Mick’s Ten Commandments on researching DNA matches.

Mick Tator

Subtitled ‘How to recognize a DNA match as a waste / huge consumer of time better spent on other means of research.’

 Anyone like to modify them?

 1.               The match is below 25 cM.

2.               The match is between 25 & 50 cM but has no tree.

3.               The match has no tree or interest beyond ethnicity.

4.               The match/manager has no interest in GEDmatch.

5.               The match/manager has not been online for more than a year.

6.               The match’s tree has more than 2,000 individuals.

7.               The match’s tree has more than 4 generations but no common surnames.

8.               The match’s tree has a low number of individuals and the wives are recorded using the marital surname.

9.               The match’s tree contains several basic errors.

10.            The match’s tree is littered with images of ‘family crests’ rather than BMD certs.

55Gem

I'd modify number 5.

If it's Ancestry DNA the time on that is since last logged in, not last online, if you don't log out and visit the site everyday last logged in could still read 1 year or more. I log out and in every so often now, and have it written on my profile that I'm online every day.

Hermy

I wouldn't rule out a match based on them having a large number of people in their tree. My parents tree has in excess of 5000 individuals and my partners parents tree has in excess of 2000 individuals. I'd be more wary of those with a very small tree.

It does irk me though to see married women recorded under their marital surname but again, I wouldn't rule a match out for that alone.

And even a tree with a few basic errors may have something of value.

So while I do take your point generally Mick, I'm loath to rule anyone out because you never know where the next vital piece of the jigsaw will turn up.

pinkypinky

I like and agree with most of these things but.

No4: Gedmatch is much less important these days now that free transfers are easily done. I don't use it a lot professionally.

No2: I'd still possibly send a message because - and this is a fundamental point - the person may be new to researching or not techy, and they may have more offline or need a hand to get going. I've cultivated a couple of people who were in this category and ultimately were useful.

Agree with 55Gem on no5 - Ancestry can be buggy on this point.

After we get a definitive group consensus, we should turn it into a nice graphic!!

L1011

I am fully aware of, but fully won't use GEDmatch due to their ownership and known data security problems. Does that count as sufficient interest?

I got two photographs of someone we were sure had no surviving photos from the tree of a match who never replied.

On showing one of said photos (in person) to someone closely related to me, they suddenly remembered and dug up a physical copy of it! They would have insisted they had no photos of said ancestor either without that prompt

55Gem

I don't think you should have any rules, take each one on its merits.

One of my fruitful matches is only 11cM, TrueLines gave us a common ancestor William Partland, I thought that sounded very odd so I chanced a message, TrueLines is incorrect, there were two Williams and we had a lot of fun and several interesting discoveries working it all out, but even better for me the match was able to tell me about her father's 'cousins' who turned out to be descended from my great grandmother's 'disappeared' siblings. They had gone to Australia where they spell the surname Partlon, no wonder I couldn't find them.

VirginiaB

I'm sorry to disagree but I have found information of value with some very unlikely matches. I would never decide in advance that a match is useless to examine.

Mick Tator

Firstly, thanks for the feedback. I wrote the Ten C’s as bit of fun to clear my head from dayjob work. It was also prompted by a weird message exchange with a DNA match on Ancestry.

Context – What is the best approach to researching my matches on Ancestry – About  7,000 Maternal, 8,000 Paternal, 2,000, unassigned, and just 2 Both Sides. I’ve two brickwalls in 1800-1850 to break down.

It really is about the time devoted to DNA research, time that could be better spent on ordinary research rather than speculatively chasing DNA matches, emailing them with no response, or inane replies.

 55Gem said ‘I'd modify number 5’ based on log-in/ sign -out. Point taken, but most people fully shut down the PC regularly to refresh browser, etc, so open Apps are shut down automatically. (It’s also good ‘hygiene’ for all OS, as is clearing browser history.)

55Gem also said ‘I don't think you should have any rules, take each one on its merit’ and spoke about leads from Trulines and confusion on a surname. This sorta proves my point, as while interesting for 55  it was not based on DNA research. Trulines are hints, based on matching names/dates, not shared DNA. I too have found shared surname people in Australia (not DNA) and research showed they changed their surname to mine back in the 1850’s. They are not related and have even concocted a story to ‘prove’ a link to my family. Daft!

