SideView

This is just what I was hoping would happen.
Only thing I'm a little confused. Can someone please explain why DNA origins don't match common communities please? Although parent 2 is a little closer.
Parent 1 DNA origins are,
England & Northwestern Europe

• East of England
  • East Anglia
• Greater London, England
• Central Southern England

but this side view has common communities as

• Southern Midwestern Pioneers
• Lower Midwest & Virginia Settlers
• Early Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana & East Texas Settlers
• Southern Backcountry to Oklahoma & Texas Settlers

Whereas parent 2 DNA origins

• Germanic Europe
• Eastern Europe & Russia
  • Northwest Poland
    • Central Pomerania
• 
  Sweden & Denmark9%
• Baltics8%
• Scotland5%
• Wales4%
• Basque<1%

Common communities

• Central Poland
• Northwest Poland
• Lower Midwest & Virginia Settlers
• Wisconsin Settlers

Thank you.

 

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that DNA origins are where it looks as though your parents' ancestors came from, whereas common communities are where a lot of your matches on that side appear to live or have lived more recently?

... that's mostly right, but the information in Peter's post clarifies the definition of communities further.

 

Thank you that makes sense, so origins I understand to be where from and now I understand that common communities are where people are now, phew, was beginning to think it was wrong.

 

Something I have noticed about Parent 1 and 2. Don't assume as I did that Parent 1 is the same side for you as it is for someone else.
ie Parent 1 on my tree is maternal side whereas on my partners tree Parent 1 is paternal. Hope this helps others.

 

If you go to the relevant person and edit relationship, select reset to default it will show Ancestry's allocation instantly. After that you can redefine it if you wish.

Regarding my previous item about an incorrect allocation to my mother's side, the Ancestry member (3C 24cM - descended from my paternal grandmother's younger brother) has six shared matches - 4 2C1R, 1 each 2C2R, 3C. The first three (179cM, 168cM, 148cM) Ancestry have as Unassigned, the others (145cM, 124cM, 41cM) are Paternal. The first 5 are all descended from my paternal grandmother's older sister and the 6th from her mother's youngest brother.

From various "snippets" in previous messages, it looks to be a case of more is less! From my research, my grandmother's ancestors are from Southwick, North Bradley, Trowbridge and Rode - with very few Furriners.

 

In regards to the "coloured" information dots - I have only noticed black and red > but I grabbed a few screenshots to assist.

In regards to the black information dots (very easy to find when you use the "custom labeled" filter:


As for the red ones:


And when you click - It's worth noting that the Common Ancestor tag for this result suggests a paternal match, which is curious:


Hope that helps?

 

This looks like another example of a discrepancy between ThruLines and SideView, as I mentioned previously (post #84). I have 4 matches (3 of them closely related to each other) of similar low cM where ThruLines points to a maternal link but SideView labels them as Parent 1 (i.e. Paternal side in my case). I hadn't labelled any of these myself, so no red 'i'.

 

Perhaps discrepancy was the wrong word. I was intending to convey a difference between hints from different sources, not saying which is right. And I agree the fewer the segments the more likely the assignment to the wrong side of the tree (e.g. those of 8-10 cM and only 1 segment). However, the 'more the better' is not true of hints based on trees, as many trees have the same error copied from other trees.

 

I have one, a person who I know is on my maternal side because a) when I was researching her tree I corresponded extensively with both his mother and grandmother and b) when he matched me on Ancestry I messaged him and confirmed that he was in fact the person I thought he was. Ancestry gives me the correct common ancestors (my mother's grandparents) but it says my match is paternal.

 

Here's a thought - half of which is obvious - about both-sides matches.

I have only one match on both sides: my niece. Historically speaking, I labelled that match as "niece" and as "both sides" - both choices were offered together. But now it only shows up with the "both sides" filter, not with the "custom labelled both sides" one. So Ancestry is saying I didn't label it.

There are two steps in Ancestry's processing to get these SideView labels. First they go through all your matches doing a comparison with your DNA and comparing those comparisons to see which fit with each other. That sorts you matches into a number of heaps where your DNA that matches them looks to be inherited together. The two biggest heaps get called parent 1 and parent 2, and any small heaps mostly unassigned. But some matches show some fit with both main heaps, and may get labelled "both sides".

There are thresholds involved in this sorting, so there is an act of choice about is it one side or the other or both. But that's internal to Ancestry, and we can't interact with it. The choice we are being offered with the (i) icon can't affect that, it's about the second processing step. That resolves the arbitrary parent 1 and 2 as mother and father, and of course applies to all the matches in both those big heaps. There cannot, logically, be such a choice for "both sides". So presumably we don't get offered it, and won't see that (i) icon.

So, has anyone ever seen a both sides match with the (i) icon or with the "custom labelled both sides" filter?

 

Mum has one match that Common Ancestor traces back to a mutual COOPER, Mums maiden name, in 1753, so it is Paternal. Side View states it is Maternal!
Interestingly the Surname of the match is a COOPER, but from a different part of England, but has a COOPER ancestor ,who marries a Miss TAVENOR from Staffordshire. My Mums maternal family lived in Staffordshire at the time that Miss TAVENOR was born. At the moment I cannot see a link but it is interesting.....

 

Just one segment, 11cM

 

I don't think that's clear, which is why I asked the question.