I've been an ancestry subscriber for over 20 years and, yes, I've had some complaints, but I guess what aggravates me the most is the addition of new features and new charges. The cost of your service is plenty. But now paying extra for military records and newspapers and this matches thing, I'm beginning to feel nickeled and dimed to death.
I'm not sure how long its going to survive with all of these fees, especially when some of the things are at other places for fr--. Once a large co. came in it went downhill. MH already had this feat. for years and the Chromosone Browser.
People shouldn't have to pay just to see who they match with, and also, they get to see everyone's trees, but they expect us to pay to see them, that's ridiculous. Its diminishing my trust for them!
Last I checked, you could get ProTools on a monthly subscription. Of course, you need to remember to cancel when you're done using it. But that can be a good option if you're going to be focused on DNA for awhile.
I think this pro tool really IS a game changer. But probably only for people who really understand DNA and how to use it. It has already solved a few long standing mysteries for me!
@@kjw79 I don't know if it was your intention or not, but your comment came across quite rude. Her point being you can sign up for one month and focus on DNA as an option. I agree that Ancestry is getting too expensive for many. And I also agree we are being nickel and dimed here. And that "lady" is knowledgeable, informative and had helpful. I for one have learned quite a bit from her videos.
Hi, misunderstanding: I was saying that the comment complaining about pricing really is not the fault of this wonderful content by the TH-camr. I see so many hard working genealogist post (free!) great content, and all people have to say in the comments is that they shouldn’t have to pay Ancestry. That can be their opinion, but I wish they wouldn’t complain about it all the time to those who take the time to teach us.
While I am intrigued by the new feature, I am really not sure I would get pro-tools even if ever becomes available up here in the Great White North (🇨🇦) as I would seem to me to be something that should be a part of the subscription in the first place.
Love the pro tools! I have been able to id a good number of matches with only initials and no trees by seeing that whoa - these 3 are siblings, and I already know how their uncle fits in.... Etc, etc. So many useful features!!
You're an angel! I just got Pro Tools, and I couldn't figure out how to get to the "Matches of Matches" feature. Your video was very helpful! Thank you!
One point people are not making is this gives one the impression that the three matches have the same Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCA). The MRCA between you and your match may be a different person than the MRCA between your match and your shared match. People tend to assume that the two MRCAs are the same person. They may or may not be. In other words the shared segments may not be the same between you and your match and you and your shared match!!
@@AmyJohnsonCrow Oh yes I added the Pro Tools and had an unknown cousin who had no tree, but with "Matches of Matches" I was able to see a common match who was on my tree and based on the cM match with my unknown cousin, was a sibling, so I with supporting evidence I can add the unknown cousin to my tree.
I've mainly found it to be useful for more recent matches, where it identifies family members taking tests. I can then take that information and do traditional genealogy to make the match. I had a couple stubborn mysteries in one of my lines - turns out they were father/daughter and social media for the verification win so that I could connect them. I would love to see a use case for farther back matches. Folks on my dad's line I can kind of see are related to his great grandmother, but I also see matches related to his great grandfather, so its a mess. I may be dealing with more complicated DNA than I originally thought on that line.
For months we've been told about free 'features' that encourage collaboration but pro tools does the exact opposite. If just 1% of 25 million dna testers pay for it each month that's $2.5 million each month. No company releases a product in the hope of getting just 1% uptake. As it's not available as a stand alone item it's mandatory to have at least a basic subscription and add pro tools on top so the reality is it costs far more than the 'advertised' price. To rub salt in the wounds let's not forget they are selling us information we provided to them by way of buying dna kits from them.
My Heritage gives the two people who are related to me without a subscription. It does matter if they have a tree. The same common people repeat a lot. I'm sure it's not the same but I broke a wall with it. Have you seen it?
I've been playing with shared matches for just a few days, and I've already learned so much! Here is just one example: I had already identified a group of DNA matches who shared a common ancestor (B), who (based only on a family name and the DNA matches) I conjectured was the sister of my great-grandmother (A). Now with shared matches, I can also compare them to my two second cousins. Now I have a much better case that (A) and (B) are sisters, using the shared match info. But there's more. I found another set of my DNA matches, which the shared match feature told me were closely related. I was able to trace their tree, and found out they share a common ancestor (C) who also shares the same family name with (A) and (B). The shared matches among all these descended (over a dozen different tests) prove to me that (A), (B), and (C) are very closely related, and it's very likely they are all sisters. Note that these are all Lebanese immigrants to the US born in Lebanon before 1900. I suspect the shared match feature is going to be especially useful to you if you're in the same boat: trying to relate immigrant families who go back around 3-5 generations, from places with no avaible records.
