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.
With RIC you can see immediately if someone is a child/parent, niece/nephew, 1st cousin, etc. of an existing match you've already figured out. Huge time-saver.
Based on what? Assertions without the supporting docs are meaningless. Absolutely so to me.
Maybe that's the real difference here?
You may have clicked the X and closed the box so it no longer appears but I never did - it's a banner just above your DNA Relatives list. It says "We have temporarily disabled some features within the DNA Relatives tool as an additional precaution to protect your privacy."
OK, thanks! That wording looks familiar. So it's a waiting game...
Based on what? Assertions without the supporting docs are meaningless. Absolutely so to me.
Maybe that's the real difference here?
Did you ever look at the Relatives in Common feature? It shows the percentage of shared DNA between your matches and gives an estimated relationship. So if you already found a 3rd cousin, John Jones, and a new match appears named Beth Martinez, and you look at Relatives in Common and it says Beth is the sister of John with 50% shared DNA, that is not meaningless. What documentation do you need?
Or even if it says Beth is a niece or 1st cousin of John, that takes a little research, but at least it narrows the possibilities way down. Without access to this feature, you wouldn't know that Beth was related to John at all and would have no way to tell how she's related to you unless she includes enough information in her profile, or you contact her and pry it out of her.
All I'm hearing though is a solution looking for problem.
All righty then-- you haven't used it so you have no basis for claiming it has no value. Ancestry, FTDNA, and MyHeritage also have similar "in common with" features to help customers sort through matches. The advantage of 23andMe and MyHeritage over the others is that they also show you the degree of relatedness between matches.
I loaded my ancestry matches, if I open a match, click on trees, it gives me the message that I'll need to pay to see their trees. It is the same for clicking on matches. I get the message I'll need to pay to see the common matches. Of course I don't see anything else to click on to find out when they will do this. I also want to note that as of last week, the message that I'll need to pay to see trees and shared matches at Ancestry is now gone since last week.
I don't see you commenting on that thread.
At 23 and me, the shared match feature is called relatives in common. Say you have at least one parent that has tested at 23 and me. You would then be able to click your parent to see matches in common with them. As with ancestry, the shared match, relative in common was included as a free feature when we paid to test there so they are removing features they gave us which they may make us pay for. I paid $150 to test at 23 and me.
At Ancestry, this is the membership feature people will need to pay to see shared matches and trees, $$30 for 6 months which doesn't sound expensive but I don't know many people who can afford $60 per year to use this feature that was free when they originally did their DNA there.
$29.99 /6 MONTHS - Make deeper DNA discoveries with a membership. AncestryDNA Plus™ gives you access to powerful DNA inheritance tools, 40+ personal traits∞, and new features as they become available – all for one simple price
I don't use DNA in isolation is the main point and what I'm hearing about here
sounds like one of the 'hint crutches (let alone the outright copy) too many will use.
If that isn't clear perhaps you to look up obtuse another time.
I just don't see any point wasting my time using a format that doesn't build out a tree properly.
I don't turn my back on free information.
My free account at 23&Me has turned up several good leads.
But that isn't where that ends. It's the next steps that matter.
I currently have three (bio/dna) primary trees.
And another six for researching questions that I refer to as 'inquiry' trees.
And two I keep relating to my adoptive family.
They ALL have more documents attached to them than names.
The biggest, currently at 24,321 people entries, can back that up 46,241 documents.
I was adopted and had no documentation to go by. I was able to identify my biological parents 10 years ago using DNA tools like Relatives in Common and family trees, working from 2nd, 3rd and 4th cousin matches. And I've done it for other people who only tested in 23andMe and had no close matches, but only because Relatives in Common helped show relationships between related people which helps identify shared ancestors. Then you can focus your research into family trees and documentation in other databases, and eventually fit the pieces together. So it really does work and produces results.
I don't know what your goals are but it sounds like you haven't been making the best use of DNA tools. Collecting documentation is always good as long as it's not distracting you from what DNA is telling you. You may be able to use DNA tools you weren't using before to cut through a lot of excess documentation.
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.
