Which DNA Test Should You Take?

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front):  My recommendations, in order, are:

1.  Ancestry.com - take their Autosomal DNA test
2.  Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) - take their Y DNA 
3.  23 and Me - take their Health DNA test
4.  Mitochondrial  Probably not worth it for most people

Why do I think you might be interested in my opinion on this topic?

1. First and foremost: I am not sponsored by any DNA testing company and I don't expect to be, ever. I am not afraid to provide my opinion, positive or negative.
2. I administer many DNA tests (i.e. paid for) for family members and in-laws  
3. I've helped several friends sort through their DNA results.    

Below is a list of tests I've ordered, managed, paid for, or consulted closely on:

Autosomal DNA - 14 Tests

• Myself
• My father
• 4 siblings 
• 3 brothers-in-law 
• 5 Friends 

Y DNA - 3 Tests

• In the early days of DNA testing, I had my father and husband take Y DNA tests at Ancestry.com.  
• I had my husband take a Y test at Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) because he had zero matches at Ancestry.com

Mitochondrial DNA - 1 Test (and that's enough)

• 1 Friend looking for her mother's birth family

Most of the above tested on Ancestry.com but I have experience with Y, Autosomal, and MT DNA on FTDNA

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front):  My recommendations are:

1. Autosomal DNA     Ancestry.com
2. Y DNA                       FTDNA
3. Mitochondrial        Probably not worth doing.
4. Health                      23 and Me

Here are the details:

Autosomal DNA is best used to identify cousins who may help you build your tree.  It's good in identifing people who are 4th cousins or closer. You common ancestor may have been born in the 1700s.  Ancestry.com has two advantages over its competitors:

1. Volume.  Over 3 million people have tested with Ancestry.com. It's difficult to get numbers from other test companies because they're not bragging.   FTDNA has under a million.
2. Ancestry.com is in the tree building business.  DNA's great but you need a tree to sort out the details.  While other sites, like FTDNA have a function to build a tree, there are no databases to support it. They're in the DNA business, not the tree building business.  To add a tree, you have to build it elsewhere and import it or type it in.  Ancestry.com (for all it's problems) had tons of trees.   

• I helped a friend with her FTDNA results.  Her mother was adopted and she's looking for the birth family.  A higher volume of tests and trees would be very helpful at this point. We used Ancestry.com to build the tree and then put the basic information into FTDNA.  

Y DNA is less attractive than it once was.  Ancestry.com dropped their test because it wasn't a money maker.  Once one male tested, none of his cousins with the same surname needed to test.  End of the money trail.  However for tracing a male line, it can be very exceptionally valuable in that matches provide a very narrow path for determining how you're related.

Health DNA - Right now, 23 and Me is the only game in town.  Their test and reports are straight forward.  I want to take this test but I keep using my disposable income to buy AVGAS and more autosomal tests.

Mitochondrial DNA Test:  Probably not worth doing unless you have unlimited funds and are curious.  There are limited scenarios where this test might help.  To read one of those very limited scenarios, read Roberta Estes' blog that explains what she discovered using mtDNA: link. Results may vary! 

Lynn

Keep the blue side up

"New" Ancestry.com (15 Dec 2015) Recommendation #4: Show what types of hints are available

"New" Ancestry.com (15 Dec 2015) Recommendation #4:  Show what types of hints are available

Background: I love Ancestry hints. However, there's a lot of circular reporting.  If someone viewing my tree clicks "Saves this person to your tree," I inevitable get a family tree hint. If I have a new hint,I'd like to know what kind (i.e. historical record or user submitted image) so I know whether to purse it or not.

- New Ancestry:  simply lists the number of hints.

- Old Ancestry: listed the number by type.

Recommendation:  Identify the number of  hints by type, not just the number of hints.

"New" Ancestry.com (15 Dec 2015) Recommendation #3: Thumbnails of ancestry.com documents in the Gallery

"New" Ancestry.com (15 Dec 2015) Recommendation #3:  Remove or color-code thumbnails of ancestry.com documents in the gallery

Background: Sometimes I want to see images of  Ancestry.com documents attached to an individual.