Are these tools available in Ancestry® Pro Tools? It only says "See how MUCH dna is shared with matches... not HOW theyre matched" ... ahh just heard her say its just the US lol
Questions: - Will an Ancestry Pro-Tools subscription add the feature to ALL kits you manage / collaborate on, or just your primary? - If you associate a tree with a kit, link a few dozen matches in the kit to that tree, then temporarily disconnect the kit from the tree, then reconnect the kit to the same tree, will you have to manually reconnect the matches?
Matches are done by Ancestry, and it isn’t dependent on the tree the kit is attached to. (You don’t even need to attach it to a tree to get matches, since the matching is on the DNA, not the tree.) The ProTools is per account, so you would have this feature for all of the kits that you manage.
@@daniel.horowitz I like MyHeritage a lot but their biggest problem is the quality of DNA matching algorithm. A lot of false negatives and a lot of false positives (close cousins matching someone but neither of parents, people having a match in all other databases but no match after uploading to MyHeritage etc.) and they are not interested in fixing this. I made an experiment some time ago and noticed that over 90% shared segments reported by MyHeritage is not shared with either parent.
I've just signed up for a month to try it this new feature (oh and I'm from the UK and it became available a few days ok, don't know this is available to everyone here but just thought you should know). I've previously slated Ancestry for putting things beyond paywalls more than most, but to me this is a feature that is reasonably priced (i bought it for £5 for one month, which i think it's reasonable). There is one thing about these matches of matches that everyone else reviewing this new feature that no one has mentioned. Amy go and have a look at this feature again, note down the matches for a middle matching person and then put out another video because for me there is something in there that is a game changer that everyone reviewing this has overlooked and Ancestry isn't putting out there. It's something I've complained and before and I'm doing a lot of work now in case it's something Ancestry didn't mean to implement.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow Got it!!! Not heard anyone mention this, and I'm wondering if it's not intentional and is a bug that will be removed in beta. As someone who is researching my 2x g grandfather whose matches back to the common ancestor are around 20cM this restriction has had me pulling my hair out because I usually get 4 or 5 shared matches at best, more I can see 20 more and as you said the relationships between them all. This is a game changer. Oh, and to correct you on a point you made in the video there is a way before this to find more potential matches, which is to contact the match and ask them to share their DNA matches with you. The only problem with this approach is that many don't respond, don't want to do this, but some are and do. I do think you should share this because again I wonder how many people know you can do this. It's not perfect because matches you both have might be related in different ways, but it will give you hints if you are researching distant matches who aren't from the same state, region, country, or even continent. Finally, in addition to what I said in my first comment I don't mind paying extra for new features, if they will help and aren't overpriced. I don't think taking away what people who may be just getting into DNA genealogy and have bought a DNA test is a great idea (a free 3 or 6 months should be included to get them hooked). I honestly think this is a game changer, but I'll be dipping in and it is using it so it won't be $100 extra a year.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow Fair enough. I'm not really disappointed in you but saying this because if it takes them a while to realise this and push out updates then I have time to get crucial information that might not ever be possible any other way in the near future!!!
Are there any tools at Ancestry, GEDmatch, or elsewhere that allow me to find DNA matches tied to a specific region of the world? Both my brother's and my DNA shows 3% African DNA as does a maternal 1st cousin and no paternal cousins. So, I'm fairly confident it came from the maternal side. We want to celebrate that part of our ancestry as we wouldn't be here today if it weren't for them. Even with the recent updates to ancestral regions, the 3% didn't change. On Ancestry I have found Black members who share DNA with me, but no way to know if the DNA we share is from Africa or anywhere else in the world. I want to identify other matches of those segments which are said to originate in Africa, but not sure how to do that...if it's possible. I also hope that I may be able to help those matches learn more about their own ancestral roots, too. GEDmatch has been a wonderful (FREE!!) tool for narrowing down searches, but even when it shows a graph of exactly what segments on which chromosome the matches are found, I don't know how to identify if those overlapped areas came from Africa or elsewhere. Any thoughts or suggestions?
Thank you for the video!! I have found that the - how are your matches related to each other - to be inaccurate in some instances, so you may get wrong suggested relationships. Cousin instead of uncle, Nephew instead of grandson, which could lead us to follow a wrong family line, so we can't be definite on some of these relationships. What's the best way to determine he accuracy here?
