AncestryDNA hits the million mark
No, actually, it isn’t Sunday, when The Legal Genealogist usually writes about DNA.
But today’s announcement from AncestryDNA1 really shouldn’t wait.
Not the part of the announcement that talks about AncestryHealth.
Frankly, I have some concerns about that — the data collection and aggregation of health information linked to family trees, and particularly to living family members who are not Ancestry customers and who have not given their consent, raises privacy concerns that need to be addressed.2
But the other part of the announcement.
The part that gives an astonishing number.
One million.
That’s the number of autosomal DNA tests AncestryDNA has processed — the number of people whose DNA data is in the AncestryDNA database.
AncestryDNA isn’t the first company to hit that mark. 23andMe announced last month that it had genotyped its one millionth customer as well.3 But a huge number of 23andMe customers tested for health reasons, not for genealogical research. So you often match people on 23andMe who have no interest in family history and so don’t respond to sharing requests.
Ancestry customers, by contrast, all tested because of some level of curiosity about their family history. They may not all have the degree of knowledge of their family trees that we’d like to see, but they’re all there in that database because of some shared interest in our shared ancestry.
And as that database grows — as the number of people who have taken a genetic genealogy test increases — so too does the likelihood of making a breakthrough in our own family history research by working collaboratively with those we discover are our genetic kin.
It really is just because of this database size that anyone serious about finding genetic matches to work with on family history mysteries needs to test with AncestryDNA.
Yes, I’m still disappointed with AncestryDNA’s refusal to provide tools to analyze our DNA results — the lack of a chromosome browser, for example, to see precisely where our DNA and a match’s DNA line up.4
But the simple fact is, database size matters. The more people we match, the more people we can connect with who may just have that photo of Great Granddad that no-one else has seen — or information about where Great Grandma was buried — or… or…
So even with the fact that AncestryDNA doesn’t give us everything we want, it’s still worth testing there and ponying up the $49 annual fee (for non-Ancestry subscribers) to get access to all of the match information that is available.
We don’t want to stop there, of course. Those who test with AncestryDNA should also immediately transfer their raw data to Family Tree DNA in order to take advantage of its database and its vastly superior set of analytical tools. The transfer fee is $39, and is waived for those who get at least four others to transfer their data. And then when finances allow serious genealogists should also test with 23andMe to get into that database too.5
And yes, actually, I have tested with all three… and I’d love to have more cousins test everywhere too.
I’m looking for every genetic cousin I can find to help break down our family’s brickwalls…
SOURCES
- “Ancestry Launches AncestryHealth,” Press Releases, Ancestry.com, posted 16 July 2015 (http://corporate.ancestry.com/press/press-releases/ : accessed 16 July 2015). ↩
- And that, because of its complexity, will have to wait for a Sunday down the road. ↩
- “Power of One Million,” 23andMe Blog, posted 18 June 2015 (http://blog.23andme.com/ : accessed 16 July 2015). ↩
- See generally Judy G. Russell, “Transfer time,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 2 Nov 2014 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed date). ↩
- See generally ibid., “2015: Most bang for the DNA buck,” posted 2 Feb 2015. ↩
I disagree with your statement that those who have submitted to Ancestry have an interest in genealogy. I have many matches to my Ancestry DNA that do not have any family tree attached or have trees with 3 people – mother, father, tester. I think what you’re seeing is that ancestry’s test is frequently on sale for $79 making it the cheapest alternative and that’s why there’s more purchases.
They may not have the same degree of interest that you have or that I have… but somebody connected with that test does have some interest in family history, or there wouldn’t have been a test taken at all!
If an interest in ethnicity percentages is considered an interest in genealogy, then perhaps. But I suspect there’s a good percentage who only care about those percentages and have no interest in finding cousins.
You’re right, I’m sure… but we can hope… and we can try to educate them. But even if we never get them really interested, at least we have some info — and the DNA results!
And don’t forget about transferring raw DNA data to Gedmatch.com which has tools that are superior even to FTDNA, IMHO. Not to mention it is FREE. Only today, I was able to confirm common ancestry among 3 people and am searching for the MRCA with a 4th who matches on the same segment, thanks to Gedmatch.
Gedmatch is excellent, if (a) the person tested consents to having the test in a public database and (b) (sigh) Gedmatch is up and running when you need it.
Points well taken!
My cousin transferred his DNA to Family Tree DNA unfortunately, because of some problem with the Ancestry DNA test, we have not been able to use his for chromosome or Matrix comparison. I find the Ancestry DNA challenging because the way they choose to match. We did get him on Gedmatch, and that has been a big help.
Ancestry test is right now $79 through Amazon.
Correct. The link at Amazon is here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00TRLVKW0).
Have tested with all 3 companies but so far, my biggest brick wall is STILL my biggest brick wall. Even had Roberta Estes due an analysis. Oh well, those darn ancestors are still hiding under rocks.
Your ancestors are probably under that rock playing poker with mine…
Have you considered the AncestryHealth initiative in the context of their recent changes in their subscriber contracts and privacy statements? Somehow I am suspicious of the latter when followed so closely by this announcement.
AncestryHealth is on my list for a future blog post.