- Old Ancestry: I scroll down to Source Information (below the family names); click on the source (e.g. 1860 Census) to get the index and transcription (what Ancestry calls the Record, as opposed to the image), then click on "view" to see the image. (3 steps)

- New Ancestry: Now includes thumbnails of images on the fact page.  Click on the image and you see it (1 step) unless it's below the fold, then you have to scroll and click (2 steps).  Or go to the Gallery to view them. In the Gallery, user submitted media is shown first, then ancestry documents.  So, if there were a significant amount of images, I may have to scroll to find the document I want (making it 3 steps).  Since the images are available from the fact page, it's redundant to put them in the gallery. They just make a mess of the page.

Recommendation:  Remove ancestry.com document thumbnails from the Gallery, or outline them in a different color than user submitted media.

"New" Ancestry.com (15 Dec 2015) - Recommendation #2: Provide a Count of User Submitted Media in the Gallery

"New" Ancestry.com (15 Dec 2015) - Recommendation #2:  Provide a count of user submitted media in the gallery

Background: If I'm viewing an individual on another user's tree, I'd like to know if they have any user submitted media. These items can be especially valuable because they may be out of a user's personal holdings or they may be from another website.

- Old Ancestry: shows thumbnails of 5 media items; underneath it provides a count of the number of each type. I can easily assess whether I should spend valuable time clicking to the gallery page.

- New Ancestry: does show any user submitted photos on the fact page nor does it provide a count (as it does for hints).

Recommendation: Add a count of user submitted media items in the gallery and include some images on the fact page.  

"New" Ancestry.com (15 Dec 2015) - Recommendation #1: User submitted photos attached to other trees

"New" Ancestry.com (15 Dec 2015) - Recommendation #1:  List the other trees to which user submitted photos have been saved

I'm still not terribly happy about the new Ancestry.com  I'm not so concerned about the dull colors, but rather the functionality.  On 15 Dec 2015 there will be no option but to use it. I'm submitting a final round of suggestions. I put "new" in quotes because eventually this won't be the "new" ancestry.

New Ancestry Recommendation #1:  User submitted photos

Background: When looking at a user submitted photo:

- Old Ancestry - shows a list of other users' trees it's attached to (gives tree name and user name)

- New Ancestry - shows only avatars/profile pics of other users' trees. Must click on each to see names (one at a time).  Can't see them all at one time. (Image below)

Recommendation: change new Ancestry to  show a list of user trees that user submitted photos are attached to.

Genealogy, E=MC2

Meminger

Babcock

Germany

Toledo

Ohio

Meminger

Babcock

Germany

Toledo

Ohio

Meminger

Babcock

Germany

Toledo

Ohio

Meminger

Babcock

Germany

Toledo

Ohio

Irma

Woody

Irma

Millie

Edward

Steinstadt

Mildred

John

Eddie

Woody

Houghton

Culpeper

Culpeper

Elijah

West Virginia

West Virginia

Houghton

Houghton

Culpeper

Elijah

West Virginia

Houghton

Culpeper

Elijah

West Virginia

Homer

Minter

Evelyn

Coleman

Cress

Krimminger

Jones

Lenoir

Westmoreland

Tevepaugh

McHugh

Cochran

Delarber

Delarber

Delarber

Henderson

Henderson

Sims

Morgan

Morgan

McCoy

McClung

McCutchen

Woodruff

Woodruff

Woodruff

Dawson

Tony

Julius

Paulina

Juchnis

Lithuania

Chicago

Mike

Burdette

George

Etta Lois

Sloop

Ginny

Dawson

Tony

Julius

Paulina

Juchnis

Lithuania

Chicago

Mike

Burdette

George

Etta Lois

Sloop

Ginny Dawson

Tony

Julius

Paulina

Juchnis

Lithuania

Chicago

Mike

Burdette

George

Etta Lois

Sloop

Ginny

Dawson

Tony

Julius

Paulina

Juchnis

Lithuania

Chicago

Mike

Burdette

George

Etta Lois

Sloop

Ginny

Genealogy

E=MC²

Tombstone

Cemetery

Census

DNA

Genealogy

E=MC²

Tombstone

Cemetery

Census

DNA

Genealogy

E=MC²

Genealogy

E=MC²

Genealogy

E=MC²

Genealogy

E=MC²

Genealogy

E=MC²

Genealogy

E=MC²

Tombstone

Cemetery

Census

DNA

DNA

Brick wall

Reunion

Cousin

Grandparent

Aunt

Uncle

Software

Database

DAR

Alsace Lorraine

Civil War

Union

Confederate

Minimalism vis-à-vis New Ancestry and Old Ancestry

Ancestry.com is my primary genealogy research tool -- by a long shot. I'm really into data and Ancestry.com has the data. Other sites have data but ancestry.com has more. And it's easier to find than on many other sites. Even though I'm still not a fan of New Search (don't get me started), it still works better than most other genealogy data search functions (just not as good as Old Search.) 