The relationship that's displayed is what Ancestry predicts to be the most likely. If you click on the relationship, you'll see other possibilities based upon the amount of DNA that's shared. Ultimately, it comes down to research.
If you have paid for Ancestry's ProTools, you'll see the matches of your matches show up when you click on someone on your matches list, then click on the Shared Matches tab.
I just got this to try and while I still need to get used to it and really work with it, I am already disappointed. Why can't I see if my match matches me and others on THEIR Paternal or Maternal side? Or am I missing something? That could really be helpful!
I'm disappointed that the text of the videos are no longer provided. Often I don't have time to watch the videos, even if they are short, but I do have time to save and read the texts. I also keep the printed texts for reference material.
I have been sent DNA matches for years. I have yet to find a realistic match to my family. So why should I pay extra for something which should be included in what I paid for?
It's a game changer, but it looks like there are still some bugs. For example, you can't see the longest segment of the other match (it shows up as blank cM).
I have run into the problem that Ancestry has mine and my moms dna, yet they list maternal as paternal matches and vice versa. It makes me think my parents may have been related. Somewhere between a 5-10th cousin.
They could be. Also, make sure that you changed the labels correctly. Ancestry labels them as Parent 1 and Parent 2. Parent 1 isn’t everyone’s parental side.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow i marked mom’s dna as maternal, but ancestry has a red exclamation point saying that while i marked the match as maternal they think it’s a match to both sides.
@JoeNka-rl8eh It happens sometimes. If the match is also on your father’s side, it might be further back than what one of you has identified in your trees.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow my heritage is from Slovakia, with birth records of parents, their parents and so forth coming from 6 or 7 counties in West Slovakia & East Czechia. Geographically close, but not overlapping much. I am often limited by when records started to be kept. My mom’s home parish started records in 1752. Some of her ancestors reach into nearby town, but the limit there is 1660’s. I suspect my parents common ancestor was born near or before 1620. Dad’s hometown records are also limited out around 1700. The key to their shared ancestry could be in the influx of Serbo-Croatians escaping Turkish rule, and settling in these areas that my ancestors were born into in that timeframe of the first half of 17th century. I have a number of direct ancestors born in the 18th and 19th century with Serbo-Croatian surnames. 5 or 6 years ago Ancestry made a distinction between Western Slavs and peoples from the Balkans, and i showed about 5% Balkan. Ancestry has since recalculated. But i make a note of what they add or subtract. With each recalculation Ancestry is increasing my Slavic ancestry portion from 86% at first to 96% now.
This seems mind boggling to me! My paternal grandmother Came from Cape Breton. Her name was Margaret Catherine MacDonald. She came to the USA when she was 14 with her female cousin of the same age. Her name was Katherine Margaret MacDonald! I called her Aunt Katey. In high school, I had a buddy named Peter MacNeil. Never occurred to either of us that we were related but, at the funeral of Aunt Katey we both found out we were related! Small world!
Overwhelmed by countless DNA matches? No, I only have a few hundred so I have the opposite problem. This sort of feature will save some people time but for people like me, who live outside north America where DNA testing is less popular, it could be the breakthrough we've been waiting for. As Amy mentions one of the problems is matches who lack trees, don't respond and can't be researched. When you don't have many matches this is more than annoying, it can be a brickwall itself, especially if multiple people can help but don't respond I'm disappointed by Ancestry charging us these days but at least this is genuinely useful. If it leads to new info then I'll happily pay. If anything it means I won't have to pester other users for basic info
I can't believe that Ancestry does the DNA match and then compares it to family trees of those matches. If it's true, then how come so many DNA matches have either no tree or a limited few have a tree with 1 to 7 people. It's a puzzle to me for certain
People do the tests for all kinds of reasons, including for the ethnicity estimate. Some people have no interest in building a tree. Think of it this way - if Ancestry was looking at the trees first, you’d never see a match with someone who doesn’t have a tree.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow You stated in your video that Ancestry does the DNA match and then aligns the DNA to the trees. What I am questioning is how they can align to trees that are NOT there. Makes no sense.
@lionheart830 Ancestry isn’t aligning trees. If there is a genetic match, they will then look at the trees attached to those tests (if any). If the trees have people in common, Ancestry will give a notice of “common ancestor.” Regardless of what the trees show, the relationships that they show between you and a match is based upon the amount of DNA you share.
