Author: Kris Hocker

AncestryDNA Cluster: Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz

Every so often I identify a subgroup within a collection of AncestryDNA Shared Matches™ for which I’ve identified a common ancestor, but can’t connect that person to the larger group’s family group.

Such is the case with Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz. I’ve identified about two dozen of her descendants in the match lists, ranging from 8 to 29 cMs of shared DNA. They all match to various members of the larger Schneider cluster. The descendants come from four five of her children: Harriet (Rantz) Goyette, Hannah (Rantz) Wilson, Caroline (Rantz) Mannie, and Lydia (Rantz) Brousseau, and Margaret (Rantz) Bomboy.

Thus, there’s every reason to believe that Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz is a descendant of Conrad and Eva Catharina (Betz) Schneider. The problem, of course, is that I haven’t been able to find the papertrail to connect them.

According to the family trees of these descendants, Elizabeth was born 22 February 1807 in Pennside, Berks County, Pennsylvania.1 She married William Rantz 9 May 1824 in Columbia County. The family left Pennsylvania before 1838 and settled in Illinois. Elizabeth died in Bourbonnais, Kankakee County, Illinois on 21 January 1889.2 I’ve seen no hint of her parentage anywhere.

Now I’ve identified members of my Schneider and Nuss families who moved into Berks County, and members of my Nuss family who moved to Columbia County, but I have not identified a Schneider who did both. If I had to take an educated guess—and that’s all this currently is—I’d say it’s possible that she is a descendant of Elias and Anna Maria (Nuss) Schneider.

Of Conrad’s five sons, Elias is the only one with a connection to Berks County. He was born 12 August 1733 in Upper Salford Township, Philadelphia (now Montgomery) County,3 married Anna Maria Nuss on 7 December 1756 in Upper Salford (probably at his father’s house),4 and likely died before 31 March 1779 in Oley Township, Berks County5 with his wife, Anna Maria, serving as his estate administrator. Three of Anna Maria’s sisters lived in Berks County during their lifetimes. Three of her brother Conrad’s children moved to Columbia County.

Elias and Anna Maria had a son, Conrad, born 19 November 1757 and baptized 20 January 1758 at Old Goshenhoppen Lutheran Church.6 I believe Conrad remained in Berks County. He may have married Margaret (___) and had at least six children between 1784 and 1795.

Either Conrad or his son Daniel, born 10 May 1789, would have been of the right age to have had a daughter in 1807. This would make Elizabeth’s descendants 6th or 7th cousins to my mom—feasible given the shared DNA.

Addendum:
If you are a descendant of William and Elizabeth (Snyder) Rantz and you’ve taken a DNA test and would like help working through your DNA matches to identify Elizabeth’s ancestry, I would be thrilled with the opportunity to help. Contact me.

Update (May 2020): Additional descendant matches were found for Margaret Priscilla (Rantz) Bomboy. The post has been edited to include this fact.

Searching for Maria Margaretha Barbara’s Maiden Name

I recently found that Eva Catharina (Betz) Schneider was the daughter of Maria Margaretha Barbara, not Eva as I previously thought. But her surname was not readable on the family page for Sebastian Betz in the Fürfeld church book.

Sebastian Betz family page title in Fürfeld church book
Johann Sebastian Betz and wife Maria Margaretha Barbara

Sometimes a maiden name is difficult, if not impossible, to find, but it always bothers me not to have it. So, I went looking for more information on Maria Margaretha Barbara.

Since searching Ancestry did not yield results, I went paging through the Fürfeld church book. The family page provides both the marriage date (16 August 1687) and her death date (10 December 1716) which allowed me to to search for specific records.

The death record did not provide a maiden name, simply named her as the wife of Johann Sebastian Betz. The marriage record, however, did provide what I was looking for.

Sebastian Betz and Maria Margaretha Barbara, daughter of Johann Leonhardt Langer or Loinger, marriage entry
Johann Sebastian Betz Fürfeld marriage record

1687 16 Aug: Johann Sebastian Betz, [first?] legitimate son of Wolfgang Betz, citizen of Fürfeld, married with Maria Margaretha Barbara, legitimate daughter of Johann Leonhardt [Loingen? or Langer?], citizen of [?].1

It appears to me that there is a location given for Johann Leonhardt, but I can’t make it out. I don’t believe it’s Fürfeld. (If you can read it, please help me out!)

