Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was a little confused by the search for the birth mother of the one woman in last night's episode (the really heavy women whose birth mother had been 13). They edited out a lot, but somehow they used her Ancestry DNA test to identify a great-great-grandparent, and then they worked down the person's descendants, and identified her birth mother's family because of the family makeup. What they didn't seem to show, however, was how they identified that particular 2nd great grandparent from her DNA. I guess he happened to be in the trees of X number of people who showed up as her distant cousins, but in my experience, most of those cousins either don't have trees or have private trees. So they did something way beyond Ancestry.com to find that ancestor.
In my experience, I would not say most either don't have trees or have private trees but YMMV. Several, yes, but not most.
I recently started doing much the same thing - there's been a long running family rumor that my grandfather's father was not his biological father. While I still have no proof, it's supported by some inexpiable oddities in his ethnicity results, and the lack of any identifiable matches on his paternal side across Ancestry, FTDNA, and Gedmatch. So on Ancestry, I recently decided to investigate his closest match who I can't identify. He had 5 estimated 2nd cousin matches, and 2 estimated 3rd cousins, all of which I was able to identify as being on his maternal side. Yes, some of them were missing trees, but they were all shared matches with the 2nd/3rd cousins who did have trees and were confirmed on his mother's side.
I was fortunate that his closest match who was not from his mother's side did have a tree. He was an estimated 4th cousin match. I started by copying the surname list from his tree into a spreadsheet, then looked at his shared matches and copied their surname lists and pasted them side by side. Yes, again, some of them were missing trees or private, but there were enough to make a comparison and look for duplicate surnames. I spotted a few, investigated further and found the common ancestors among these shared matches were their 3rd great grandparents (consistent with 4th cousins). I am pretty confident they are my grandfather's ancestors. I am now in the process of researching all the descendants of that couple, hoping to find all men of the right age who were living in the town my grandfather was born in around that time. I haven't found his biological father yet but it's the same process and I've done it all on Ancestry.com so it is possible.
I guess it's just luck of the draw how many of your close matches have public trees, but also keep in mind that you can contact private tree owners and sometimes get an invite.
Oh yes. I was relentless about contacting matches to ask for information (also in FTDNA and 23andMe). Most people don't have a tree at all, but sometimes you can figure out who they are, find them mentioned in an obituary for a parent, and you are off and running. My predicted 3rd cousin in Ancestry gave me the names of his paternal grandparents and I found most of a tree for them in Rootsweb.
When I worked out who I thought my birth mother was, I added her and her ancestors to my own tree and found leaf hints to a few other distant matches' trees, giving me confidence I was on the right trail.
In my experience, I would not say most either don't have trees or have private trees but YMMV. Several, yes, but not most.
I guess it's just luck of the draw how many of your close matches have public trees, but also keep in mind that you can contact private tree owners and sometimes get an invite.
Wow, you're lucky. The overwhelming majority of my cousin matches have no tree at all. Followed by those who have private trees. Only a small minimum have public trees. Maybe secrecy vs transparency is in the DNA?
Wow, you're lucky. The overwhelming majority of my cousin matches have no tree at all. Followed by those who have private trees. Only a small minimum have public trees. Maybe secrecy vs transparency is in the DNA?
Haha, maybe, although I tend to think the people who don't have trees at all are not subscribers to Ancestry.com and haven't done any paper research. They seem to take the test only for the ethnicity results - or because they mistakenly think doing the DNA test will somehow provide them with their tree so they don't have to do any of the work. When they see that building a tree from DNA is difficult and still requires paper research, they don't bother building a tree at all and don't come back. So maybe it has more to do with the genealogy bug being in the DNA? Maybe most of your cousins just aren't very interested in genealogy and tree building?
