Reaching Out to DNA Matches: Better Than I Expected

I've typically added DNA matches "organically" as I happened to come across them. But lately, I've been on a slow mission to start adding DNA matches shown by ancestor in Ancestry's ThruLines®. I've come to realize, if I'm ever going to break down brick walls, I'm going to need to cast a wider net and build out some of these lines. Reading blog posts by those who do this regularly helps. Their stories and successes inspire me to put in the effort. 

While ThruLines® is only as accurate as the trees the information is derived from (sometimes questionable at best), thus far they've been fairly accurate for me. I'm only up to my 2nd great-grandparents on this project though. I suspect the farther back I go, the less reliable they'll become. But DNA doesn't lie. As long as we're above the 6cM threshold, where it becomes very important to watch out for false positives, we're likely related in one way or another (maybe even more than one!) 

Below the 6cM threshold, matches may still be very distantly related (called identity by descent) or they may not be related at all (called related by state). Identity by state means while there is a match at a specific DNA location, it's simply chance. It can be hard to know the difference when the match is so small. 

• 6cM-15cM generally share a common ancestor 5-8 generations back
• 4cM-6cM take time to look at shared matches if you're really trying to break down brick walls in this range. If you have some, you'll probably need to build out their trees to find the connection 
• at 2cM-4cM there's a 67% chance you're not related
• below 2cM 70-99% will be unrelated

This week, I've linked 14 DNA matches to my tree! I know there are some researchers who can add 100 or more in a month. I'm not so quick and I'm happy at a much slower pace. I don't want to end up with a tree full of names and no records to back them up. I also want to balance my time so I continue to research those already in my tree. 

Despite the age of technology we live in, some of the younger generations (those in their 20's or 30's) have a surprisingly small digital footprint when it comes to online records. Not only can it be hard to identify them specifically, it can be challenging to find the missing generations between them and my known ancestors to build the lines of descent. I do try to figure out connections on my own before reaching out. Public records and social media have provided some decent results, however, after several days of trying, I just wasn't finding a few of the connections I wanted to this week - so I reached out to four DNA matches (or those who manage their DNA) to see if they could help me fill in my blanks. 

Messaging DNA matches is something I haven't done terribly often. This is probably because I see so many posts with frustrated users who reach out over and over and never get responses. I'm well aware people take DNA tests for various reasons, and they may or may not have an active interest in building a tree or connecting with relatives. Even those who do share an interest may be busy with life and simply don't log in often. It could simply be users are wary of chatting with someone they don't know.

I personally feel it's important to include enough information for the contact to discern the validity of the message and to verify I've identified actual people from their tree. In essence, I want to reassure them I'm genuinely researching and am asking for their help. I was careful to do the following in each message:

• introduce myself 
• explain the common ancestors from whom we descend
• state the connections I have found
• indicate the missing generations I'm looking for
• politely ask if they'd be willing to share the names of those missing links with me if they're comfortable doing so
• include a polite closing or thank them for taking the time to read

I don't use a template when I message. Each message is carefully and thoughtfully crafted. I am fully prepared some messages may never receive a response. Some people simply don't have a desire to connect. Some people are hesitant to take a DNA test in the first place, and they may or may not be comfortable sharing. They may also manage someone else's DNA and are hesitant to divulge someone else's data. And when I'm missing those "in between generations," perhaps they only have a placeholder in their tree and truly have nothing definite to add. There are a myriad of reasons someone might not respond. When I reach out, I'm doing so with the hopes I'll receive an answer, but I'm well aware no one owes me a response.

I've been quite pleasantly surprised with the results this week! Two of the four people I reached out to have already responded, and have been willing to share with me. I feel it's important to:

• acknowledge and thank them for their response (regardless of whether they provided information or simply responded they have none to share)
• let them know I've added the match to my tree (if applicable)
• offer my assistance if they ever want to collaborate 

In short, I try to make my interaction as pleasant as I can. And if they don't reply (or they have a negative response)? I do not send multiple messages demanding or begging for information. I simply sit back and hope when the time is right I may hear from them. Based on other people's experiences, I think a 50% response rate for one week is pretty darn good! 

One of the responders was able to provide the specific connection I needed. The other, not only provided the name I was looking for, but we struck up a conversation, shared information and have now connected on multiple sites and by email. I am beyond thrilled to have a new enthusiastic family researcher to correspond with! This contact has already provided me with new information I'll be checking out in the hopes it helps me expand several more generations back in another of my lines. I try to make an effort to stay in touch with those passionate about family research. Sometimes, I just reach out to wish them a happy holiday, share a new discovery, or bounce ideas around when I'm stumped. These connections mean a lot to me and collaborating is always beneficial.

If you're not already reaching out to DNA matches, it is well worth the time to do so when you've put in the effort and determined you're at an impasse. It should not be done as a way to avoid doing your own research. Especially for adoptees, who start in a much different place than those of us who have some of our family history, I'm sure the situation feels very different. But even in those cases, you can use both matches and shared matches to try to begin finding patterns. When you reach out, you may have some small but key details to smooth the way to a conversation. 

I truly believe the more information you can include in your DNA match messages, the more likely you are to get a positive response. Use messaging wisely and you just may be rewarded with the information you need. And you never know, the next message you send may be the one to break open a family mystery!

Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to help title this post and create the SEO description. All other content is my own.