Based on this record I can add Hans Wolfgang Betz, Sebastian’s father, and Johann Leonhardt Loinger/Loingen/Langer, Maria Margaretha Barbara’s father, to the family tree.

Surprise! A New Mom for Catharina Betz

As you know from previous posts, my research has revealed that I am a descendant of Conrad Schneider and Catharina Betz of Upper Salford, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, through their grandson Jacob Schneider. I have not proven who fathered Jacob, though I do have a working hypothesis.

Conrad and family immigrated to Pennsylvania in 1732, arriving in Philadelphia onboard the ship Johnson on 19 September.1 In 1751, Reverend Lucas Raüs, pastor for Old Goshenhoppen Lutheran congregation, recorded the names and information of the church elders and deacons.

Conrad Schneider's entry in Old Goshenhoppen Lutheran Church book, includes birth and marriage information from Germany and list of children with their birth dates
Conrad Schneider’s entry in Old Goshenhoppen Lutheran Church book

Conrad Schneider was the third entry:

“Conrad Schneider, age 52 years, born 1699 March 17, in Treschklingen, in Swabia, son of Conrad Schneider and Catharina, both Reformed. He came to Pennsylvania in 1732. He married anno 1724 Catharine, born 1700 daughter of Sebastian Betz and wife Eva, from Ferfeld.”2

Old Goshenhoppen Register of the Families and the Names of the Ministers

With the 50% off membership at Ancestry for new and returning subscribers (good thru Jan. 7th), I decided to upgrade to the World Explorer to see what I could find on my German, Welsh, and English ancestors. I spent yesterday looking through the church records from Fürfeld.

Much to my surprise, I found that Catharina Betz’s full name was Eva Catharina and that her mother’s name was not also Eva. Sebastian Betz’s family page showed that his wife’s name was Maria Margaretha Barbara.3

Now, I’m the first to admit that my German reading comprehension is not the greatest—especially when trying to figure out both the handwriting and German. But I can usually find my way through birth, death, and marriage entries in church records and village family books.

Johann Sebastian Betz family page title: Johann Sebastian Betz vater: Hans Wolfgang uxor (wife) Maria Margaretha Barbara married 16 Aug 1687 died 10 December 1716
Sebastian Betz family page

The page for Johann Sebastian Betz shows his wife’s [uxor] name was Anna Maria Margaretha Barbara [illegible surname]. Their marriage date is shown as “16 8 1687” [16 August 1687]—confirmed from their marriage entry, as is her date of death: “10, 12, 1716” [10 December 1716]—confirmed through burial records.

Sebastian’s daughter Eva Catharina was born 8 April 1701.4 Even though as far as I can tell she is not named as such in the entry, given her date of death, Maria Margaretha Barbara must have been Eva Catharina’s birth mother.

Eva Catharina Betz's entry on Sebastian Betz's page showing she was born 8 April 1701
Eva Catharina Betz’s entry on Sebastian Betz’s family page

But what about the Old Goshenhoppen entry? Was Conrad—since he most likely provided the information for the church book—just wrong about the name of his wife’s mother?

Nope.

Eva Strecker entry on Sebastian Betz's family page
Eva Strecker entry on Sebastian Betz’s family page

The entry (above) shows that Sebastian did marry a woman named Eva. It took a bit of sleuthing—mostly regarding the information written between her given name and date of death (28 November 1725)—but I determined that she was Eva Strecker of Zottishofen. Their marriage record—dated 23 November 1717—identifies her as the daughter of Johann Conrad Strecker, “bürger zu Zottisshofen” [citizen of Zotishofen].5

Therefore, when Conrad married Eva Catharina in 1724, Sebastian was married to a woman named Eva. Maria Margaretha Barbara had already been dead for almost eight years. When he provided the information 27 years later, he likely named the woman he knew when he married.

2019: Blog in Review

By just about any measure—including the goals I identified last December—I was an abject failure. I wrote a total of six posts in 2019, including this one. Four of them were written in the first three months of the year and the fifth in August. The rest of the year? Nothing.

I’m not even sure what happened to be totally honest. It felt like I looked up and several months had passed and I hadn’t written anything. I made a note to do better. Then I looked up again, and the year was almost over. Yikes!

It’s not that I haven’t been researching or writing. I just haven’t been posting any of it here on the website. And if I’m honest with myself I don’t know if that will change in 2020. Although I’ve had several ideas for articles, it’s been hard to focus long enough to write them up. I’m hoping that will change, but no promises.

