m surprised, I expected Welsh or Scottish to be more logically mistaken for Scottish than English. Any guesses as to why this occurred? Was a gene labelled Scottish incorrrectly?
I have a question about my father's DNA, I had finally got it, His mother was born in Scotland and his father in England. It says he is 54% Scottish, his mother's paternal grandfather was born in Ireland, so he is 2% Irish which makes sense, so I would like he would be 48% Scottish, but by parent it says 8% Paternal, which I have not found any Scottish Ancestry on his father's side. My real question is under Scotland it says Scottish Highland (have found any), but when you go to Journeys it says Scotland Central Belt, which is accurate, so why does it say Scottish Highlands?
I wish I could answer that for you, but I don't know. Keep in mind these are just estimates. Don't put a lot of weight into them. Plus, they are covering the migratory ancestors over several hundred years... based on member trees that have a DNA connection with you. So if, collectively, those trees are not correct, it might be misleading you.
Personally, I’m thrilled that I now show 13% Germanic Europe. It’s in my tree and documented, but wasn’t showing up. The new one that surprised me was Cornwall. How cool! I was reminded as I listened further, that my brother has even more Scottish and Irish, but no Germanic…but his totals don’t add up to 100% either, does anyone have insight on that?
That’s awesome! The update has been very interesting!
It was an Ok result of generalities. I know what I have on my chromosomes, and it missed out on a lot. It was rough estimate of ethnicities, with one engulfing others. I prefer breakdowns.
If I remember correctly, the further back an ancestor is, the less DNA you may have from them. For me, 74% of my DNA is somewhere in Great Britain, (England, Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall) But, all of the ancestors on my tree have been in the US since colonial times, late 1600s early 1700s. I find it interesting that I still have 74% British DNA when the connection to that region is so old.
Same here. Would love to hear a comprehensive explanation for that.
Genetically you're mostly British. So your results reflect that. What would you expect them to be? Are you mixed with other ethnicities?
@@siobhan28483no I would expect to be only British with a little bit of Irish. I haven’t found any ancestors from anywhere else. So I guess that makes sense.
There is no such thing as genetically American ethnicity, except native Americans (i.e. "American Indians"). The ancestors of everyone else in the U.S. came from other countries, so those are the ethnicities you will see.
Why is Ancestry, not giving me all the Ethnicities/ Regions. For an example, my mother has a middle Eastern percentage, on Family Tree DNA site, but not Ancestry.
Keep in mind they are different reference panels. Therefore the family trees of the DNA cousins on each site are different. This is why they are just estimates. I would not worry too much about it. They will change again as the reference panel grows and more research on those cousins trees are accomplished.
Part of the problem in Ancestry relying on family trees. Many times there is totally wrong information contained in family trees.
Do you know if Ancestry has tested a reference panel for Hungarian DNA? My boyfriend has a great-grandfather who allegedly was Hungarian (he lived in the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and his great grandmother definitely was Slovak. The Hungarian a big debate in their family.
Here is a link to all regions tested. support.ancestry.com/s/ancestrydna-regions
He said ancestry talks about ethnicity estimates giving you a window into your origins 500-1000 yrs ago but because of customer complaints about their ethnicity estimates not matching what they knew about their family history, and maybe not being useful for genealogy, they moved towards providing results they thought customers would find more recognizable in their tree and they did that by relying more on user generated trees they had before, or leaving out smaller percentage/location results? Ancestry's origins results are about moving away 500-1000 yrs ago to something more like journeys 300 yr mark?
Because this update's results were more general for me than before (losing two out of three sub regions that are in my family tree) I thought that ancestry was trying to make their ethnicity results less specific to better represent the 500-1000 yrs ago origins time frame that they've made about their ethnicity percentages.
It does make me wonder if the reason I lost those subregions had to do with some users deleting their trees/DNA results or making them private.
The Italian Swiss sub region arriving on the first day of the update and disappearing on the second was very strange.
My new results reflected accurately 1800's and before, but underestimated mid 1800's - 2024. My personal documentation can't reflect the older 1700's mid 1800's records. From 1880's it reflected a relatively 'OK' reflection. My problem is with England and Northwest EU which I imagine includes a large part of Flemish Belgian DNA .. but is vaguely grouped.
We have been asking Ancestry for a chromosome browser for years. If the answer is no, maybe a reasonable substitute is an additional feature associated with the longest shared segment. In the shared match list, it would be great if we could identify which of the shared matches are associated with the largest segment, vs other smaller segments, vs the smallest segment, etc.
