tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post4483642825408274047..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: Now I Have 25 New Ancestor Discoveries! Really?Randy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-60008129885564678672016-05-25T11:31:14.207-07:002016-05-25T11:31:14.207-07:00Twelve new NAD - and I agree - no real likely conn...Twelve new NAD - and I agree - no real likely connections! These are worse than useless - they are time-wasters!anitabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00581214810248124603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-60265207235010939152016-05-25T07:14:53.006-07:002016-05-25T07:14:53.006-07:00Very similar story! None of these "ancestors&...Very similar story! None of these "ancestors" are ancestors. There are several that are descended from a common ancestor- 150 years earlier- and oddly are from the branch that moved to Utah. I don't see one ancestor among these folks. I know all my ancestors to 1800 and these aren't them. I don't doubt we share DNA, but the algorithms must be wrong. Melindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510700887169878456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-50254884453936695812016-05-25T06:35:11.332-07:002016-05-25T06:35:11.332-07:00Back when I USED to have my DNA at ancestry, it s...Back when I USED to have my DNA at ancestry, it seemed like my matches came more from family trees than anything else. If there was a Smith in their tree, It's A Match! Not so fast. I've since become so disillusioned with ancestry that I have removed my DNA from there. I have no doubt whatsoever that they still have it. I've had far better results looking at the trees that have saved something from my tree to theirs. Contacting someone about a known shared family member is a lot quicker than telling them they're a match to me but I don't know where. Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13256855136448978468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-59490817155907908252016-05-24T19:15:05.030-07:002016-05-24T19:15:05.030-07:00I went from 0 to 19. One, while not a direct ances...I went from 0 to 19. One, while not a direct ancestor, appears to be a collateral ancestor, and may have led me to the parents of my fourth great-grandfather, which was a brick wall.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313679144556957397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-30010886610359062762016-05-24T12:09:47.061-07:002016-05-24T12:09:47.061-07:00I went from one NAD to 19! All of the ones I'v...I went from one NAD to 19! All of the ones I've looked at lived in the 19th century, in Utah. Since I have a mystery great grandmother who was born 1862 in Michigan I investigate all of these, but so far these NADs are just wrong. It seems to be a useless feature.Densiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258415129795200212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-64402106786713258372016-05-24T11:46:39.129-07:002016-05-24T11:46:39.129-07:00I have a bunch of new ones, too. I don't see ...I have a bunch of new ones, too. I don't see any real connection to any of them. A number of the new names seem to have travelled West to Utah where I have no known connections. I have decided not to spend any more time on "New Ancestor Disvoeries."L Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11997595978878695934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-30993560245012854042016-05-24T10:38:45.843-07:002016-05-24T10:38:45.843-07:00I jumped from 2 to 5 overnight. The 2 that showed ...I jumped from 2 to 5 overnight. The 2 that showed up earlier this work are almost certainly direct connections since their child married someone of my family name. There's an adoption in there which I now believe more than ever was a familial adoption. I'll solve it yet.<br /><br />The 3 new ones that showed up have no obvious connection, very few DNA matches, and appear to all be Mormons polygamists in Utah/Arizona which I know based on generations could not be the hit. Either the DNA is just similar, some people have faulty trees, or the common ancestor is someone more common that they don't go back to in their own trees. I've spent a good portion of time on it this morning and I just don't feel those three are accurate. Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11756627130702757143noreply@blogger.com