Top 10 Posts in 2019

So, without further ado, here are my top ten, “most viewed” posts in 2019 (as of 12/29):

  1. Ancestry’s Thrulines (New)
  2. Pennsylvania Warrant Township Maps (#8)
  3. Making a Deed Map from Old Metes and Bounds (#7)
  4. 5000 Acres — Where Did It All Go? (#5)
  5. Huber Emigrants (#6)
  6. My 23 and Me Results (New)
  7. Friday Finds: Trinity Lutheran Birth and Baptismal Records Online (#3)
  8. 5 Tips to Help You Get the Most Out of Your AncestryDNA Results (#4)
  9. How to Use the Online Land Records at the Pennsylvania State Archives (#2)
  10. Pennsylvania Genealogical County Map (#1)

A lot of old favorites on the list and a couple of more recent additions. Since I didn’t write ten posts in 2019, I can’t do a top ten from this year…

What’s Up for 2020?

My goal for 2020 is simple: Write.

That’s it. Regardless of whether I share it here or not, I need to start putting what I’ve found into something other than my Reunion file and stored source image folders.

So, that’s what I’m going to do. Feel free to ask me about it in the coming year.

Margaretha (Schneider) Reppert (1764-1831)

So, I had a new AncestryDNA match appear for my Mom recently. I was doing a search for matches with Schneiders in their tree born in Pennsylvania otherwise I probably wouldn’t have found them. 

It’s a fairly small segment—only 15 cMs on one segment. I wasn’t overly excited until I saw our Shared Match. There was only one, but it happened to be the cousin I identified as sharing both Schneider and Nuss segments with my Mom. He’s been pivotal to identifying my Schneider DNA relatives.

This new match traces their ancestry back to Jacob Reppert and Margaret Schneider of Berks County, Pennsylvania. According to their family tree, Margaret was born 2 June 1764, no parents listed, and married Jacob Reppert in Oley Township, Berks County on 10 January 1786.1

There were only two other trees listing Margaret—one included parents William and Susanna, the other no parents. William and Susanna did indeed have a daughter Margaret, but church records attached to that tree show she was born 23 December 1760,2 not the 2 June 1764 found on Margaret’s profile. The alternate tree that showed no parents also had a different birth date: 2 July 1764.

Margaretha Schneider in 3 Ancestry Family Trees

That birth date gave me an ah-hah moment. Elias Schneider and Anna Maria Nuss had a daughter Anna Margaretha born 2 July 1764 and baptized at Old Goshenhoppen Church (no date given).3 Since there were no sources provided for either the June or July birth dates, it could be either. The DNA match, however, makes me suspect the July date may be correct.

When I identified my 5G grandfather Jacob Schneider as a descendant of Conrad and Catharina (Betz) Schneider, I stated that their son Elias might be Jacob’s father. I also found the he was proving to be rather elusive. So, he’s probably the one child of Conrad and Catharina for whom I’ve been hoping the most to locate genetic descendants.

Here are five reasons that I believe Margaret is the daughter of Elias and Anna Maria (Nuss) Schneider. None of them are sufficient alone, but together they start to build a circumstantial case for the relationship.

1. Name

Elias Schnieder and Anna Maria Nuss had a daughter Anna Margaretha born 2 July 1764 and baptized at Old Goshenhoppen Lutheran Church.4 She was sponsored by George Gaugler and Anna Margaretha Nuss (Maria’s sister).

2. Date

All three Ancestry Family Trees that include Anna Margaretha (Schneider) Reppert agree that she was born in 1764.5 Two of them claim she was born on 2 June 1764 and one on 2 July 1764. Since none of them provide a source to support the claim—except other trees—I can only accept the year. But they are all really close to or exactly the 2 July birth date of Elias’ daughter.

3. Location

The last known potential location I have for Elias Schneider is Oley Township, Berks County. An Anna Maria Schneider was granted Letters of Administration for the late Elias Schneider of Oley Township, Berks County on 31 March 1779.6 Henry Kersten of Oley Township and Adam Hamsher of Rucombmanor Township were bondsmen for the administration bond.7 The estate inventory was submitted 10 April 1779, appraised by Daniel Guldin and Elias Waggoner.8

Both the “Widow Snyder” and Conrad Snyder appear in tax records for Oley Township in the following years—the widow through 1782 and Conrad through 1787.