💡 for Ancestry... i know it's a BUSINESS. But it would be great if all others linked up to Ancestry showing the others have matches that ancestry doesn't. Then the patron can decide if they want to subscribe for a while I so orefer ancestry but costs are nuts. That's why people do the DNA but dont subscribe.. Just saying. If that didnt make sense, i will expand.
While the news is uber exciting, the paywall is less as much lol. I haven't subscribed to the pro portion yet, as most times it is clunky and the "backend servers" are down etc. I'll wait a bit. The dead can wait as well I figured. I am very green on the DNA portion, and have only dabbled with DNA Painter a few times. I can see how the cM's between matches could help in that regard. Wrapping my head around it all will take time I guess.
I hear ya about not being thrilled that it's part of ProTools! One good thing is that you can subscribe to ProTools on a monthly basis; you don't have to commit to an entire year. When you're feeling more up-to-speed with DNA, you could take it out for a spin for a month or two.
I'm not thrilled about the extra $$ but have subscribed to try it out. Currently, I have entered known matches (1st & 2nd cousins on one branch) into BanyanDNA to validate that I have everyone in the correct place. It is looking good so far. Now I plan to enter those other shared matches as hypothesis to see approximately where they will land in the tree. This strategy should help me identify my unknown 2xGreat Grandfather.
@@any1butclinton The 10 bucks a month is really nothing in the grand scheme of things. I get it. I just didn't like that it became a separate charge. But like Amy said, you can opt out. Me personally, I have every DNA cousin down to 50cM's identified. I don't know how far I want to go down that rabbit hole. I may try the pro tools to see what issues it uncovers in regards to my tree. Maybe I have some hidden errors. Just don't know if I want to do it during the summer, since I'm pretty busy.
The dirty little secret never mentioned on Ancestry is that everyone is really a cousin of everyone else, and we all share a common place of origin: Africa, in one or several regions. Everywhere else our ancestors have been is just a waypoint along the way to where we are right now.
This add-on feature will likely have the results anticipated by Ancestry of increasing their revenues, but it won't be very helpful for those paying for it. All of your matches are related to, but the only way to prove a specific line is through a chromosome browser with the ability of triangulation. To illustrate how useless this new feature is, move your DNA to a service that has a chromosome browser (all of Ancestry's competitors) and look at your matches then see how many of those matches of matches triangulate. It won't be very many. Ancestry has some good features, but this add-on isn't a serious attempt to aid their subscribers in solving relationships.
I think this will be helpful in using WATO, because you need to know how much the matches match to the target kit. And so I like this idea for that reason. I just don't know if I can justify the cost just to have to go to another tool. Either way, I am not spending that money just yet, I have other projects to work on.
I disagree. While a chromosome browser would be nice, it isn't like you cannot make discoveries without one. This tool has already proven to be useful for focusing research and spotting anomalies in relationships.
@AmyJohnsonCrow In Ancestry if you're looking for your father's line, (example Jones), you might select matches of match to a known Jones line, and the results will be related, but not likely on yourvJones line. I thought you would have seen this opening and would have mentioned this.
I've been an ancestry subscriber for over 20 years and, yes, I've had some complaints, but I guess what aggravates me the most is the addition of new features and new charges. The cost of your service is plenty. But now paying extra for military records and newspapers and this matches thing, I'm beginning to feel nickeled and dimed to death.
You're not the only one who feels that way. Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of change on that horizon.
I totally agree.
@@lionheart830 Thank you.
I'm not sure how long its going to survive with all of these fees, especially when some of the things are at other places for fr--. Once a large co. came in it went downhill. MH already had this feat. for years and the Chromosone Browser.
People shouldn't have to pay just to see who they match with, and also, they get to see everyone's trees, but they expect us to pay to see them, that's ridiculous. Its diminishing my trust for them!
Disappointed to see this is pro tools only. It is a nice feature, but 120 bucks every year is too much right now for pro.
Last I checked, you could get ProTools on a monthly subscription. Of course, you need to remember to cancel when you're done using it. But that can be a good option if you're going to be focused on DNA for awhile.
That really has nothing to with this lady.
I think this pro tool really IS a game changer. But probably only for people who really understand DNA and how to use it. It has already solved a few long standing mysteries for me!
@@kjw79 I don't know if it was your intention or not, but your comment came across quite rude. Her point being you can sign up for one month and focus on DNA as an option. I agree that Ancestry is getting too expensive for many. And I also agree we are being nickel and dimed here. And that "lady" is knowledgeable, informative and had helpful. I for one have learned quite a bit from her videos.
