Why don't supposed DNA matches contact me?

As above, whilst I take time and energy trying to find my DNA matches common ancestors, why don't they do the same? I've had few if any asking about my DNA. Feels like I'm wasting my time.

 

I am reminded by Peter's recent observation that I also find it annoying that I rarely get a response to an inquiry about a (likely DNA identified) family connections now settled in the USA. They are mainly the result of "poor law" removal first to Canada of my relatives from Norfolk and Suffolk between 1841 - 1881 . By 1901 - 1911 the majority had moved on to the USA and some I believe went on to serve in WWI.
Does anybody else have a similar problem with USA follow up about relatives migrating from any region in the U.K?
I have always received much betters response from similar Australian connections even with the surname Smith!

 

I agree with you Britjan especially as most of the trees owned by Americans don't appear to have UK ancestors on them and seem to believe they are related to the native Americans or in exceptional cases are related to British royalty!

 

Obviously Peter, Britjan and I speak as we find. When trying to make contact with American DNA alledged cousins, they rarely answer in my experience, similarly for normal messages on Ancestry and My Heritage. Seems to me that very few are interested in their family trees and much more interested in their ethnicity. I feel like a voice in the wilderness and am slowly losing interest in my own tree these days.

 

It clearly depends on your perspective. I remember reading a similar complaint on a FamilyTreeDNA forum but it was from an American about a lack of interest in family history from us Brits.

 

We're at the point as well now that there are deceased matches in the database. Even some folks that appear young in their pictures are deceased. I've had some frustratingly tantalizing matches only to find that situation, and its a bit odd mailing their other relatives to say hey, I know you're not X, but you have them in your tree, and I was hoping to get in touch with the family...

I send a LOT of messages through the system when I have the ability (I'm not a year round subscriber). My mum's line is full of adoptees so I try to contact them all and let them know I have tons of info for them that can help them if they need it. The older ones are sometimes shocked because I'm very friendly about it - previous generations were often not very kind to adoptees.

I use my profile to share my email and my other common usernames so they can find me elsewhere. That gets me a lot of questions as if you aren't a paying subscriber, you can't initiate contact with folks on Ancestry. I can always answer - even without a paid account - but you can't initiate. So that made be part of it too.

 

As an example, I have my paternal grandmother's results in the database and she died last year at the age of 99 (exactly 3 weeks from her 100th birthday). But as Peter says, I manage my grandmother's results and her test gives me 55,502 matches, which is a lot of opportunities to support research and assist in breaking down brick walls both for me and others. In comparison, her son's results (who I use for the paternal side of the family) have only 22,094 results.

Equally, I have been contacted by the manager of a set of results that belonged to a fairly distant cousin (who unfortunately died at a much younger age) who was still using and constructing his tree.

 

Oh for sure. But I have several now folks that look "young" but are deceased. Folks in their 40s and 50s. Its surprised people when I tell them that yep, I confirmed the death, found the obituaries, did the research, etc. I think most people are expecting the deceased ones to be the "old" people in the database, not the "younger" ones.

With some families doing DNA tests as presents for holidays, I see a lot more younger generations testing. I think its mostly us genealogy fans who really aim to get the older generations to test because we know how valuable that DNA is.