That's my belief.

Well, I didn't hold back. Did you see my water bottle moment in the beginning?

@Suzanne McClendon We miss hanging out with you as well. However, we're going to Europe for the rest of June. So, perhaps things will be resolved by the time we get back?

Thanks for sharing your experiences with me.

Whilst I do agree with you and I definitely do want a chromosome browser is you have me the choice of a chromosome browser or say them telling me how much DNA my matches share with their shared matches, something MyHeritage also provides, or even showing shared matches below 20cM, say down to 15cM, then I'd take the latter first. It's just my opinion and I do want to say this isn't me saying I don't want one but those would be my priority. Now you could say you could work out all of this is they have you a chromosome browser that showed matching segment locations, and that is true, but it would take a lot of work to go through all your matches and do this one at a time. I think the reason Ancestry isn't doing this is because their database behind the website is so poorly designed it can't handle the amount of data, match of up, and provide it back to the user at present, let alone with more functionality. They probably need to fix that first before they can do anything else and that will take a lot of time and effort and so it's why we aren't getting the new features we need, but are being thrown bones like sideview, which is nice, but doesn't provide a huge amount of insight into where distant relatives are in your tree, so it's really only shared matches and trees Ancestry has as tools, but it has a lot more DNA test results than any other provider and so feels it can do anything it wants, and is more info the gimmick of Ethnicity than it is genealogy when it comes to advertising its DNA kits.

I feel your frustration. They're still useful, but the chromosome browser might help break down some brick walls. Also, some people who are on multiple sites, including those with browsers, use different names across sites. Sigh! :) It would be helpful to be able to check segments among shared matches and to be able to triangulate matches. I wish they would also do like MyHeritage and 23andme do, which is not only tell me my shared matches but tell me how much I shared with them and how much the person I am viewing shares with them, along with our predicted relationships. I have written about both the browser and this issue to Ancestry previously. They have the largest database, and they keep adding features, but somehow the premier company has not provided a chromosome browser and provided for triangulation. I wish 23andme would revise their browser so that yes would go back to meaning triangulation.

Thanks for participating in the rant session with me.

I wanted to retest all my family members with Ancestry (currently all are on FTDNA and only 3 tests on Ancestry) but I won't do it if they don't give us the chromosome browser because such DNA test has no value to me.

Cool. Good job on what you've done so far.

Yes! This is the same with Indian Ocean islanders too. Cutting off the shared match list at 20cM misses so many shared matches that would be helpful.We don't have that many to start with on that side.

Ancestry has DNA Matches Split Up By Parent in Beta right now. I'm not sure it's available in every country. It's a nice feature.

@@volkstouareg5620 ,yeah, that only works well if you have already been able to identify a lot of your matches, so basically it is your own work.

@@volkstouareg5620 It's a nice feature in principle but at the moment there are still a lot of matches that are unassigned. My mum has 33 matches assigned to her paternal side (the Mauritian side), 386 maternal and 17,570 unassigned. At the top it says updated Dec 2022 🤷‍♂When I look at the paternal matches I can already spot a large percentage that are incorrect as they match my mum on her maternal side. Unfortunately, neither of her parents are alive to test. At least with myself I have my mum tested on ancestry/23andme and dad on 23andme so it's easier for me to separate mine out, manually if needed (I've done a large part of my unassigned myself)

I went through my sub 20cM matches to find if they had matches, a staggering number did match to groups I had created and many have public trees, they seem to be the type who want to link up their tree to mine even when the connection is way way back whereas the 2nd-3rd cousins are more 'copy that tree' type and know nothing beyond a name and date, in fact that's often all they have, no sources, no evidence, no proof. Just the right name in the right place around the right time and a 'it must be right' arrogance that they refuse to leave behind.

Whilst I, like you, would love a chromosome browser, your claim that genealogy can't be done properly without one is absurd. Maybe it got included the word genetic I'm inclined to agree with you, but you can do it properly without one, but it certainly helps confirm things with one. Having just been given access by a DNA match to the DNA match lists for two matches to my grandpa and having copied from the match list page all the matches down to a certain limit and matching them all together it is staggering what you don't see with the 20cM limit, as well as being able to see how much these matches match with shared matches to me is probably more useful. I'd prefer to be able to see how much DNA my matches and shared matches have in common ahead of a chromosome browser.

@BentleyDrummle1 Genetic genealogy research is harder without a chromosome browser. Additionally, it's very difficult to make a conclusive argument about relationships without seeing how individuals triangulate on specific chromosomes at specific segment locales. So, genetic genealogy can be done without it. However, with it, we can validate more of our theories.