Hi, misunderstanding: I was saying that the comment complaining about pricing really is not the fault of this wonderful content by the TH-camr. I see so many hard working genealogist post (free!) great content, and all people have to say in the comments is that they shouldn’t have to pay Ancestry. That can be their opinion, but I wish they wouldn’t complain about it all the time to those who take the time to teach us.
While I am intrigued by the new feature, I am really not sure I would get pro-tools even if ever becomes available up here in the Great White North (🇨🇦) as I would seem to me to be something that should be a part of the subscription in the first place.
it is available in Canada, I've had it for a few days. it's really cool.
Pro Tools shared matches is awesome. I've been able to identify and/or confirm relationships bc of it. Plus, it expands tree availability.
I am really sick of the upselling to get enhancements that should be included in your membership.
Me too.
Love the pro tools! I have been able to id a good number of matches with only initials and no trees by seeing that whoa - these 3 are siblings, and I already know how their uncle fits in....
Etc, etc.
So many useful features!!
You're an angel! I just got Pro Tools, and I couldn't figure out how to get to the "Matches of Matches" feature. Your video was very helpful! Thank you!
I get the same thing on 23&Me and I do not have to pay for it.
💯💯💯 kudos to 23nme
I find matches on 23 and Me impossible to use.
How's that working for you? 23&Me matches sucks.
23 and me removed this feature months ago.
This is not new. I’ve used shared matches for years.
I stopped using Ancestry once they started locking down more and more stuff behind paywalls
I’m thinking the same, not sure I’ll renew.
One point people are not making is this gives one the impression that the three matches have the same Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCA). The MRCA between you and your match may be a different person than the MRCA between your match and your shared match. People tend to assume that the two MRCAs are the same person. They may or may not be.
In other words the shared segments may not be the same between you and your match and you and your shared match!!
Very true! But being able to see the relationships can help sort these things out more easily.
Christa Cowan said that AncestryDNA is working on indicating triangulated segments. That would be awesome.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow Oh yes I added the Pro Tools and had an unknown cousin who had no tree, but with "Matches of Matches" I was able to see a common match who was on my tree and based on the cM match with my unknown cousin, was a sibling, so I with supporting evidence I can add the unknown cousin to my tree.
That’s really helpful , thank you.
If the cost goes up again this year, I won't be able to afford it. So sad because I love doing this.
Australia has it, too. The first thing I found out was when the home person on the attached to DNA test kit public family tree is not the tester.
Great vid as per.
Just a heads up that the UK release was yday, 24th June
Glad you liked the video! Thanks for the heads-up on the UK release.
I've mainly found it to be useful for more recent matches, where it identifies family members taking tests. I can then take that information and do traditional genealogy to make the match. I had a couple stubborn mysteries in one of my lines - turns out they were father/daughter and social media for the verification win so that I could connect them.
I would love to see a use case for farther back matches. Folks on my dad's line I can kind of see are related to his great grandmother, but I also see matches related to his great grandfather, so its a mess. I may be dealing with more complicated DNA than I originally thought on that line.
I use this feature all the time. Invaluable.
I don't know my dad relatives. Hope this will be helpful in identifying the family groupings and extend my tree
I hope so, too!
For months we've been told about free 'features' that encourage collaboration but pro tools does the exact opposite. If just 1% of 25 million dna testers pay for it each month that's $2.5 million each month. No company releases a product in the hope of getting just 1% uptake. As it's not available as a stand alone item it's mandatory to have at least a basic subscription and add pro tools on top so the reality is it costs far more than the 'advertised' price. To rub salt in the wounds let's not forget they are selling us information we provided to them by way of buying dna kits from them.
If you can figure out how to navigate GED matches its free
@@anniesshenanigans3815 I only have two matches on there above 40cM and I manage both of those results myself.
My Heritage gives the two people who are related to me without a subscription. It does matter if they have a tree. The same common people repeat a lot. I'm sure it's not the same but I broke a wall with it. Have you seen it?
I've been playing with shared matches for just a few days, and I've already learned so much! Here is just one example:
I had already identified a group of DNA matches who shared a common ancestor (B), who (based only on a family name and the DNA matches) I conjectured was the sister of my great-grandmother (A). Now with shared matches, I can also compare them to my two second cousins. Now I have a much better case that (A) and (B) are sisters, using the shared match info.
But there's more. I found another set of my DNA matches, which the shared match feature told me were closely related. I was able to trace their tree, and found out they share a common ancestor (C) who also shares the same family name with (A) and (B). The shared matches among all these descended (over a dozen different tests) prove to me that (A), (B), and (C) are very closely related, and it's very likely they are all sisters.
