Check to see when they last signed on. We had a discussion about this on another list. Often people lose interest and drop their membership. Or they change their email address and don't know they have a message. Also, they have to have it set up so that they can be contacted. I've had someone apologize by saying she rarely check their her email account. There's that leaf, but I guess they don't see that. Yes, it is disappointing. Someone from a line I'm interested in copied something from my tree. I wrote to see how they were connected, but never heard back. It is possible to 'talk' to people if they see a message and respond before I sign off. But this is rare. -----Original Message----- From: ROOTS [mailto:roots-bounces+america4821=myactv.net@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Smith Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:29 PM To: roots@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry DNA Im glad we have the system of a place to build our trees. My gribe is having hundreds of predicted cousins and haveing 1% acually responding to contact of mutual genealogy. That concludes me that there is ghost -bots devised in system. It just cant be that people arent interested in broading their heretiage knowledge? wayne ________________________________ From: ROOTS <roots-bounces+chessman52=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of d-mahurin@comcast.net <d-mahurin@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:26 AM To: roots@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry DNA Thank you - you are so right. God bless and happy hunting. Mary Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joan Young via ROOTS" <roots@rootsweb.com> To: kadica@tds.net, roots@rootsweb.com Cc: "Joan Young" <jyoung6180@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:31:31 PM Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry DNA Quite a few trees contain incorrect information but not everything in the trees is bogus. Even if some dates or individuals or relationships are incorrect quite often the locations are. Trees are not used to compile your DNA matches or other DNA-related information other than Circles, hints, NADs and Genetic Communities. Ancestry is very much aware that trees (and any use contributed data) may contain errors but when you take the preponderance of the information in the 4.5 million trees (if that is the number of trees) you end up pretty accurate information. For example once DNA clusters and migration patterns can be established based upon DNA alone tree information can then be used to establish that the Community is comprised primarily of Pennsylvania Germans (as just one example). Joan Young jyoung6180@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: TDS <kadica@tds.net> To: roots <roots@rootsweb.com> Cc: Joan Young <jyoung6180@aol.com> Sent: Wed, May 17, 2017 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry DNA And how many of the 4.5 million trees on Ancestry are correct? Not many I suspect. It is almost impossible to correct a line due to erroneous trees being copied over and over even though chronologically they don't make sense. Early on an generally accepted error in my tree was compounded over and over again by many researchers. When proof of the error was found and the correct information presented it was impossible to correct the original error due to so many trees being copied over and over. Unfortunately many are still using the incorrect line. Karen Sent from my iPad > On May 15, 2017, at 5:45 PM, Joan Young via ROOTS <roots@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > That is like cutting off your nose to spite your face as the old saying goes. I've tested with both AncestryDNA and 23andme and uploaded my raw data to FTDNA, MyHeritage, and DNAland. I'd estimate 99% of the matches I can identify and verify are from AncestryDNA. This is due to the size of their database (nearly 4.5 million) vs. 23andme about 2 million and FTDNA who won't release this information but is through to be less than 1 million. It is also due to more people having tree information on AncestryDNA than the other sites. I agree that we need a chromosome browser on AncestryDNA to really make the matches verifiable but uploading the raw data to GEDMatch can accomplish this. > > > > > > Joan Young > jyoung6180@aol.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Laura Loding <lloding@cox.net> > To: roots <roots@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Mon, May 15, 2017 5:29 pm > Subject: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry DNA > > This DNA situation is where GedMatch steps in. You can upload your > Ancestry results or any of the major outfits to GedMatch and continue > to find additional matches. > > They have some great tools too that can compare segment by segment. > > Personally I don't care for Ancestry's policies so I refuse to use > them for DNA. > > Laura Loding > Hayes, VA > > > >> From: BARTON LEWIS <bartonlewis@optonline.net> >> To: Web Roots <roots@rootsweb.com> >> Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry DNA >> Message-ID: <464bb937.8d948.15c0d87daf8.Webtop.32@optonline.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed; delsp=no >> >> Hi Bev, >> >> Was the person who told you about the "70% chance" one of Art's matches?? >> What was the basis for their belief about the couple Art was >> supposedly descended from?? Since the couple was born about 100 years >> before Art, > it's >> unlikely they were closer than great-grandparents.? If the person who >> gave > you >> that information was basing it on the amount of DNA shared, then the > question >> you should be asking is, how do you know it's that set of > great-grandparents (or >> great-great-grandparents) and not some other?? For them to be that > specific, it >> suggests that they know something about the man who was Art's father >> and > this >> couple's grandson or great-grandson.? >> >> Personally I don't find Ancestry DNA's test that helpful.? The reason >> is > that they >> don't give you the segment data - the positions on the chromosomes >> where > you >> share DNA with your matches.? To definitively learn how you are >> related to > a >> match, you need that information because >> (1) it tells you exactly how much DNA you share with them and >> therefore > how >> closely related they are to you (Ancestry only tells you the total >> amount > of DNA >> but not where you're sharing or the size of the largest segment - a >> lot of > your >> total is made up of tiny random segments that don't mean anything); >> and > (2) >> exactly where you are sharing which is important because you can see >> the others who are matching on that segment.? If you get several >> people on a segment, you can perform triangulation - a combination of >> sharing DNA and, > if >> you're lucky, a paper trail to a common ancestor.? That is what what > breaks >> down bricks walls and tells you how you and others are descended from >> a common ancestor. >> >> I would suggest testing Art at Family Tree DNA or transferring his > Ancestry >> results there.? They have a database that is comprised of many >> testers who don't test at Ancestry and they give you your segment data.? >> You will be in a better position to solve the mystery by doing that >> in my > opinion. >> >> Regards, >> >> Barton Lewis >> >> >>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:51 PM, Beverly wrote: >>> >>> My husband, Art, who was born in 1938 was adopted. He didn't learn >>> about it until his birth mother called when he was 25. We had one >>> visit with her and she said his father was a little blonde guy from >>> Oklahoma; she didn't remember his name. He was in the Navy. >>> At this time we were adopting ourselves and didn't pursue a >>> relationship with her. >>> >>> Last year Art took an Ancestry DNA test. Then recently we received a >>> message that there was up to a 70% chance that he descended from a >>> couple that were born in Kentucky in 1844 and died in Texas. These >>> people must be from his paternal side because his maternal side are >>> from Portugal and didn't go back that far in the USA. >>> >>> I'm not sure what to do with this information. Since I have a lot of >>> time, I started a tree for them and working forward. I knew it was >>> like looking for a needle in a haystack, but like the saying goes, >>> no stones unturned. >>> >>> Any comments, suggestions, etc., would be greatly appreciated. >>> >>> ~Blessings, Bev >>> >>> >>> >>> ===== >>> If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to >>> roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >> >> >> > > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message