The first known location I’ve found for Margaretha (Schneider) Reppert is also Oley Township. She married Jacob Repport at Salem Reformed [now UCC] Church in Oley Township on 10 January 1786.9 Margaretha and Jacob, like Conrad and Margaretha, also had children baptized at Salem Reformed Church in Oley.  Jacob is found in township tax records from 1786 through 1799.10

4. Family Ties

Margaret (Schneider) Reppert’s daughter Elisabetha was sponsored on 11 August 1793 at Oley (Salem) Reformed Church by Catharina Schneider.11 If Margaretha was Elias’s daughter, then her daughter was sponsored by her younger sister.

Additionally, Daniel Schneider of Ruscombmanor was listed as a bondsman on the administration bond for Jacob Reppert on 14 June 1837.12 Usually family members serve these roles because they have some influence over the people involved and can help to ensure that they fulfill their responsibilities. With the exception of George Schlotman, I’ve identified all the others listed on the bond as being members of Jacob’s family, sons and sons-in-law. Daniel Schneider was likely a family member from Margaretha’s side of the family.

Conrad Schneider, quite likely Margaretha’s brother, had a son named Daniel born in 1789. He would have been of age to be a match to the Daniel Schneider found in the 1840 United States Census enumeration for Ruscombmanor Township.13

Furthermore, there is an association between Nuss family members and Berks County. Anna Maria’s sister Elisabetha (Nuss) Gottschall Wagner resided in Reading and Alsace Township in Berks County during her lifetime. Her brother Conrad Nuss died in Hereford Township. And her sister Anna Margaretha (Nuss) Leinbach lived in Reading.

5. DNA

My mother is a DNA match to two descendants of Margaretha (Scheider) Reppert. They are from the same family, so I’d like to see more matches before drawing conclusions. But a review of their family tree from their shared ancestor back did not reveal a closer potential match than Margaretha. Furthermore, the amount of DNA they share with my Mom is within the probability for the presumed relationship, according to the Shared CM Project, given Elias Schneider and Anna Maria Nuss as our common ancestors. 

And finally, the AncestryDNA matches these Reppert descendants share with Mom are all members of the Schneider cluster I’ve identified, including the cousin who, like my mom, descends from Jacob Schneider and Catharina Nuss. 

Conclusions

I’m really excited to find this match. While I don’t feel that current evidence proves the relationship, I do feel that it’s more probable than any of the alternatives I can come up with.

Now I’ll just eagerly await the next Snyder/Schneider DNA match and the clues it will provide.

My Genetic Pedigree

I’ve been remarkably absent from this blog for much 2019 so far. That’s because I’ve been obsessed… uh, busy researching my DNA matches, looking for common ancestors—particularly those who match my known Snyder cousins. Since that’s the case, I thought it might be helpful to determine just how much of my genetic pedigree I’ve established.

We all have two pedigrees: our genealogical pedigree and our genetic pedigree. The genealogical pedigree contains every ancestor from whom we descend who we’ve been able to identify. The genetic pedigree includes every ancestor from whom we’ve received DNA.

Below you can see my genetic pedigree chart through my 5th great grandparents (click to enlarge).

Genetic pedigree chart
My genetic pedigree chart

The green indicates ancestors who have been identified as a common ancestor between an AncestryDNA match and I or a DNA connection—meaning one of their ancestors (and most likely their spouse) is the common ancestor. I’ve overlaid the surnames I’ve found in my genealogical research. Those cells without names are people I need to find.

As you can see I’ve managed to confirm a considerable about of my genealogical tree. What’s interesting to me is that they are in my lines that have been in America since the 1700s. The two largest gray areas—Greulich and Smith—are the two most recent immigrant ancestors. William and Eliza (Bonnington) Smith came to the U.S. in the 1890s and Carl Greulich arrived in New York on 28 January 1856.

Confirming those ancestors with DNA will require me to investigate more of my non-U.S. based matches. So, I should spend some of my research time on MyHeritage and those non-Ancestry test takers in GEDMatch.

The rest of the gray areas may be filled in by analyzing some of the matches for whom I’ve yet to determine which of my great grandparents’ lines they belong to. Perhaps one of the clusters I’ve noticed but not yet identified.

If you’ve been researching your DNA matches, have you tried to figure out how much of your genetic pedigree you’ve found?

Ancestry’s ThruLines™

Ancestry is replacing their DNA Circles with a new feature: ThruLines. What is it? How does it work? Will it help you break through your brick walls? Let’s take a look.

Ancestry’s ThruLines will show you how your DNA matches that of another person through an ancestor you both share. The tool uses Ancestry’s family trees—public and private—to build a path—or ThruLine—from your match to a common ancestor. Private individuals are represented but not named in the path.