Note that these are all Lebanese immigrants to the US born in Lebanon before 1900. I suspect the shared match feature is going to be especially useful to you if you're in the same boat: trying to relate immigrant families who go back around 3-5 generations, from places with no avaible records.
Are these tools available in Ancestry® Pro Tools? It only says "See how MUCH dna is shared with matches... not HOW theyre matched" ... ahh just heard her say its just the US lol
Questions:
- Will an Ancestry Pro-Tools subscription add the feature to ALL kits you manage / collaborate on, or just your primary?
- If you associate a tree with a kit, link a few dozen matches in the kit to that tree, then temporarily disconnect the kit from the tree, then reconnect the kit to the same tree, will you have to manually reconnect the matches?
Matches are done by Ancestry, and it isn’t dependent on the tree the kit is attached to. (You don’t even need to attach it to a tree to get matches, since the matching is on the DNA, not the tree.) The ProTools is per account, so you would have this feature for all of the kits that you manage.
How does this differ from what Myheritage offers on their DNA matching service?
MyHeritage has offered "Shared DNA Matches" for each of your DNA matches since the very beginning, and they are included in your subscription price.
@@daniel.horowitz I like MyHeritage a lot but their biggest problem is the quality of DNA matching algorithm. A lot of false negatives and a lot of false positives (close cousins matching someone but neither of parents, people having a match in all other databases but no match after uploading to MyHeritage etc.) and they are not interested in fixing this.
I made an experiment some time ago and noticed that over 90% shared segments reported by MyHeritage is not shared with either parent.
Great explanation.
I've just signed up for a month to try it this new feature (oh and I'm from the UK and it became available a few days ok, don't know this is available to everyone here but just thought you should know). I've previously slated Ancestry for putting things beyond paywalls more than most, but to me this is a feature that is reasonably priced (i bought it for £5 for one month, which i think it's reasonable).
There is one thing about these matches of matches that everyone else reviewing this new feature that no one has mentioned. Amy go and have a look at this feature again, note down the matches for a middle matching person and then put out another video because for me there is something in there that is a game changer that everyone reviewing this has overlooked and Ancestry isn't putting out there. It's something I've complained and before and I'm doing a lot of work now in case it's something Ancestry didn't mean to implement.
Are you talking about how you can see matches that are below 20 cM? :-)
@@AmyJohnsonCrow Got it!!! Not heard anyone mention this, and I'm wondering if it's not intentional and is a bug that will be removed in beta. As someone who is researching my 2x g grandfather whose matches back to the common ancestor are around 20cM this restriction has had me pulling my hair out because I usually get 4 or 5 shared matches at best, more I can see 20 more and as you said the relationships between them all. This is a game changer.
Oh, and to correct you on a point you made in the video there is a way before this to find more potential matches, which is to contact the match and ask them to share their DNA matches with you. The only problem with this approach is that many don't respond, don't want to do this, but some are and do. I do think you should share this because again I wonder how many people know you can do this. It's not perfect because matches you both have might be related in different ways, but it will give you hints if you are researching distant matches who aren't from the same state, region, country, or even continent.
Finally, in addition to what I said in my first comment I don't mind paying extra for new features, if they will help and aren't overpriced. I don't think taking away what people who may be just getting into DNA genealogy and have bought a DNA test is a great idea (a free 3 or 6 months should be included to get them hooked). I honestly think this is a game changer, but I'll be dipping in and it is using it so it won't be $100 extra a year.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow Is everyone trying to keep this quiet so not too many people try it?
I didn't show the 20 cM thing because I'm not positive that it isn't a glitch.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow Fair enough. I'm not really disappointed in you but saying this because if it takes them a while to realise this and push out updates then I have time to get crucial information that might not ever be possible any other way in the near future!!!
Thanks!
Are there any tools at Ancestry, GEDmatch, or elsewhere that allow me to find DNA matches tied to a specific region of the world? Both my brother's and my DNA shows 3% African DNA as does a maternal 1st cousin and no paternal cousins. So, I'm fairly confident it came from the maternal side. We want to celebrate that part of our ancestry as we wouldn't be here today if it weren't for them. Even with the recent updates to ancestral regions, the 3% didn't change.
On Ancestry I have found Black members who share DNA with me, but no way to know if the DNA we share is from Africa or anywhere else in the world. I want to identify other matches of those segments which are said to originate in Africa, but not sure how to do that...if it's possible.