Aaron could have been a bit clearer on the whole "ethnicity" thing in regards to time and place. The so called "ethnicity" calculators are measuring *your **_similarity_** to other people who are also testing* . Your DNA does _not_ have location markers. Your DNA can _not_ tell you where an ancestor lived. All that it can tell you is how similar you are to someone else. Everything about geography is inferred by comparing people who are similar to each other with claims of some of those people about the histories they have written about their past.
I'd gladly pay extra for a genuine Chromosome Browser.
As someone whose ancestry of last 5 generations are traceable to 6 counties in West Slovakia and East Czechia the current match of ethnicity is very reasonable. But i wish i had saved regions from the past. I say that, because those regions were reasonable. Because i have found Balkan and Baltic surnames. Now my mom’s dna is showing 2% Russian, but it would still be more reasonable to point to the Eastern Baltic republic region, since that is a region that i noticed some surnames in our pedigree to show up in. Considering that our ancestors lived along the Amber road, having dna from people that would travel along that route would be plausible. In the past mom also had 1% match to some Greek islands, which would also be plausible, because of Balkan migrations north 400 years ago.
Your last results are still there but a little hard to find. I’m not at my computer so I can’t remember exactly but it is a link at the bottom of one of the ethnicity estimates pages.
@ oh, ok. Thx
The ethnicity estimates are bunk.
After listening to the part on using multiple family DNA test results to recreate ancestors’ DNA profiles, intrepid genealogist heads off on world grave sampling tour to dig up ancestral teeth or other DNA-rich skeletal remains for forensic genealogical investigations… Other family members point out that journey should have begun on Halloween (31 October 2024) to be appropriate for such a ghoulish endeavour. Know-it-all head genealogical grave robber retorts that journey is scheduled to start tomorrow, i.e. All Souls’ Day or Day of the Dead, noting that motivation is entirely pure and aboveboard, relying heavily on inspiration for investigation’s having arrived in genealogical noggin on All Saints’ Day (1 November 2024). November 3rd, after being found by shocked verger in church crypt, overly enthusiastic genealogist observed by prison officer through gaolhouse grill ruminating on cunning plan to dig one’s way out of current temporary (!) setback wherein genealogical brick walls have become literal ones…
This cracked me up but if you want to avoid prison you can always use the more socially acceptable Lazarus tool on gedmatch to “resurrect” a DNA sample for an ancestor 😂
People should finally understand that these ethnicities estimates or origins are totally useless for serious genealogic research and they tell absolutely nothing about our ancestors. Even if the update is right or wrong, it tells totally nothing about our real ancestry. The only proper way to do the genetic genealogy is the chromosome mapping in connection with Y-DNA testing. Only this way of research can provide proper view on our ancestry. If people understand this, they will finally start testing with companies that provide the appropriate tools. Then Ancestry stops investing their time and resources into these useless updates and rather provide us the common tools that ALL other DNA companies have.
So, the results of Ancestry really mostly go back only 300 years as far as the communities. I kept wondering why I had no communities in the UK or in the rest of Europe. My ancestral lines have been in the US since the 1600s, with only one line coming to the US in 1755 from the Inner Hebrides in Scotland. Yet, I only have two communities ... one in NC and one in SC. Maybe My Heritage is a better bet than Ancestry for me.
Apparently I have no regions from my father and they are all from my mother. They both have long term ancestry in their regions. My father is from Connacht and my mother from Munster. However I have no regions from Connacht. I also have North Leinster which is apparently from my mother but it would make more sense if it was from my father.
23andme isnt dong well. Ancestry should take advantage of that opportunity by offering 23andme to Ancestry DNA data transfers, like myHeritage does.
Damn. So they shifted the whole timeline to make it more recent whereas i would have preferred to see DNA results based on pre-1000 AD ☹️
I am not paying extra over $170.00 to find out which parent my DNA comes from which is what Ancestry demands.
I'm not the least worried about ethnicity "estimates". My grandfathers family and generations were born in Scotland. Family records show there there for 300 yrs. Whats curious is Ancestry had me at 64% Scottish a few yrs ago now its 49%. 41% England and Northern Europe for the other side of the family. Funny anecdote on my Scottish grandfather, my mom and her mom always referred to grand ad Irish because of his red hair. Ancestry on me as 2% Irish. It's all "magic algorithms" and I think it will only get better. One odd note. I have a black friend, she has very pronounced features of blacks folks I grew up with in Tennessee. She is 45% Scandinavian. I know it's horrible to put that way but the her mother and father are as white as can be. Their DNA shows Scandinavian for both and have no recollection of black family members at all. Fluke or? Just how the numbers roll.
