Tuesday, May 2, 2017

AncestryDNA Whips Past 4 Million Samples

AncestryDNA Reaches 4 Million Customers in DNA Database.Four million. It’s staggering, really. AncestryDNA has exceeded four million samples in its DNA database!

It took AncestryDNA three years to get the first million samples. (See “AncestryDNA Exceeds Million Mark” on my blog on 22 July 2015.)

It took them 11 months to reach two million. (See “AncestryDNA Database Reaches Two Million” on 28 June 2016.)

It took just seven months to get to the three million mark. (See “AncestryDNA Zips Past 3 Million Samples” on 19 January 2017.)

Less than 4 months later, AncestryDNA has reached four million persons in the DNA database. (See “AncestryDNA Reaches 4 Million Customers in DNA Database” on the Ancestry blog, 27 April 2017.) AncestryDNA must be selling over 8,000 kits a day to grow that fast. Ancestry says as many people took their DNA test during that period as got married in the United States. They said “that’s about as fast as babies are born in the United States.”

That’s astonishing.

11 comments:

  1. Yes and many of the more recent ones either don't have trees, or have 2 or 3 ppl on them...so they are not much help at all.

    Ancestry is cleaning up on fees, that is why they advertise so heavily but without trees those tests are worthless.

    The ONLY benefit I see is that ancestry is "back in the black"

    ReplyDelete
  2. And with a highly developed tree, the Ancestry DNA results say nothing new.
    Genealogically, Ancestry DNA is simply a total flop. It has told us nothing that we did not know and it cannot even predict consistently. (One daughter "Iberian" and the other "Italian/Greek"). Even the "common ancestors" they identify from DNA results had ALL been previously identified by us from Prime Sources, (Ancestry even uses OUR pics as graphics on "their" hints.)
    Ancestry DNA is a pile of good (though shallow) genetic science sitting on top of a miniscule sample of unverified data (reference population sample from Sorensen) for foundations. Ancestry should get sued for fraud and Kendal Hulet fired (again)..
    What will happen instead is that Ancestry will use the DNA samples and the $400m provided by members to enhance their Member Connect product to substitute for (Ancestry will say "to supplement") their DNA snake oil.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One of their commercials seem stupid to me. The woman entered her DNA and she was "everything" So on forms when asked she enters "Other"

    ReplyDelete
  4. If that is the best they can do, you need to save your money

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe save your DNA too? Presently, there are privacy practices about how Ancestry shares data with others. But Ancestry feels free to change its products at any time (and there is a long Trail of Tears with wrecked products and burnt Members). So, where does your DNA pop up next, "linked" to something undesirable?

      Delete
  5. I did the DNA test a couple of years ago to see if I could use it to help break down a couple of my brick walls, particularly for my Famine Irish gg grandparents. I have 2 identified third cousins and some closer relatives who share the DNA. So far, I have had 4 shared DNA matches to all of us which look like they could be useful - my frustration is that I sent messages to all 4 explaining what I was doing and I would be interested in anything they could tell me about any ancestors from Ireland, particularly those surnames. None of them bothered to reply to my message.

    I think part of the problem is that Ancestry does not provide any reasonable access to someone who just purchases the DNA test - they can tell they have a match with me, but cannot look at even my family tree without purchasing access that costs more than the original test.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's where Ancestry will use "Member Connect". They will use your trad genealogy and your tree to identify common relatives to other Members with a DNA connection. That DNA connection may be very "low confidence", (because the original weaknesses in the Sorensen sampling of the reference population cannot be overcome)but any sniff of a hint might help somebody identify real prime sources.

      Delete
  6. There are also ones with trees that never attach their DNA to them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A lot of you would be wrong in thinking people who take DNA tests but have no tree aren't helpful. They also to help improve the science as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It would be nice if there was a way to filter out those DNA people who were not attached to a tree

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's too bad there is disappointment with AncestryDNA results. I have been happy with the tests I have done, and so have the people to whom inrecommended the test. With Ancestry's aggressive promotion and advertising, the number of matches grows daily. the lack of repainted to queries is discouraging, only about half reply, but I've learned a great deal and have made some good contacts and connections.

    ReplyDelete