I also hope that I may be able to help those matches learn more about their own ancestral roots, too. GEDmatch has been a wonderful (FREE!!) tool for narrowing down searches, but even when it shows a graph of exactly what segments on which chromosome the matches are found, I don't know how to identify if those overlapped areas came from Africa or elsewhere.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
This looks like feature from My Heritage.
Thank you for the video!! I have found that the - how are your matches related to each other - to be inaccurate in some instances, so you may get wrong suggested relationships. Cousin instead of uncle, Nephew instead of grandson, which could lead us to follow a wrong family line, so we can't be definite on some of these relationships. What's the best way to determine he accuracy here?
The relationship that's displayed is what Ancestry predicts to be the most likely. If you click on the relationship, you'll see other possibilities based upon the amount of DNA that's shared. Ultimately, it comes down to research.
How do you get to this feature? I used it I. Accident once now I don’t know how I go to it
If you have paid for Ancestry's ProTools, you'll see the matches of your matches show up when you click on someone on your matches list, then click on the Shared Matches tab.
I just got this to try and while I still need to get used to it and really work with it, I am already disappointed. Why can't I see if my match matches me and others on THEIR Paternal or Maternal side? Or am I missing something? That could really be helpful!
I'm disappointed that the text of the videos are no longer provided. Often I don't have time to watch the videos, even if they are short, but I do have time to save and read the texts. I also keep the printed texts for reference material.
I have been sent DNA matches for years. I have yet to find a realistic match to my family. So why should I pay extra for something which should be included in what I paid for?
It's a game changer, but it looks like there are still some bugs.
For example, you can't see the longest segment of the other match (it shows up as blank cM).
Question: people can be used as a pawn and murdered etc and info can be change
The bit about this is only being rolled out in the US, I already have it, and I’m in the UK!
When I made this video, it was only rolled out to the US. Ancestry has since made it available in other regions.
I have run into the problem that Ancestry has mine and my moms dna, yet they list maternal as paternal matches and vice versa. It makes me think my parents may have been related. Somewhere between a 5-10th cousin.
They could be. Also, make sure that you changed the labels correctly. Ancestry labels them as Parent 1 and Parent 2. Parent 1 isn’t everyone’s parental side.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow i marked mom’s dna as maternal, but ancestry has a red exclamation point saying that while i marked the match as maternal they think it’s a match to both sides.
@JoeNka-rl8eh It happens sometimes. If the match is also on your father’s side, it might be further back than what one of you has identified in your trees.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow my heritage is from Slovakia, with birth records of parents, their parents and so forth coming from 6 or 7 counties in West Slovakia & East Czechia. Geographically close, but not overlapping much. I am often limited by when records started to be kept. My mom’s home parish started records in 1752. Some of her ancestors reach into nearby town, but the limit there is 1660’s. I suspect my parents common ancestor was born near or before 1620. Dad’s hometown records are also limited out around 1700. The key to their shared ancestry could be in the influx of Serbo-Croatians escaping Turkish rule, and settling in these areas that my ancestors were born into in that timeframe of the first half of 17th century. I have a number of direct ancestors born in the 18th and 19th century with Serbo-Croatian surnames. 5 or 6 years ago Ancestry made a distinction between Western Slavs and peoples from the Balkans, and i showed about 5% Balkan. Ancestry has since recalculated. But i make a note of what they add or subtract. With each recalculation Ancestry is increasing my Slavic ancestry portion from 86% at first to 96% now.
This seems mind boggling to me! My paternal grandmother Came from Cape Breton. Her name was Margaret Catherine MacDonald. She came to the USA when she was 14 with her female cousin of the same age. Her name was Katherine Margaret MacDonald! I called her Aunt Katey. In high school, I had a buddy named Peter MacNeil. Never occurred to either of us that we were related but, at the funeral of Aunt Katey we both found out we were related! Small world!
I’ve got over 50,000 DNA matches and have given up trying to make use of those hints. If someone contacts me, I’ll work with them.
Overwhelmed by countless DNA matches? No, I only have a few hundred so I have the opposite problem. This sort of feature will save some people time but for people like me, who live outside north America where DNA testing is less popular, it could be the breakthrough we've been waiting for.