Could the friend be the product of an affair either mom or dad?
@@LauriPlaysOfficial She is 56 and had questioned both parent while growing up. Her parent met and married after College in Sweden. Moved to Ohio when she was a teenager. No DNA since they were killed in a car crash when she was in her 40's.
I don't want my family tree used to determine my DNA. There are branches of my family whom I don't have documentation of their their origins. I want my DNA test to tell me my origins.
I’m English and can’t quite understand going from zero to 19% Germanic Europe. However I do have an unknown grandfather and My Heritage has me down as 10% North European so maybe there is some truth in it.
Origins is a "that's nice" feature for me, but I'm not American and 75% of my family is from the same region (which is now what it says as well, so I guess that's right).
What I want is a chromosome browser so I can use all the Ancestry matches not uploaded elsewhere to confirm or disprove hypothese about things like NPEs more easily.
I suspect most AncestryDNA users want the originals, even if they're not accurate.
Mines more accurate.. I have less Scottish that is correct for me as I don’t have any Scottish ancestors going back to around the 1600’s… used to be 30% which was incorrect.
I think Ancestry should be using AI and obituaries, birth records and marriages etc to paint a true picture of the users family origins. It should even use private trees to match families.
1% Norway and 4% Sweden is wrong as I have no Norwegian or Swedish ancestor. 20 Wales is wrong as I have only 1 great grandfather from Wales(22% from my late maternal grandma 10-13% and 9-12% from her parents). Shropshire is from 4th-6th great grandparents on my papa’s side(my dad’s father).11% France is roughly accurate as my mama’s side is Arcadian(with native and Spainish mixture on my paternal grandmother). 16% England & MW Europe is wrong as I have two GGs from England and my Scottish side from the Foleman’a goes back to England(Colwman). Yet the McIntoshs ans McDonalds were from Scotland as same as the Blair’s. The Blair’s are Scoreish(with Irish and Scotch Irish/Anglo Irish Durch and German), the Bayleys were English with Irish mixture). That is Nana and Papa and my maternal gg Rith’S sides. Still wanting to know my maternal grandpa’s fsther’s aide? I don’t think he was Scoreish? Even though ancestry has me at 45% Scorland when Scottish is my 4th-5th GGs from my Nana and Papa and GG Rith’S sides. 3% Irish is wrong as well I do have Ieish andestoes on my dad’S side thst are 4th-6th Grest grandparents.
Mine is wrong it says 4% Swedish and 1% Norway when I have no Swedish or Nkrwegian ancestors. I have 20% Wales when I have only 1 welsh Great grandpa(11% not 20%). I have 1 6x GG from Spain. 11% Francs is almost complete accurate soth having Arcadian ancestors with Miqmaq, 3% Ireland when I have 3-4 known Irish ancestors from my dad’s side. I have 45% Scorland yet my 4th-6th GGs were Scoreish and Scotch Irish, 16% England when I have two 1st GG from England and 1-6th from England(even some of my Scoreiah ancestors were from England before immigrating to Scotland).I’m still trying to figure out my lost great grandpa.
Ancestry needs to realize a chromosome browser is absolutely essential for research. People probably do not know what it is or how to use it and they need it. I have so many matches that match multiple lines , I cannot verify how we actually relate.
I'm sure you have heard this before, but will Ancestry ever do Y chromosome and Mitochondrial chromosome testing?
My guess is no.
I think these DNA tests detect close relatives who have also taken the tests. Then it summarizes the information in which they put into their family trees on those websites. So technically, these aren't real hardcore DNA tests. For example: I have a relative who was adopted on my maternal side. She's a cousin. Her parents were Italian. When I did my DNA test with My Heritage it proclaimed that I was Italian. I can assure you that I am not Italian! Well, not from what I have confirmed from my family tree. Mind you, there is always a chance of people having illegitimate children somewhere in our family tree; however, I am pretty sure it was due to my cousin. I never saw any evidence of my father's ethnicity in my results either! It's probably because where I live, French Canada, My Heritage is lesser known and used. Take your results from these DNA tests with a grain of salt.
" So technically, these aren't real hardcore DNA tests."
I used to be 51 percent south indian. now im only 4. lmao
Respectfully, understand what is actually happening and being hypothesized before getting angry thinking it’s a hard science fact.