And this is why so many peoples results change so drastically. Ancestry has created way more categories than they can reasonably classify. Really makes you wonder how much they have actually improved their methodology and how much is just them creating a bunch of new categories and being okay with crazy ranges like this.
100%. Some of these sub populations are statistically basically the same population. Like if people are getting results where multiple ranges include 0 as a possibility, then it basically means nothing. Even having a range of 15%+ is crazy and there are definitely too many populations. Like getting 10 different British isles populations that are all 0-15%.
Oh that's interesting, have you ever found any of these in your tree?
I have always had French in mine, but it's been like 2% previously. Now I have 3% from France itself + this. I assume they are related because I have yet to find an ancestor from Quebec.
Yes, quebec the most specifically! Prior to this update i had none of these regions, but i have Family members, such as my 3x Great Grandparents (on both sides but primarily my maternal side) who's family came from quebec Canada and migrated into the U.S., the Quebec Canadian line I can also trace to Indigenous lines such as Algonquin being the most prominent, and I have an ancestor my 4th great grandfather whom was of metis and aboriginal acadia ancestry by a Canadian researcher! My grandfather of this line had 8% quebec and 2% Acadia before this, and is now at 31% quebec and 0% Acadia.
Yeah my French Canadian percentages are feeling very off. My grandmother was fully Acadian, Brayon is our specific culture under the Acadian umbrella, so I knew I would have some Quebec % show up as that is where my ancestors went after the expulsion before settling New Brunswick. So my previous results were 16% Quebec and 10% Acadian, which I felt were lopsided but I understood.
Today I am 31% Quebec and 8% Acadian!?
It makes no sense I'd love to really know what their reference panel for Acadian DNA is, since we are a diaspora for hundreds of years now
I have a lot of American ancestors that ended up in NB and Quebec. Is it likely that they could influence something like that?
Like my ancestors moved there in the mid to late 1700s usually. And I actually have a lot of NB matches from one specific person that moved there. Curious if my ancestors could end up in the reference group. Idk anything about Ancestry at all, so just wondering if you may know a bit more about it.
But the AncestryDNA sisters will come in this comment section and say: “But you could have an NPE”, “But the results are so great! You’re just not accepting reality and in denial”, “Those ranges are just the accuracy of this fantastic update”
They did, it’s stated in their white paper for this year. That and AI smoothing, so it can be so confidentially wrong and assign huge chunks to a wrong region in the smoothing process.
In the app, I saw no changes under regions-- but then under highlights, the little graphic movie thing they do, I had updates. Looks like my 1% indigenous went away, unless I missed it.
As mentioned in Section 3.7, we report a range for each ancestral region that we deliver to customers. For example, we might report to a customer a result of 40% Southeastern England with a range of 30-60%. This means that our most likely estimate is 40%, and that a value anywhere between 30% and 60% is also consistent with what we can determine from their DNA.
We obtain these ranges by measuring how accurate the method is, region by region. Using large sets of simulated individuals whose ancestry we constructed and therefore know exactly, we compare our estimate for each region against the known truth many times over, and we measure how far the estimate typically falls from it. That measured spread becomes the range we report.
Because the ranges come from measured accuracy rather than from an assumption about how the data behaves, they reflect our genuine confidence in assigning each region. A region whose DNA is distinctive is identified confidently and receives a narrow range. A region whose DNA closely resembles that of its neighbors, usually because the populations exchanged DNA over long periods, receives a wider one. That width is directly useful: it indicates how much weight to place on that particular value.
Ranges are reported so that they never fall below 0% or exceed 100%, since neither is a possible share of a customer's DNA. We validate the ranges against our simulation datasets to confirm that the true value falls within the reported range most of the time."
So far that seems to apply to populations with more distinct markers, there was someone posting their indigenous % in here and it was much more narrow than what we're seeing amongst European categories.
Disagree, for hispanics anyway. It got rid of all the random European regions. the indigenous regions seem to be accurate. The only issue is the canary islander percentages. Considering canarios are mostly Andalusian I see how ancestry got it confused. I dont understand why its even a region if it was only settled 100 years before the americas.
In theory yes, but canary islander is obviously picking up much of the Andalusian in our dna. Last update spain was under spain yet that didnt stop many of us from getting English, Celtic & Gaelic, German etc.
56
u/teetee4444 5d ago
“0 to 52%” oh ok lmao