How is this different from DNA Circles? The main differences are 1) it uses both public and private trees (as long as they’re searchable) and 2) it doesn’t just use your tree and your match’s tree, it uses all of Ancestry’s searchable trees. So, it will work for any of your matches that have ancestors in their trees who can be found in another tree.

Does this mean that your shared DNA is from this common ancestor? Maybe.

What Ancestry is doing is creating a quick and dirty tree for your match. It’s just taking the human out of the process. The ThruLine that it creates is only as good as the information in family trees available at Ancestry. And we’ve all seen how reliable some of those trees are.

How To Use It

Access to ThruLines can be found in three locations. It replaces the DNA Circles box on the DNA Summary page (or you can choose to continue to use Circles for now). Clicking on “Common Ancestor” for a match on the match list page (see below). And it is also found on the new match detail page for applicable matches.

ThruLines Page

Clicking on the “Explore ThruLines” button takes me to a page that looks a lot like the DNA Circles page.

AncestryDNA ThruLines
Speculative Ancestry ThruLines ancestor display with image, name, relationship, birth and death years, and dashed outline box
Speculative ThruLines ancestor

This page shows all my direct ancestors as entered in my linked family tree (or should) and a few speculative ones, as well. The speculative ancestors are differentiated with a dashed outline and tagged “potential ancestor.”

I can filter these ancestors to show: all the matches, potential ancestors, or ancestors from my linked tree.

Match List

Ancestry match list page example

If your match has a tree that is searchable and tree members can be found in other Ancestry tree(s), then the “Common ancestor” tag with leaf will be found in their listing. This indicates a possible connection has been found.

Match Detail

If I click on “Common ancestor” (yes, it’s clickable), then I’m taken to the match detail page which shows me our common ancestor(s). In this case two ancestors are shown—father and son.

Clicking on “View Relationship” for either man will take me to a page that shows me how my match and I are related to that individual.

Relationship to George M. Walker

Accessing ThruLines through the match lists will only show you a possible ancestor for a specific match. Accessing it from the summary page and selecting a specific ancestor will show you all the cousins identified as potentially descended from your ancestor.

Is It Accurate?

I’ve been using this tool, reviewing the individuals in the trees used to try to determine whether or not the path—and common ancestor—is accurate. The results have been mostly “yes, it appears accurate,” but not completely so. And in a couple of cases it isn’t quite working as expected.

I have entered both Jacob Schneider and Catharina Nuss—ancestors I’ve identified using both DNA research and traditional genealogy—and Catharina’s ancestors in my linked family tree. Only Jacob appears on my ThruLines page. Instead of Catharine, a speculative mother for Henry Schneider shows up—Susanna Yeakel (Wagner) Schneider.

Here’s Jacob’s ThruLine expanded to actually show descendants. It shows four DNA matches to me. I’ve identified more, but some of them share DNA with my mother and not me.

ThruLines for Jacob Schneider

Here’s the ThruLine for Susanna Yeakel (Wagner) Schneider.

ThruLines for Susanna Yeakel Wagner (aka Wiegner)

It’s suggesting that descendants of Jacob Schneider also match a descendant of Susanna. If I look at the tree associated with Susanna Yeakel (Wagner) Schneider, there’s no son named Henry Schneider. Susanna Wiegner married George Schneider on 25 April 1784.

Furthermore, I can identify the family as belonging to the Schwenkfelders. Susanna’s mother is my 6G Grandaunt through the Yeakel family—I descend through her brothers Johannes Heinrich and Jeremias—and her father is my 1st cousin 8x removed through his mother, Susanna Seipt. Despite all the Schneiders in my ancestry, I’m not (to my knowledge) related to George at all.

Additionally, I’ve yet to see ThruLine suggest multiple common ancestors for a match like the current shared ancestors does. And quite a few of my matches share multiple lines of descent with me. If your ancestors stayed in one place like most of mine, sooner or later someone married a cousin.

And remember that this tool will not tell for sure from which ancestor you and your match got your shared DNA. It compares family trees.

So, should you use the tool? Yes, but… verify the information. For some of your matches it will shortcut the research process. For others, not so much.

Ancestry’s New & Improved DNA Matches

RootsTech 2019 has started and Ancestry and MyHeritage are announcing new tools that will be accessible to users on their websites. Yesterday, I spent time working with Ancestry’s new tools: the improved DNA match list page, ThruLines and MyTree Tags. Here’s my take on the new match list and match detail pages.