The tool is easy enough for my wife, the Debbie Downer of DNA to understand. It's actually one of the easiest tools to explain. **SIGH ***

To ensure that I'm not burning bridges, I can sympathize with Ancestry's desire to protect privacy. However, in the past 10 years, we've seen many ways that other platforms have navigated this issue. I'm in favor of allowing people to opt-in to the tool.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics for sure, privacy is one of the utmost considerations that Ancestry should be complying with and I respect that they do. I guess my point is I've never seen an explanation of just how this presents as a privacy issue. Opt in/out would surely address any concerns

As to privacy, that could easily be addressed through the privacy settings, where people can Opt-out. That's how it is with MyHeritage. With some of my matches on MyHeritage I can't use the Chromosome Browser, because they've opted-out.

Awww. Thanks for sending people our way.

Nice analogy.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I love to think of matching segments as miniature pieces of real estate of varying size, with houses on them that are reflective of the ethnicity present. One side of the street represents one parent, and across the street the other. Unresolved segments are open lots and positively identified ones have houses(or log cabins or longhouses) on them. When I print out what I have on DNA painter, I add fences to show the property lines with dates attached to indicate when they were created, which is not yet possible on DNA painter. Then I add symbols to show what is on the property and where it may lead to in the past.

You're not alone in not switching to other platforms. That's for sure.

You must have watched the previous video about why Chromosome Browsers are important along with this one.

You're not alone in dreaming of the power of the brickwalls that could come down with an Ancestry chromosome browser, or bare minimum a downloadable segment data file.

I wish I had more influence. I only have a soapbox.

Thanks for watching and supporting me in this rant.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Thank you for putting this out there. If all the genealogy vloggers can rant together about the lack of a very necessary tool that (Ancestry) should have hopefully they will get the message and make some improvements that benefit us all.

We'll try. Do me a favor... go watch some of my wife's videos and share the love there as well.

Thanks. Glad you agree.

Glad you thought so.

As I said in the video, I have hope that they're working on this. Since I don't work for the company, I don't have any more power than you. But I can complain.

I'm aware of Family Tree DNA's chromosome browser. I just highlighted the one I think is the best - GEDmatch.

Except that people can get Family Tree DNA for free by uploading their Ancestry data.

I can't necessarily blame the company for striving to protect the privacy of their customers. However, I can disagree and suggest they allow individuals to opt into the service if they chose. Perhaps that would be the best of both worlds?

My rant? You know me too well. BTW... Love the tool pun.

To be fair, Ancestry is trying to balance the need to protect the privacy of all of its users. They have said balancing that is challenging. But, I think there is a way to balance privacy with chromosome browsers. So, I'll still insist that Ancestry and Living DNA need to add this tool to indicate that they have a comprehensive set of tools

I doubt. People have been asking the chromosome browser since 2013 and Ancestry only repeats that nobody needs it.

@Jerome Spears One could only hope. However, I have a feeling I will only have made a few folks mad, rather than encourage the tool.

@Tomas K Or that no one really understands it.

Don't hold your breath (I'm not).

They don't provide a comprehensive set of tools.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics they don't even indicate how our matches share/relate to each other. I've had a daughter not appear on a shared match list with her father and had to uncover the fact that two matches were first cousins to each other. With different surnames and no trees there was no indication they were that close to each other.

I'd pay a fee (like with MH and FTDNA) for it. But that's not the justification they're providing for not having one currently.

I'm not sure about the price increase, but I don't work for the company so I can't speak to that.

If they (Ancestry) ever offers it I expect it would be a premium service, where you'd pay some annual fee.

Perhaps. Or at least cause more work that I'd like to do.

Not really. People still choose Ancestry because it has by far the largest database. And most of that "competition" they can get for free by uploading their Ancestry data to the other sites.

All great questions that I don't have answers to.

Do they? I'll have to look.

Too funny.

Gedmatch provide the SNP and Q values which give you a good indication of whether a segment is IBD or IBC.

@Caz Derby You beat me to the punch.

If you have another person's GEDMatch number, you can see where a chromosome match is, even if it goes more than 8 generations back.

You're not alone in this sentiment.

Awesome.

Thanks for sharing your rant. Since I don't work for Ancestry, I can't really speak as to why they don't offer the tool. You could be right. You could be way off. All I know is that they need to offer the tool to have a comprehensive set of tools

I'm trying.

My wife has initially neglected the collaboration feature. Not that they aren't an improvement but the fact that few people collaborate in genealogy. But, quick tree building seems to have been a constant trend for most genealogy companies, and Devon and I get so frustrated because the increased 'interest' hasn't necessarily helped build accurate family trees.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I'm finally closing the net on how two groups of matches link to me, they account for about 40% of my maternal matches. I can barely find two trees with consistent information which suggests little in the way of collaboration or info sharing is taking place. I've messaged a few people and still haven't had replies two months down the line.

@@glenjones6980 Very few people will respond to a message from someone they don't actually know. I've gotten very few responses to messages I've sent. But the flip side is I haven't always responded to messages that were sent to me. Why? Well, when it's a stranger I don't really feel an obligation to respond.

