Good morning everyone and hope everyone is still safe and sane.

I thought I would share what I have learnt in the last few days regarding the use of DNA samples, tracing family and ancestry and family finding sites.

Firstly, I believe the DNA samples once uploaded onto the site you choose, are cross matched with others across their database and then matches are given to you. Unless you have close family members who are tested and using the same data search sites, then most matches show 2-4th cousins and then 4-6th cousins. The match also shows how much DNA you share and how many threads that are crossed you share.

Then the usual family researcher would check the ones that are closest matches and have a peek at their family trees. You would then find (if you know your immediate ancestors:grandparents etc) the family members you have connecting and study and take notes and find more information. However, if you only know your maternal ancestors, this is when to use caution because there are a few pitfalls (as I found out this week).

So my DNA match showed that I had 8 great, great, great grandparent lines. I checked the 4 and noted they were accurate as my maternal line and looked at connecting trees, saw the same information that I had with just a few small errors of deaths, births, and a few missing children. When it came to checking the other 4 (the paternal ancestors) the trouble began as I do not know my paternal line. Are you still understanding this - sorry it is a long post!

If you as a genealogist put together your family tree and you have your dna matched on the database, any error you make with your family tree, affects others who share DNA! Say if you have your family tree all good and just one misplaced person labelled as another person then the whole thing breaks down. This is what happened to my research this week. However, the person involved is very happy as he has now had his research all double checked, fault found and he is happy to go along and find the correct person who he mislabelled as a family member.

But now I have to restart from scratch as once that other researcher with his incorrect details on the tree has changed and updated his error (which he has) my ancestral grandparents change on my paternal side.

This has been such an intense learning curve and I am a little intense about what I am searching for and I am now very close. I really appreciate all your emails and I may still need help to locate evidence. Below is what I THINK is the right family line - however if someone has mislabelled another ancester along the line it could change. So my advice is ALWAYS check facts and never jump to other family trees as being the gospel :-)

Annie Simpson born approx 1858 - MMN Taylor (Tyler) parents - married to Robert (Tiler) Patchett born 1852. Then further back I have Sarah Wortely 1810-1887 marry a Thomas Taylor 1809-1885. They had a Charlotte Taylor 1834-1925 she married Robert Simpson 1836-1894.


I will spend most of my social distance day researching....

Hi Sarah

Yes its a minefield!

Dave T and I have been looking into your problem to try and help you. We have a lot of detail starting with Robert Tyler Patchett and going back down his line

I can email you what we have if you think it would help?

Denise

Yes thanks that would be really helpful

I just found another anomalously with a war record and I have emailed across to Dave.

I Have a war record for Fred dyson b1883- stocksbridge - Sheffield. On this he has an alias of Fred Smith? Also this records lists his marriage to Margaret in 2007 - which we know about. It also lists his 4 children - dates of birth and names. All children check out accurately on GRO with dates and MMN. But there is no mention of another son - same MMN born in beetween the four children listed?
Child a born 1907
child b born 1911
child c born 1912
child d born 1914

But there was another child born to them in Sheffield end of 1908 according to the 1911 census. However, on the 1911 census the child b born August 1911 (above) doesn't exist. Either they failed to register baby as census was April and baby would have been 4 months old?? Or baby was at grandparents? I looked for child on census elsewhere but could find no evidence on 1911 census anywhere else.

Hi

Totally agree!

Moan Alert!

I can only speak for my experience of Ancestry's matching ability and tree/relatives/ancestors' names linking. I have several very large trees, all proven and accurate (and private!) after a lot of time, cost of research, and certificates.

The problem I have encountered is similar, in that my DNA matches to about 5 trees all with the same names in the Sheffield Ecclesfield area. The trouble is, my research provides different Christian names for my great great great grandparents (of same surname) and in the Woodhouse/Handsworth area, where these great great great grandparents were born and married too per baptismal registers. Followed through by baptismal registers, censuses and certificates to present day rellies and to me. I have found some trees with the same research as mine (Woodhouse/Handsworth decendancy) so I know some people agree with my research, though have not made contact yet with them.

Now, the Ecclesfield trees (public not private ones on Ancestry) that I am finding so troublesome, which are DNA matched to me via this surname, and showing different Gr Gr Gr grandparents in the Ecclesfield area, are more likely than not completely wrong. Probably because of a rookie tree-maker, who has grabbed the first 'likely looking' Gr Gr grandparent with the Gr grandparent name they were expecting, in the area they were looking in, and put them on the tree and then following that incorrect person backward via some 'not quite right' censuses. I have found over the years that rookie researchers are willing to accept ridiculous illogical census fits for the rellie they are looking for, as long as it has the right name, and never mind something on that census shouts out it can't be the right person. They just want it on their tree to fill it out.

So not wanting to think I know it all, as this business does throw up surprises and mistakes for everyone occasionally, no matter how experienced you are, I contacted the main Ecclesfield tree owner, from which the other 4 trees were obviously copied (another irritating thing about Ancestry, allowing trees to be copied willy-nilly without them being proven...like... dare I say it....a virus). She replied, but would not engage in any conversation about how she had chosen the key person (2 generations away from her and unknown personally by her) from whom to research backwards to arrive at her relatives who should match mine. I tried twice to engage her, to no avail. There are signs she is a rookie, all over her tree, but surely these people want to know if they have made a mistake.

It is part of the family history community etiquette that you point out a mistake, and most are very grateful for pointing it out I find. I know I always have been.

So now, since lockdown, everyone is suddenly doing their DNA test on Ancestry, and I'm getting loads of DNA matches to these wrongly researched trees and which trees are now duplicating at a pace by newbie Ancestry members coming on Ancestry for the first time and copying them assuming they are right. I'm sure it is happening all over the place. This copying practice renders the DNA tree/ancestor matching system useless. There are not enough warnings by Ancestry to rookies, as they don't want to put them off and lose subscriptions by letting them think this family research business is a lot harder than you think to get it right.

This is no doubt a boom time for Ancestry, who once erroneously claimed in their advert "Just put your name in and see what comes up" inherently misleading the public by indicating that a tree would come up if you put your name in the search box. That almost blew my gasket, especially as if you are alive your name won't come up on any Ancestry tree just like that from being a fresh member. That misleading enticement was soon withdrawn I noticed at the time.

I could go on with other useless DNA matching anomalies on Ancestry but I'd better stop there!

Do you think lockdown has got to me? lol

I totally agree with you. When I have delved into trees on Ancestry I've noticed some really obvious mistakes. One comes to mind. Person born 1750 marries 1755! The name fit so I suppose the tree owner just added it without checking dates etc.

Jenny

I have had lots of research for my DNA. Found I wasn't getting too much information from the Ancestry site. I have uploaded onto living dna and had another high match. I emailed the match and have since been able to 99% ascertain my father.

I have spent the best part of 5 months researching and find that some family trees on ancestry are way out. I sometimes take a glance but usually I don't take their dna match seriously unless I can link it.
Now I have the other information from the other web site, I have cross checked and found the DNA trail I was following was just slightly off, but in close direction.

You really do have to be a detective when in this game.