As Amy mentions one of the problems is matches who lack trees, don't respond and can't be researched. When you don't have many matches this is more than annoying, it can be a brickwall itself, especially if multiple people can help but don't respond
I'm disappointed by Ancestry charging us these days but at least this is genuinely useful. If it leads to new info then I'll happily pay. If anything it means I won't have to pester other users for basic info
I can't believe that Ancestry does the DNA match and then compares it to family trees of those matches. If it's true, then how come so many DNA matches have either no tree or a limited few have a tree with 1 to 7 people. It's a puzzle to me for certain
People do the tests for all kinds of reasons, including for the ethnicity estimate. Some people have no interest in building a tree. Think of it this way - if Ancestry was looking at the trees first, you’d never see a match with someone who doesn’t have a tree.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow You stated in your video that Ancestry does the DNA match and then aligns the DNA to the trees. What I am questioning is how they can align to trees that are NOT there. Makes no sense.
@lionheart830 Ancestry isn’t aligning trees. If there is a genetic match, they will then look at the trees attached to those tests (if any). If the trees have people in common, Ancestry will give a notice of “common ancestor.” Regardless of what the trees show, the relationships that they show between you and a match is based upon the amount of DNA you share.
@@AmyJohnsonCrow This could have been your explanation in your video.
Eyes ears nose and throat too
💡 for Ancestry... i know it's a BUSINESS.
But it would be great if all others linked up to Ancestry showing the others have matches that ancestry doesn't. Then the patron can decide if they want to subscribe for a while
I so orefer ancestry but costs are nuts. That's why people do the DNA but dont subscribe..
Just saying.
If that didnt make sense, i will expand.
While the news is uber exciting, the paywall is less as much lol. I haven't subscribed to the pro portion yet, as most times it is clunky and the "backend servers" are down etc. I'll wait a bit. The dead can wait as well I figured. I am very green on the DNA portion, and have only dabbled with DNA Painter a few times. I can see how the cM's between matches could help in that regard. Wrapping my head around it all will take time I guess.
I hear ya about not being thrilled that it's part of ProTools! One good thing is that you can subscribe to ProTools on a monthly basis; you don't have to commit to an entire year. When you're feeling more up-to-speed with DNA, you could take it out for a spin for a month or two.
I'm not thrilled about the extra $$ but have subscribed to try it out. Currently, I have entered known matches (1st & 2nd cousins on one branch) into BanyanDNA to validate that I have everyone in the correct place. It is looking good so far. Now I plan to enter those other shared matches as hypothesis to see approximately where they will land in the tree. This strategy should help me identify my unknown 2xGreat Grandfather.
@@any1butclinton The 10 bucks a month is really nothing in the grand scheme of things. I get it. I just didn't like that it became a separate charge. But like Amy said, you can opt out. Me personally, I have every DNA cousin down to 50cM's identified. I don't know how far I want to go down that rabbit hole. I may try the pro tools to see what issues it uncovers in regards to my tree. Maybe I have some hidden errors. Just don't know if I want to do it during the summer, since I'm pretty busy.
The dirty little secret never mentioned on Ancestry is that everyone is really a cousin of everyone else, and we all share a common place of origin: Africa, in one or several regions. Everywhere else our ancestors have been is just a waypoint along the way to where we are right now.
Only with Pro Tools: Booooooo! Thumbs down.
There is something sickening about having to pay extra to view the military records of a family member who already paid the ultimate price in WWI
Fraud, just fraud. If you’re selling dreams, call them dreams.
I used ancestry for years but quit a couple years ago. The cost is gone crazy! I’m not going to pay for these extra resources.
This add-on feature will likely have the results anticipated by Ancestry of increasing their revenues, but it won't be very helpful for those paying for it.
All of your matches are related to, but the only way to prove a specific line is through a chromosome browser with the ability of triangulation. To illustrate how useless this new feature is, move your DNA to a service that has a chromosome browser (all of Ancestry's competitors) and look at your matches then see how many of those matches of matches triangulate. It won't be very many.
Ancestry has some good features, but this add-on isn't a serious attempt to aid their subscribers in solving relationships.
Have to disagree.
I think this will be helpful in using WATO, because you need to know how much the matches match to the target kit. And so I like this idea for that reason. I just don't know if I can justify the cost just to have to go to another tool. Either way, I am not spending that money just yet, I have other projects to work on.
I disagree. While a chromosome browser would be nice, it isn't like you cannot make discoveries without one. This tool has already proven to be useful for focusing research and spotting anomalies in relationships.
@AmyJohnsonCrow In Ancestry if you're looking for your father's line, (example Jones), you might select matches of match to a known Jones line, and the results will be related, but not likely on yourvJones line.
I thought you would have seen this opening and would have mentioned this.
@@staceycoates1418 Interesting what you said re WATO.