New & Improved Match List Page

Streamlined match page

AncestryDNA's New Matches page
AncestryDNA’s new match page

As you can see, Ancestry’s new and improved match page looks much different. The display is condensed and features infinite scrolling, adding additional matches as you reach the bottom of the page.

Additionally, if Mom and/or Dad have tested, your matches are tagged according to which side (or both) of your family they match. Unfortunately, this feature only works if Mom and/or Dad has tested with Ancestry.

In the past, I’ve used a third-party browser add-on to display my notes on the match list page. That is no longer necessary. Any notes added are now displayed as part of the page. No more hovering over an icon to see what the note says.

Filtering & Groups

They’ve also changed the filtering and added groups. Filtering allows you to see matches that have

  • common ancestors (previous Ancestor Hints),
  • new (unviewed) matches,
  • those you’ve messaged,
  • with notes,
  • private trees,
  • public linked trees, and
  • unlinked trees.

Filtering based on ancestral communities/regions has been removed.

AncestryDNA’s new groups

As you can see in the images, in the past I’ve tried to visually tag my matches according as maternal or paternal lines using the colored, heart emoticons. We now have the ability to tag our matches as part of Ancestry’s interface. We can create up to 24, color-coded groups which we can then use to filter the match view by group.

Add to group

Ancestry included the star in this tool, in effect giving you a 25th tag for your matches. To see the name of an assigned group on the list page—it can be hard to remember what each color represents, click on the colored dot and the “add to group” menu pops-up.

I’ve already made good use of this tool, creating 12 groups. The colors I’ve used are marked by the white slash, indicating they can’t be selected when creating a new group.

Create custom group and assign color

The group list also includes the ability to filter by:

  • all matches,
  • new matches,
  • close matches (4th cousin or closer),
  • distant matches,
  • hidden matches, and
  • matches shared with a parent (if tested).

Switch Kits

One addition I particularly like was the ability to switch between the kits you manage directly from the match list.

AncestryDNA match list – switch kits

Now you don’t have to return to your DNA overview page to see another kit’s match list.

Match Detail Page

The match detail page has also changed dramatically (see below). We got a preview of these changes when Ancestry added the compare button allowing us to compare ethnicities with a match.

AncestryDNA’s match detail page

The page is divided into information blocks. Below that header images of you and your match (if available), is a summary block that includes the predicted relationship, amount of shared DNA and any notes.

Next, there is a block with information about your match’s tree. To see the tree you need to click on the “preview tree” button to go to the old match detail page. As a designer, I understand the decision not to show it on this page, but as user I think it’s a step in the wrong direction.

However, perhaps Ancestry assumed the “Common Ancestors” on this page would negate the need for the tree. This is their new ThruLines™ as incorporated into the match detail page. I will wrote more about this feature, but in short it suggests a common ancestor between you and your match. If you click on one of the people, you will see the path to this ancestor for you and your match.

The page shows several of your shared matches. Clicking on the “View all shared matches” button will take you to a list of all your shared matches. On this page, you can add each match to a group.

Below this, there is a map display comparing ethnicity estimates for you and your match, as well, as any shared migrations you may have.

Concerns

I’m thrilled that Ancestry has made these changes. They’ve taken some of the techniques we’ve been using to manage our genetic genealogy research and incorporated them directly into the Ancestry experience. It’s not ground-breaking, but it’s a heck of a lot more convenient.

However, there are a couple of changes I would like to see. A couple of things I’d like to be able do on the match detail page:

  • Edit your notes
  • See the group to which this match is assigned and/or add the match to a group
  • See all your common ancestors—so far, I’ve only see one couple displayed
  • Switch to another kit who also matches this person

Currently, this page is a display page. You can get some information on the match and go elsewhere for more details, but you cannot interact with or manage it on this page. The old page was much more useful.

On the match list page—particularly when viewing a shared match list—it would be great to be able to bulk add matches to a list. Currently, you have to do it one-by-one.

The tool is still in beta so I expect there will be some changes. If you have ideas, please provide your feedback to the Ancestry team.

Opt-In/Out

You can opt-in or opt-out of this feature by selecting Ancestry Lab under the Extras menu.

To opt-in click the Enable link in the “New & Improved DNA Matches” box. Opting out is a simple as clicking the Disable link.