 Today I want to address New Ancestry (released 1 Jun 2015) versus Old Ancestry (image: Old Ancestry left, New Ancestry right).  I'm a minimalist. I want fewer clicks to navigate and perform functions. Fewer drop downs are usually better as they add more clicking. 

The only thing I don't want kept to a minimum is the amount of data on a webpage. This really fits into my minimalist approach because I want to keep the clicking and scrolling to a minimum.  

Here are my thoughts on New Ancestry's layout and functions.

Pros:

1.  Relationship to root person is visible for my trees without clicking (New Ancestry to right).  I wish relationship to the root person was available for other trees.

2. Edit functions for an individual are on a drop down at the top of the profile page. The use of pop-ups provides a much faster transition than clicking to a new page.

•  Quick Edit - Although I'd rather not have it on a drop down, it wasn't available at all on Old Ancestry for when viewing an individual's profile.  
• Edit Relationships and Delete Person used to take 2 clicks to get to and one click to return to the person.  Now it's available on the Edit button.

3. Quick Edit is available from the tree view.

4. Alternate names are shown on the Fact page. In the past they were hidden on the Edit page and not available for viewing except from your own tree.

Cons:

1. The profile picture is now round. This isn't always appropriate as most photographs are rectangular. To make it look OK, I have to reshape it to fit and let's be honest, the square peg in the round hole looks unfinished and unprofessional, like I don't love Grandma Bessie enough to bother.  

Although Ancestry.com is planning to add a feature that allows you to crop a photo to fit the new round space,  I'd like the image to look nice without having to take that step. This is potentially a VERY BIG ISSUE for people who have taken the time to put images on thousands of people in their tree. Also, many of us use tombstones or documents as Profile pictures and a circle doesn't always accommodate the text. I know this because familysearch.org uses a circle and it is frequently challenging to make it work.  


2. Find a person in this tree is a drop down from an individual's profile.  In other words, if you're on an individual's profile page and want to change to another individual in the tree, the search field isn't visible. It's takes a click to show it. In Old Ancestry, you just typed a name in the box. (The field remains visible in the tree view.)
(Old Ancestry left, New Ancestry right)

3. Media thumbnails are not visible without clicking on gallery.  Unlike "hints", I don't even know how many user submitted items are there without clicking. With the Old Ancestry, I could see up to five thumbnails and know how many more were available. This is also a BIG ISSUE in that I must click away from an individual's primary page (i.e. the Fact page) just to see that there are no additional images for them. The gallery loading took quite some time when I used it today.

Old Ancestry (on Profile page)




 


 New Ancestry (on Gallery page only)






4.  Sources now have a thumbnail. Whilst Ancestry.com has removed media thumbnails, they've added one for each source that contains an image. It takes up a significant amount of space. I've provided a comparison to the small leaf used on Old Ancestry. The only advantage is that it shows you there's an image and not just an index.  Perhaps the thumbnail could be reduced in size or a generic image icon could be used.  Old Ancestry top, New Ancestry bottom)

5. Less defined spaces. For all the new color on the page some color has been removed. Spouses names are no longer highlighted and family groups aren't outlined. This makes it more difficult to distinguish separate family groups. Call this quibbling, but I like the defined spaces.
(Old Ancestry left, New Ancestry right)

7. Quick Edit removed from family members. As much as I liked that the Edit functions now appear on an individual's page, Ancestry.com has removed the edit functions from family members. In the two photos above (yes above), Old Ancestry has an icon to the right of each individual's name. Click the box and get a slew of Edit functions (below).