@Hermy – Re comments on accepting ‘big’ trees – Based on your posting historic you would be an exception to the rule on big trees. I maintain my view that generally they are rubbish. I accept your premise that you are loath to rule anyone out, but this is about efficient use of research time, not squandering it on some punter who has copy/pasted chunks from elsewhere to connect to Charlemagne or George Washington.

@Pinky – Points taken, but again it’s the efficient use of time. I was unaware that Gedmatch is now less favoured by the pros – there is a growing number of family name groups on Facebook that are using the GED/FB Group tool to find clusters.

@L1010 – Comments on data sharing noted. That really is a separate argument. It will rule out a few, but an overwhelming majority have accepted sites such as GED. In my experience those who object often are vocal on Twitter, FB, LinkedIn, etc., where data scraping is the norm, as is profiling from use of Google or tracking via mobile phones. Aside from that, look at data security breaches even at strictly regulated entities and - due to carelessness - at the HSE.

pinkypinky

I love your optimism that most people shut down their pc regularly, Mick!

My Dad was in the IT industry and he taught me to do that and I still do almost every day (occasionally I forget if I wasn't using the pc much in the evening). However, I do know from talking to most of my peers, that they hardly ever shut down their machines and have about 87 tabs open in their browser.

55Gem

I regularly sign out of my PC before shutting down, but I find that logs you out of My Heritage but not Ancestry, why I have no idea.

Mick Tator

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955220#Comment_119955220

Many sites will log you out automatically after a period of inactivity - e.g Familysearch. Some have a 'stay logged in' featute that will over-ride this for a period or indefinitely.

Mick Tator

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119942859#Comment_119942859

I don't describe them as useless but equally I usually leave them unexplored due to MRCA distance and the effort required to establish the link.There are exceptions, e.g. when a match has a good tree, is active and it’s ‘guessable’ to identify the line of relationship.

One of my 5 – 8th cousins @ 14cM had a good tree (900-odd people) on Ancestry, so it was easy to join the dots when he filled in some gaps. He is (according to the FTM calculator) the first great grandnephew of the wife of my second great uncle. I know we are related more distantly also as my male line married into that wife’s family in an earlier generation.

My point really is that without existing detailed knowledge in both trees, it would have been an inordinate amount of work the establish a relationship that is not very worthwhile.

KildareFan

I've had my DNA up for a few years now & over the years I've accessed DNA results for various known relatives (brother, 1st 2nd & 3rd cousins); this helps to increase the probability of identifying matches as we all inherit different levels of DNA. For example, I match with some profiles which don't match with my brother, but match with cousins. I might have 11cms with one match, yet my brother might have 35cms.

At this stage the returns are diminishing and I have lots of far out matches. Generally, I select unviewed matches and have a look at the top few - I check if the match is shared with any other matches; I ignore them if there's no shared match, or no tree attached.

Sometimes, I do a search on all unviewed matches to see if any of my more unusual surnames are on their family tree - that can throw up useful matches.

Hopefully, post Christmas there may be an increase in the number of useful matches.

Mick Tator

@ Kildare Fan - that's +/- what I'm reduced to also. I'm not holding my breath for post-Christmas, many of those are presents for ethnicity seekers.

paddysdream

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120001055#Comment_120001055

Very same here.Any new match on Ancestry for any of the tests I manage seems to be sub 20cM .

Perhaps 2 or 3 a year in the useful range.

Do the " view unviewed matches " thing regularly and add them to groups if they are a shared match.

At this stage all my unviewed matches are 12cM or less.Everything above that is grouped if a shared match.

That said have 6 groups where I only know the parental side and no idea whatsoever of the connection.

The search by location of tree members option never seems to give me anything useful as it defaults to Ireland from what I can see.

Every few months I pick a particular line and see if anything new as regards possible matches in family trees.The odd time it throws a newly updated tree.

For some reason find both my heritage and Gedmatch to have a lot less hits re DNA for me.