DNA By the Numbers

We all saw the holiday sales on DNA tests from the major testing companies. Ancestry especially seemed to be advertising everywhere. So, before all the newly taken tests start delivering results, I thought I’d take a snapshot of where I stand results-wise.

I started tracking results last March. It’s a bit difficult to compare the companies to each other, except by total number of matches. And even then it’s not exactly a fair comparison. So, let’s look at each company across the tracking period.

Ancestry

At the beginning of March 2018, I had a total of 21,120 matches at Ancestry. 644 of those were 4th cousin or closer. By the end of the year, those numbers had grown to 30,037 and 921.

2018 Total Ancestry Matches chart
AncestryDNA Matches (Mar to Dec 2018)
AncestryDNA Shared Ancestry Hints (Mar to Dec 2018)
AncestryDNA Cousin Matches – 4th or Closer (Mar to Dec 2018)

As you can see, there was fairly steady growth after an initial quick uptick.

MyHeritage

I uploaded my AncestryDNA results to MyHeritage early last year. While the numbers are not as great as at Ancestry, the growth has been steady all year and I have a number of relative matches at the company that I don’t have at Ancestry. I started out in March with 1,508 matches and had 2,608 at the end of December. The number of close relatives (close & extended family) grew from one (only my Mom) to three (Mom, a 1st cousin, and a 3rd cousin).

Total MyHeritageDNA matches (Mar to Dec 2018)

MyHeritage also has their equivalent of Shared Ancestry Hints—Smart Matches. I only have three of those as well.

Family Tree DNA

I also uploaded my results to Family Tree DNA. At the beginning of the year, they were the 2nd most well-known company. But I have to say the growth in the number of matches has not been impressive. Take a look.

Over the course of nine months the number of matches grew from 296 to 358. Granted I would have more matches at FTDNA if I’d tested through the company, but I don’t know if the growth would have been any greater.

The Others

I’ve also uploaded to GEDmatch, 23 and Me, and LivingDNA. GEDmatch only lists your closest 2,000 matches. 23 and Me doesn’t provide your matches unless you buy a kit, but I apparently have a respectable 1,010 matches at the company. Based on the information provided I’m not sure if that’s the total total or the total of 4th cousins or closer.

LivingDNA hasn’t apparently found any relatives for me, but I only got access to the Family Networks in November, so that’s not a great surprise. With any luck that will change in the coming months.

Conclusions

Based solely on the total number of matches, if you’re looking to identify relatives or to build your family tree, Ancestry is the place to test. If you’re looking for international matches, I’ve found more of them on MyHeritage—though if I spent the money to test at 23 and Me or LivingDNA, I think I might find them there, too.

It will be interesting to see how the numbers change once all the holiday purchase results are added online. If I recall correctly, I had a lot of new matches to work with in early 2018. With the significant drop in DNA kit pricing during the holiday sales, I wonder if there are going to be even more to work with in the next few weeks or months.

2018: Blog in Review

Where did the year go? I swear I blinked and it was gone. Poof! The coming new year means it’s time to look back and review my performance on the blog over the past twelve months and make plans for 2019.

Last year I disappointed myself by not meeting my writing goals for this website. As a result, I set different goals, focused not solely on how much I wrote, but on how I wrote.

Since the most popular posts seem to be those that describe a research tool or explain how to use a genealogy resource, I decided to focus more on these type of posts and those that explained how I’ve addressed a research problem.

I also gave myself permission to write about research subjects that were in progress, rather than waiting until I could share a complete genealogical sketch and biography. This is a particular issue for me—whether I’m writing for the blog or working on my other family writing projects.

The Results

Although I didn’t want to focus on the number of posts written, it’s still a quantitative measure of how involved I was with the blog this year. Here’s what my monthly post count actually looked like in 2018 as compared to 2017 (2018/2017).

  • Jan: 8/12
  • Feb: 5/7
  • Mar: 5/6
  • Apr: 4/3
  • May: 6/6
  • Jun: 5/0
  • Jul: 2/1
  • Aug: 5/0
  • Sep: 2/2
  • Oct: 6/2
  • Nov: 7/0
  • Dec: 8/6
  • Total: 63

Or expressed another way…

bar chart of monthly posts 2017 vs 2018

Monthly posts (2017 vs. 2018)

The chart shows that while I had months where I wrote more in 2017 (blue), I was a somewhat more consistent poster in 2018 (red), averaging a little more than 5 posts/month.

Top Ten Posts in 2018

I like to check which posts are getting visited. It helps to direct the type of posts I write. The point of the blog is to share my family research, of course. But I like to help other researchers, too, if I can.