On my first page of matches, excluding my mom and grandfather of course, there's 48 matches... 30 of them have a tree (60%), only 4 of those are private and I got an invite for 2 of those. Granted, another 4 trees only have less than 15 people in them - those generally aren't very useful either but I have had luck with two of them by doing a little extra research on them myself. Plus, there's always the possibility they're just starting out and their tree will grow. With the Shared Matches tool (and having tested my mom and paternal grandfather), I have been able to identify the likely MRCA (or at least the likely branch for the MRCA) for several people without trees too.
I was told by mom who was told by the family that my ggrandmother was married twice. The second was a late marriage, and my grandmother was his. Nobody shows this in trees, but in mine which is public, I indicate a possible second husband for Laura. Maybe someone will connect it. But I'm going to do the dna test on Ancestry in part to see if matches, especially for cousins both more recent and distant, to people who didn't show up anywhere else. I know my grandmother was raised by the same parents as the rest, but they are all very noticably short. But grandma was almost six feet. Her father was said to be a very tall englishman. Both 'fathers' were a Smith, though.....
If you are just looking at a match's entry in your list of matches in Ancestry and it says "No family tree" it might be that they *do* have a tree but just did not attach it to their DNA results. You need to click on their username and see if there are any trees to "preview". Sometimes there are several so you have to be careful to figure out which is the one that pertains to your match, if there is one.
I have watched a few more episodes of Long Lost Family on YouTube, including some from the UK series and from the Australian series. It is remarkable how they all follow the same formula:
1. Adoptee is anguished over not being able to find birth parent.
2. Host asks "Why is this important to you now?" Adoptee answers some version of "Time is running out."
3. Host (or other specialist) searches for and finds birth parent. Makes call to confirm, often while walking casually on a city sidewalk.
4. Host goes to meet birth parent, asks if they want to see a picture of their child, then read a letter, answer to both is Yes. Would you like to meet him/her? Yes.
6. Host interviews adoptee and springs the news: "We found her/him." Adoptee cries in disbelief/relief.
7. Host presents adoptee with additional information about the birth parent, and a photo and letter (from sibling if parent is deceased).
8. Reunion is arranged in some lavish house or scenic location. The climax is reached: child and long lost biological relatives meet and you are reaching for the Kleenex now if you haven't already.
9. A follow-up on how the restored relationship is developing.
If you are just looking at a match's entry in your list of matches in Ancestry and it says "No family tree" it might be that they *do* have a tree but just did not attach it to their DNA results. You need to click on their username and see if there are any trees to "preview". Sometimes there are several so you have to be careful to figure out which is the one that pertains to your match, if there is one.
Yes, I was going to mention that but I would be careful about assuming that tree is for that DNA match. Even if they have only one tree, without asking the person, you still can't know it's the biological tree of that person. They might be adopted and the tree is their adopted ancestry. Or maybe the tree is theirs but the test is actually their spouse. Who knows.
I have watched a few more episodes of Long Lost Family on YouTube, including some from the UK series and from the Australian series. It is remarkable how they all follow the same formula:
1. Adoptee is anguished over not being able to find birth parent.
2. Host asks "Why is this important to you now?" Adoptee answers some version of "Time is running out."
3. Host (or other specialist) searches for and finds birth parent. Makes call to confirm, often while walking casually on a city sidewalk.
4. Host goes to meet birth parent, asks if they want to see a picture of their child, then read a letter, answer to both is Yes. Would you like to meet him/her? Yes.
6. Host interviews adoptee and springs the news: "We found her/him." Adoptee cries in disbelief/relief.
7. Host presents adoptee with additional information about the birth parent, and a photo and letter (from sibling if parent is deceased).
8. Reunion is arranged in some lavish house or scenic location. The climax is reached: child and long lost biological relatives meet and you are reaching for the Kleenex now if you haven't already.
9. A follow-up on how the restored relationship is developing.
Haha, that's exactly the formula. And it freakin' works on me every single time!
Wow, the "season finale" was huge let-down. It was a re-run. How do you bill something as a season finale when it's already been on? I could swear that episode was actually the pilot for the series, and it was shown last Fall.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
