Who When Where

Had an interesting DNA match on Ancestry the other day, and looking through both our trees, discovered the same Kinchin family from St George in the East in both our trees. Result! Our most recent common ancestor being ‘my’ 5’ggparents.
It wasn’t unlil I dug further this morning, when I realised it was my wife’s 5’ggparents, not mine. Whoops, looks my wife and I are distantly related somewhere, if I’m matching with one of her distant cousins.
Back to drawing board I suppose, to find where I do match in this new tree!

Well, Mick, you'd have less of a guessing game if Ancestry provided a chromosome browser. It's essential for proper DNA study. That's why I advise anyone who really wants to get the most out of DNA to test* with at least one other company as well as most, if not all, have a browser which will tells you exactly which chromosome and segment your match tallies with. Of course, your match needs to have tested elsewhere too.

Ancestry have far the biggest database of autosomal matches through saturation advertising so you'll get more matches from them, and trees (if they are accurate) but for analysis they are useless as they keep all the analysis tools under their own control, probably for commercial reasons.

* Of course, instead you can download your Ancestry results an upload them elsewhere but few seem to do that as I think they are put off, most likely due to the dire warnings about confidentiality on their site, but there are other reputable companies out there, some , like Family Tree DNA which have been conducting genealogical DNA testing for longer than Ancestry.

Hardwork
I do have my tree on Gedmatch, but my Ancestry match doesn’t, mores the pity. I’ll see if I can persuade her to the benefits,

Ah! The frustrations of DNA genealogy. Matches only appearing on Ancestry is one of my big bugbears with DNA genealogy. Good luck in trying to get them to test or upload elsewhere. I've never been very lucky (or persuasive) in getting folk to do that. Let us know how you get on.

Hardwork,
You’re missing the biggest bugbear of all, people not linking to a tree, or having a very minimalist tree, where all people are hidden, presumably because they are still living!

I took the Ancestry DNA test which I then uploaded to My Heritage because of all the "tools" they have available, and I have found it very useful.

In my case my 5th GGparents are the same in 3 of my parents 4 lines, both Mum's and one of Dad's. It throws up some skewed results and I have to be so careful when researching!

On the plus side when I go that far back It is one lot of researching and 2 copy and paste to cover all 3!

I have a vey basic tree attached to my DNA, just BMD's, but I have slotted all the big matches in. I suspect having taken a test most people do not realise that is the easy part! My DNA Tree extends much further than my main tree, and may not be as accurate, but as Mick says not linking DNA results to a tree is a big bugbear.

Sally,
They’re not from Norfolk by any chance, as tha saying goes ‘Normal for Norfolk’

Mick, I don't think not having a tree is the biggest bugbear at all. If a link needs investigation all you need to to do is contact the person via messaging to share or learn more, in theory.

The biggest bugbear is that a great many do not reply to messages. Sad to say, but the modern "genealogist" generally does not share pieces of information as happened before the advent of all these websites, when family history was the preserve of real enthusiasts and sharing was the norm and very often the only way to make progress. In fairness though, the computer age has generally spread more distrust and also fewer ethics as to privacy and in my experience, has in many cases created a sense of entitlement to immediately feel free to share other's information as if it were a product of their own research, without any consultation with the provider.

Hardwork,
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I think these people without a tree are expecting others to do the work for them. I’ll only contact a DNA match if they have a tree. Why should I waste my time writing to people who can’t be bothered to trust other genealogists, and who most probably won’t reply anyway!
Apart from living individuals, why hide their research? I dare say most of their tree is from information in the common domain, so who are they hiding it from?
Personally I think they are under the impression that doing a DNA test is enough, and that it will magically provide them with a family tree, without the need for research.
As for people ‘copying’ wrong info from people’s trees, so what! If they are foolish enough to delude themselves that this is research, more fool them. It certainly doesn’t do me any harm, so why worry. I’ll only use information from on-line trees, once I’ve convinced myself of the accuracy of the information therein, which sadly is often unsourced, or sourced from yet another tree!

Mick,

Disagree we might, but it is an interesting point of debate, nevertheless.

I think many people who don't have trees are probably not the genealogist in the family, or don't know how to research, or have sensitivity about their trees. They may well have taken a test for someone else or are under a misapprehension of what they can glean from testing. I'm sure you are correct though, in that there are some who are just takers not givers.

I'm not sure why you think it is always a waste of time to write to those who don't exhibit a tree. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Probability of a lack of reply may be valid in most cases (but a lack of reply is true generally, tree or not, in my experience), but I'd argue that a far better guide to whether they are likely to reply is to see when they last logged in. Those that have not logged in for a long time are more likely to have died, lost interest or no longer subscribe to Ancestry. Of course, if the strength of the match is weak and they have no tree, then I am with you about not writing, as it may be a very long shot.

My own tree on Ancestry only consists of surnames and counties of birth only. My reasoning is that most people are only using surnames to uncover matches and therefore if they have any info that is likely mutually useful, they'd contact me, if they are "serious" researchers. Also, in counter to your argument, why would I display full details of my research to others who don't share? I'm more than willing to divulge things to people who are genuine, without making everything common knowledge. If they are true researchers, it wouldn't be that difficult to uncover some of the lines due to the unusual surnames.

Why would people hide their research? Well, I don't disclose my parents or grandparents on Ancestry, though all are now dead. However, other people (distant family) in the past who I have corresponded felt they were entitled to pass that information on, willy-nilly when some were still alive and it is now in the public domain. It would, until the disclosure of the 1921 census, have been more difficult to uncover the family connections for the average researcher. That could be why some other people hide their research too.

Your final sentence is correct, to a point. I have a recent false paternity in my tree, with my father. That has led to me finding many DNA half first and second cousins, although I cannot pin down my actual grandfather's identity with certainty, as he could be one of five brothers. However, those cousins all display wrong direct ancestors further back on their trees on Ancestry, and even though I have pointed out the evidence and the error none have amended their trees. Why? Well, I can only assume they have copied from each other and that there is a common belief that as they are legitimate descendants in the family line, they erroneously think whoever began the wrong ancestral attribution must be correct on the basis of that legitimacy, and an "outsider" wouldn't know. That "harms" me in a sense, because it casts doubt on my research and ability and credibility, and as we both know, constant repetition of a falsehood, and by many people, can be eventually confused with established fact.