What content was most popular (aka most visited) this year? This year’s top 10 list looks a lot like last year’s list.

  1. Lancaster County Deed Books Online (#9)
  2. 1916 Aetna Explosives Co. Explosion at Mt. Union Pa. (#10)
  3. Pennsylvania Warrant Township Maps (#6)
  4. Making a Deed Map from Old Metes and Bounds (#8)
  5. Huber Immigrants (#4)
  6. 5,000 Acres—Where Did It All Go? (#5)
  7. 5 Tips to Help You Get the Most from Your AncestryDNA Results (New)
  8. Friday Finds: Trinity Lutheran Birth and Baptismal Records Online (#3)
  9. How to Use the Online Lands Records at the PA State Archives (#2)
  10. Pennsylvania Genealogical Map (#1)

It’s not particularly surprising. It’s tough for new posts to generate the number of hits that allows them to compete with posts that have been available for years. Still, there is one new post on this list: #4. There had been another new post on the list when I first started writing this post, but the Aetna explosion post pushed it back out of the top ten. :^o

Both new posts deal with Ancestry—one with getting the most from your DNA results and the other with a new feature. Both subjects have been covered on other blogs and social media, so I’m a little surprised to see how often my posts have been viewed.

Top Ten Posts from 2018

How well did I meet my 2018 goals? Did the posts I wrote include the topics and content focus that I singled out in last year’s blog review?

Let’s take a look at the ten most viewed posts written in the past year (month written and # of visits in parentheses).

  1. Climbing Esther’s Tree (Jun; 32)
  2. Say What? Census Husband Swapping (Jan; 36)
  3. TBT: Using Online Land Office Records at the PA Archives (Aug; 41)
  4. AncestryDNA Updates Ethnicity Estimates (Sep; 52)
  5. Topics from the Timeline – Social Sunday (Apr; 53)
  6. Follow Friday: Here’s What I’ve Been Reading (Jan; 56)
  7. My 23 and Me Results (May; 83)
  8. Quick & Dirty Trees for DNA Matches (Oct; 99)
  9. Online Pennsylvania Deeds at FamilySearch (Jan; 154)
  10. New in Ancestry Trees—Potential Ancestors (Jun; 224)

Most of these posts deal with online genealogy resources’ features and content or how to use them. My Follow Friday and Social Sunday posts share posts from other geneablogs or history/archaeology/genealogy content from other sites around the web. And two of the posts are examples of sharing research or an example from my family research.

When I look at my editorial calendar, I see more posts like these, plus snapshots of research in progress like my articles regarding Jacob Schneider and the Schott, Bowerman, and Rupert families.

All told, I think I did good in 2018. Please, excuse me while I go pat myself on the back. ;^)

Where Did They Come From?

I’ve been discussing which posts were visited this year by the most people. But how did they get here, to this blog?

I know some of you follow along and receive emails when I post new content—thank you for keeping me company on this journey of discovery! But how else did readers get here? According to analytics, a lot of my traffic is from Google and other search engines. But some of it is from Facebook and some is “direct.”

That means some of my posts have been shared on social media and by other bloggers. It’s gratifying to see that someone thinks what I’ve written is worth sharing with other people—friends, family, or their readers, or worthy of comment. I don’t plan it that way, but it is still a thrill when it happens.

So, thank you to to those of you who have shared my posts and/or taken the time to comment on a post! I greatly appreciate it.

What’s Up for 2019 ?

My goals for 2019 can be boiled down to: keep writing. I didn’t always feel inspired to write this year, nor did I always feel like I had something particularly interesting to report. But I met my writing goals anyway and a number of posts that I wrote this year were relatively well-received—or at least viewed repeatedly.

One reader’s comment on “Slow Down, Don’t Move Too Fast” was illuminating and I hope to use it to guide my writing in 2019. She wrote, “It is useful to actually see an example and evaluate it rather than simply [be] told.” This has always been true for me as a reader, too.

Yet, in my own writing I’ll make only oblique references to things that were wrong or not particularly helpful. I don’t delve into them to show why that it is when I’m trying to untangle a research problem, like distinguishing between two Ludwig Shotts or three Michael Benders for instance.

Maybe I need to think about not just writing up my findings, but instead writing a step-by-step on how I reached them. Since part of this exercise is about me becoming a better researcher and the other is sharing with people who want to learn, that might be useful on both counts.