 

8.  Scrolling isn't a 9 letter word. Remember in my intro that I said I like a lot of data on a page?  Well, I don't mean it should be cluttered just to keep it above the fold. The old adage about keeping data above the fold is yesterday's news. Katie Fishburn writes on Vibethink.com that there's a trend toward scrolling over clicking in web design. New Ancestry bucks the trend by moving the source data up into a 3rd column versus keeping it below the fold and available by scrolling.  Everything seems to be competing for my attention. 

I feel the new page is so packed with images and data that it's overwhelming to look at. I'm not sure how I'll feel after I've used it a bit but will let you know. 

 My bottom line?  I'd like Ancestry.com to modify the New Ancestry and use some great features from Old Ancestry. The new design has some unintended consequences, like the massive amount of effort it will take our fellow genealogists to crop their square photos into the new round profile pages. I will, as always, submit my comments directly to ancestry.com.  Gentle readers, I'd love to hear what you  think. 

Till next time, keep the blue side up ... Lynn

People Are So Kind: German Record Transcription

Someone just helped me again.  I'm trying to translate a German record but first I need to transcribe it. I've done several other documents, and while I'm certainly not an expert, I was really stuck with this one.

It's the Rev. E. A. Bauer's funeral record for my husband's great great grandmother, Elizabeth Winter, widow of John Roth of Franklin Township, Carbon County, Pennsylvania.  I was able to make out her name, the date of death, date of burial, and age. But when it came to the remarks, I was really stuck. 

The second line says:  8 h: 17 feh: 3 urckl

Well, at least that was what I managed to make out.  I googled and googled looking for abbreviations. No luck. I transposed the letters and googled again. No luck. Finally I posted it to the German Genealogy Records Transcription Group on Facebook and once again a kind stranger helped me out.

 

 

Here's a portion of the note I posted along with it:

Almost all other records are in this order: 1) place of birth 2) birth date 3) parents names. From this information I see she was born in 1789 and her maiden name was Winter (I have this from a second source). I can't read much else. I'm especially curious about the second line. Thanks for any assistance.

Within an hour, Renate posted the following: 8 children, 17 grandchildren and 3 great grandchildren.
 Nothing I researched looked anything like that.  Now to reverse engineer the answer.  I immediately saw that the first term is probably 8 k for kinder or children..  

With a little more help from google translate, I determined the last term was 3 Ur ekl for ur-enkel or great grandchilden.

I posted an additional query about the middle term for grandchildren. Renate said it's ekl for enkelkinder. I see another letter there that looks like a s or an f but I absolutely trust Renate.

This family poses a serious brick wall. Now I'm off to pull up census records from 1810 to 1840 and start counting children.

 

Till next time, keep the blue side up ... Lynn

Ancestry.com's New Record View

Ancestry.com's done it again. They fixed something that wasn't broken.  They updated their record view page to make it look .... well different.  Although no one has asked for it, here's my review of the changes.

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF):  There was not enough improvement to warrant a change.  

A few details:

1. Content: The new record page is not a lot different in content. This is a good thing. 

2.  Font: I think Ancestry.com was trying to create a cleaner look.  This cleaner look resulted in less contrast and no background shading. I find the text more difficult to read.  For example, on the old version, the name of the individual is bolded and the header information has a grey background making it easier to focus on the data that's unique to this record.

3.  Headers: On the old version, the header column (e.g. Name, Gender, Spouse's Name) was wide. For many labels, this meant they were on a single line. During beta testing, these fields were very narrow and the labels end up on more lines. Here you can see, for example, Spouse's Name is on two lines in the new version on the left and one line in the old version on the right.  (Click on image to enlarge.)

I'm sure I wasn't the only user who wrote to Ancestry.com about this issue. It seems they agreed and changed it. Now the header column is wider. Thanks Ancestry.com! That was one of my biggest issues with the new version.

4. Source Credit: The NARA logo is now at the top of the Census page. This is not a particularly helpful field to take up valuable "above the scroll" real estate.

5. Thumbnail image: It's larger. Not a big deal either way.

Bottom line: There was not enough improvement to warrant a change. Overall I find the new font and removal of the shading make it more difficult to find the information I'm looking for.  

Till next time, keep the blue side up ... Lynn

My Lithuanian ancestors.