Glad you agree.

A chromosome browser would keep me on their platform longer because most of my matches are there (as many others have found out). So I don't think the index keeps folks on platform... but rather sends them elsewhere.

It would help confirm theories.

I can feel your pain so much. Good luck.

To be fair, they are trying to protect the privacy of their users. However, I do think they have that built into the platform already. Anyone who designates their DNA and trees as private could be excluded. Everyone else could be included in the chromosome browser technology. Just a thought.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Yes, but chromosome browsers don’t actually let you see the base source data either (the actual values). They just show you where on the chromosomes you actually match someone. Theoretically, if you have a downloaded file of the data you could see the actual values, but if they had a proper browser, users would not need to do that at all.

You have the exact reason why chromosome browsers are important. You and the match should transfer your DNA to GEDmatch to see what segment you have in common (or use MyHeritage. That also works). Then, look at the known matches you match with your match. (Does that make sense). As you being to figure out which known DNA matches you and this match share in common, that should help you resolve the question you have. Now do you see why the chromosome browser is important? You not only need the DNA segment from your match, but also other known matches. So you both need to invite even more folks to migrate their DNA to a platform that has a chromosome browser to resolve your question.

Then should just provide the segment data in a downloadable format, like a CSV file.

You bring up possible theories of explanations. I can't comment on it any further because I don't work for the company (and I make them mad too often). But it's something to consider.

I'm glad you found it.

Yep. LivingDNA is a smaller company and I'd love to see them have more tools. But, it all depends on the talent they have available.

You might be right about the additional sale of DNA kits. But that's not the point I'm advocating. Instead, I'd like a comprehensive set of tools to do genetic genealogy to validate the Ancestry ThruLines and other DNA match tools that Ancestry provides.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I hope they do introduce this tool, but I stand by my comment. A useful tool, but one that less that 10% of Ancestry users would make use of. So what company is going to introduce a loss making product/feature? Good luck in your efforts to accomplish this!

How in the world do all of the other major DNA databases provide one if it is so expensive? Ancestry probably has access to way more funds to develop this than all of the other sites combined.

@@jeffkennedy8034 Probably, because as another user has said, Ancestry’s databases and associated indexes are likely in dire need of redesign (poorly designed for current purposes) and the additional access traffic coming in from a chromosome browser would crash the system. (I’m a former database administrator/system designer). Being the first and most popular product on the market can have its downfalls. Remember when Ancestry started crashing all over the place when the TV show first came out? They weren’t prepared for the additional access traffic. Though obviously they have improved the system substantially, there may be underlying “faults” remaining unfixed that we, the users, don’t know about. I have tried over the years to give them hints on how to fix such things (best DB/software and QA tools, etc.), though I’m admittedly doing it blindly. Of course I never get any comm back from them. Still, I try, because I’ve been in their position and respect what they have accomplished. But I still want a chromosome browser. It’s an absolutely necessary tool. So Ancestry, bite the bullet and get on with it.

@@jeffkennedy8034 Developing the chromosome browser doesn't really cost anything (Ancestry probably already has one that they use internally). But people will need help using it and Ancestry will have to greatly expand its Customer Service Staff. It's those extra hires that makes the Chromosome Browser an expensive proposition for. Ancestry. Of course, that's also the case with the other firms. But they do it because in order to compete with Ancestry, they need to offer something that Ancestry doesn't.

That's a cynical way of thinking about it.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Cynical? Perhaps, but it's on the mark. FYI: just got an email from Living that they've ADDED a chromosome browser.

I would agree with your second point about having the abilty to download Shared Match lists.

Yes, we need segment data at a minimum (though I'd like to see it for any match or set of matches I select, not just for shared matches). A chromosome browser would be even better. I'm tired of having Ancestry decide for the customer what the customer wants.

Me too! Devon as well. That makes three.

You are correct. Sorry for the oversight.

Love your order of saw usage!

Can't say I wasn't warned.

I didn't consider this point and I'm not sure what I think about it. I think everyone's genealogical research is shortchanged by only have indexes to DNA results, rather than 'original records.'

Yes, everyone's research may be shortchanged because of AncestryDNA's failure/refusal to provide a chromosome browser. However, my point is that some groups are shortchanged even more than other groups by AncestryDNA's failure/refusal. @@FamilyHistoryFanatics

The chromosome painter does not show any matches. It shows false layout of pseudo-ethnicities on your own chromosomes.

@Rosalie Howe The Chromosome Painter is okay if you're trying to believe ethnicity. (But I have tried to persuade people to disregard the ethnicity estimates as they cause more confusion then they solve). But, I think you're aware. The Ethnicity Painter is not the same thing as a chromosome browser. They are similar in construction but not information. Does that make sense?

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Agree. It’s a smokescreen at best and a constantly moving target. I basically ignore it, since it has little to do with specific genealogy research activities.

?