New Ancestry Features: One Disappeared and One Made Me Smile

As I was working on my tree this weekend, I noticed 2 new features on Ancestry. At least one appears to be a potential future feature, because it disappeared when I refreshed my screen and I was not able to get it to reappear. Thankfully, I grabbed a screenshot to share with you. The other feature has been present for two days. I can't say if it's a beta feature or a forever feature - but I sure hope it stays right where it is!

To the left is the "disappearing" potential beta feature. On the All Hints page, I noticed a section for "Free Hints". Since I have a paid subscription, this wouldn't be meaningful for me. But there are lots of users who don't have paid subscriptions. This would be a great way for them to focus on the records Ancestry can offer them, without the frustration of clicking hints and not being able to see anything. Interestingly, there were no free hint counts showing for me, just the verbiage. I wouldn't expect the results to be tied to subscription level. This, in conjunction with the new option disappearing as soon as I refreshed the screen, leads me to believe it may be a future feature they're considering and they haven't yet finished the implementation. It very well may show up as a beta feature in the coming weeks or months.

I'm not a big fan of "live testing" changes. I personally think all potential new features should be extensively beta tested to avoid issues with general rollout - preferably with a group of users who agreed to beta test knowing there could be unexpected problems. But, for a site the size, and immense complexity, of Ancestry, traditional beta testing may not be realistic. Live testing may be the only viable option. 

The second new item has been present all weekend for me - and I've been doing a happy dance since I noticed it! There's now an option to collapse Stickies. You can simply select the up or down arrow to expand or collapse the section. While the concept behind Stickies is great, I was originally very annoyed by the implementation. It ate up significant screen space on small screens, rendering Notes almost unusable. The ability to collapse Stickies is a workable compromise. Though Notes are still slightly impacted, it is significantly better than the original display. I can't say if this is a permanent feature or not. I suspect, given how many users were frustrated with the original roll out, this option may remain. If you don't have it yet, and you don't like Stickies taking up so much space, keep an eye out to see if it magically appears for you.

Ancestry used to have a direct way for users to indicate their preference to be included in beta testing. There used to be an option for "Ancestry Lab" accessed from the Extras option in the main menu. However, the Extras option appears to be gone and Ancestry Lab does not appear on the Site Map. Likewise, searching for "beta" in the support articles does not return any results. You can still find the Ancestry Lab link from a Google Search, but it loads saying there was an error and to refresh the page. On refresh, it simply returns "We’re sorry, this page is temporarily unavailable." Perhaps they're working on a new way for users to participate in betas, or maybe they're simply removing it as a whole. 

One existing feature I've noticed is not working as it used to is the checkboxes for why you accepted, ignored or marked a hint undecided. The option to select no longer appear directly after submit your choice on the person profile. In order to check the boxes and add notes now, you have to take the extra step of going to the accepted, undecided or ignored hints page, scroll to find the hint in question, and expand the option to show the checkboxes and reason. If you're like me, and you use this for every hint, it's a considerable amount of extra clicks and scrolling. Presumably, Ancestry uses this information to improve the algorithms, so I'd think they'd encourage users to use this feature. I hope this change is temporary and they return the former function soon. Note: This feature does still work on the All Hints page. Only the person profile seems to have changed.

Many people complain about the cost of Ancestry subscriptions. I personally feel the cost of making records available and maintaining a functioning site are considerable. For-profit companies have to make money - otherwise they'll cease to exist. Certainly, a part of subscription costs go towards the expansion of record sets, but some is earmarked for continual updating and maintenance of the site. While both of the potential features I've mentioned are relatively small, they are solid changes and may benefit many. It's nice to see Ancestry considering new beneficial features. And, as with the change to Stickies, they're clearly listening to some of the feedback from users. 

Have you noticed any new features while you're working on Ancestry? Not all users see the same features at the same time, so please share in the comments if you've noticed anything new lately!

Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to assist in titling this post, and creating the SEO description. All content is my own and was not edited using AI.

Drastically Improved Newspapers.com Clipping Tool

Have you tried the new and improved clipping tool at Newspapers.com? It was rolled out about a month ago but I just finally got around to trying it this afternoon - and I absolutely love it! You no longer need to clip and save multiple images when the article isn't a perfect square or rectangle. 

As an example, I'm going to use the wedding announcement for my brother and his first wife. Neither is still living and this is from 50 years ago, published in the Baltimore Sun on February 15, 1976, page 113. As you can see, the article spans over 3 columns (including the photo), but the 2nd column also includes information for a completely different wedding. I don't want the other wedding to be in the area of focus.

Previously, I'd either have to save three separate images or clip the entire area, including the information I don't really want. Now, I can outline the three different areas and create one, much cleaner, image. Here are the steps:

Outline the first area you want to include. Then, you'll see a little blue box with a plus in it:

Click on the "+" and you'll be presented with another box you can adjust the size on. 

In my case, I want to add a third area, so I click the plus again to bring up yet another box I can resize. 

Now, I'm done adding areas and I can save the clip. (But you could keep adding additional areas if you needed to). When I open the clip, I see this:

It's a perfectly highlighted area, clearly indicating the article I want to save. I've long wanted a way to do this, and Newspapers.com finally delivers! This improvement is both intuitive and easy to use. You can even go back and edit previously clipped items. The one thing I don't see any way to do is to combine if the article is on totally different pages. I did try, but it doesn't appear to be an option. 

If you've not yet tried the new and improved clipping tool, I highly recommend giving it a spin. You won't be disappointed!