For years I've been researching my Lithuanian ancestors.  I didn't have much information other than that my paternal grandfather's parents came to the America from Lithuania.

My initial search began with my great grandfather Julius Dawson.  I quickly found he had an older brother Peter.  They spelled their names many ways until eventually they all used Dawson.  The most common Lithuanian spelling is Dausinas (for the men) and Dausinaite (for the unmarried women).

So, I've found 2 Dawson brothers:

- Peter Dausinas

- Julius Dausinas

MEMORY BOOK: Julius' eldest son, my Uncle Lawrence, wrote about his family in a Memory Book.  He said, "Aunt Sofia (father's sister) knew all about mushrooms. She had a mean son named Walter."  One of Lawrence's daughters said that Walter used to terrorize Lawrence and his brothers with snakes.

Now I have 3 Dawson siblings:

- Peter Dausinas

- Julius Dausinas

- Sophie Dausinaite

Uncle Lawrence also wrote, "Sofia's husband, Uncle Joe was a quiet man.  He was found dead in a fishing boat of a heart attack."

CHURCH RECORDS: Using Catholic Church Records from Providence of God Church, I searched for Sophie and found Julius had not one, but two sisters, Anna and Josephine (who I assume to be Aunt Sophie). They married two Raczkowski brothers (Frank and John respectively). 

Oh - I'm up to 4 Dawson siblings:

- Peter Dausinas

- Julius Dausinas

- Sophie Dausinaite

- Anna Dausinaite

I found a number of records for Anna Dawson and husband Frank Raczkowski but have never located Josephine and husband John Raczkowski in the Census records.  I did, however, find baptism records for 3 children:

- Joseph b. 1901

- John b. 1902

- Walter b. 1904

Keep in mind that Uncle Lawrence said Sophie's husband was Joe, not John.  For years I've searched Census and other records for Aunt Sophie, Uncle Joe or John, and their mean son Walter without success.

ADDRESS BOOK:  In 2011, Uncle Lawrence's daughters, Doris and Christine, provided me with names of possible cousins listed in their mother's address book. They felt that Walter's last name started with a J, perhaps Janchusky or Janczewski. They said they may have had children: Lottie and Mickey. Although this didn't match the Church records, I searched with this name as well as with children Lottie and Mickey.  No luck.  I searched using first names only. No luck.  Something just wasn't right.

JACKPOT: Earlier this week I came across a 1905 marriage record for Stanislawa Dansinaite and Josef Janconski in Ancestry.com's Cook County Marriage Record.  I think I missed this record in the past because this is yet another spelling of Dausinaite.  Although I've done searches using Soundex and wild cards, Ancestry.com requires a minimum of 3 letters. I've searched for Dau*, Daw*, Doo*, Dou*, etc.  I must not have searched on Dan*.  Or I did and got too many results.

Now I have 5 Dawson siblings:

- Peter Dausinas

- Julius Dausinas

- Sophie Dausinaite

- Anna Dausinaite

- Stanislawa Dausinaite

BACK TO THE CHURCH RECORDS: I took the information from the Cook County record and headed to Familysearch.org to use the browsable Chicago Catholic Church Records.  Bingo.  Here's their marriage record, including parents names. Love these records!!

 

CENSUS: From there I headed to the Census records.  1910 - no luck.  However in 1920, I found a record for:

Joseph Janczewski

- Stella (Stanislawa, I assume)

- Madeline (Mickey?)

- Loretta (Lottie)

- Walter

- Stella

I think this is the correct family but it's not perfect. Then I found the same family in the 1930 Census and all doubt was removed when I saw Stella's brother, Peter Dawson living with them.

Joseph Janczewski

- Stella

- Madeline (Mickey)

- Charlotte (Lottie)

- Stella

- Peter Dawson - listed as Uncle

Peter Dawson is actually Stella's brother, not her uncle. I'm confident of this because her parents names are listed on her Providence of God Church marriage records. Peter is, however, uncle to the children.  This minor incongruity doesn't bother me as my brothers-in-law call me Aunt Lynn out of habit because they call me that for their children's sake.   

Enough for now.  This is a very exciting find for me and was only possible because my cousins, Doris and Christine, shared what they knew.  

Till next time, keep the blue side up ... Lynn