Testing the Theory

The theory seemed sound enough: pick a DNA match linked to the ancestor I'm researching this month, then filter the cousin's test results through the various tools available at each place where I've tested to build a more robust tree of that family's collateral lines. So I began with my DNA matches at Ancestry.com to test that theory. After all, I couldn't possibly consider myself the genealogy guinea pig if I didn't test my own theories.

At Ancestry, thanks to their ProTools, I not only had "Shared Matches" at my disposal, but I could test out their "Matches by Cluster" tool, as well. The clustering device was what I began with, selecting paternal results only, so that I could narrow down the results from my universe of 2,692 matches who are fourth cousins or closer.

Looking at the results, I noticed three separate clusters. One cluster obviously belonged to the paternal branch of my family which we had researched last month—my Wojtaś and Puchała lines—so I moved on to the next cluster in the graph. This second cluster contained only six matches, cousins whom I had already placed in my tree.

However, that step was only the first one in my plan. I then wanted to combine that resulting list with a second collection of matches, drawn from the ThruLines results for my second great-grandmother, Elżbieta Gramlewicz. This was a list which obviously would also contain the names from the first list I had composed from the cluster approach.

That combined list became my working list. From each of the DNA matches contained in that combined list, I then wanted to view the Shared Matches list for each of the matches in those results. Reviewing each name on the list of each Gramlewicz cousin, I'd then inquire about that person's Shared Matches, working my way from those whom I had already placed in my tree to those who still needed to be linked to the tree.

There were issues to watch out for in that process. The more distant the relationship between me and the specific match I was focusing on, the deeper into the gray areas of accuracy I'd wander. While I started out examining specifically my paternal matches, towards the bottom of each list, I'd find myself encountering matches which Ancestry had labeled maternal rather than the paternal lines I was seeking. Either I had found a match so distant as to coincidentally have been related to me on both sides of my family, or Ancestry's Parent 1/Parent 2 determinations don't always make the right call.

Then came the grunt work of going, specimen by specimen, through the results of this sorting process. Granted, this effort also relies on the luck of the draw. I do far better at identifying unknown matches and placing them in the correct spot in the family tree if another close family member had already tested. Clicking on a puzzling moniker and discovering that match was a child of another DNA match is an immense help. Finding a match whose closest other match is, say, a third cousin, could involve hours of searching before plugging that match into the tree.

So, how did I do so far? With an hour's work, I did manage to place four matches in their rightful spot in the paternal side of my family tree. While I had hoped for better results, that did gain me some ground. Now that I've gathered the names of potential Gramlewicz matches, I should gain a bit more speed as I continue to tackle this task tomorrow.

While connecting these DNA matches to the Gramlewicz side of my family tree doesn't necessarily help me find the answer to my original question for this month—finding Elżbieta Gramlewicz's parents and siblings—it may expose me to possible connections from descendants of her siblings. I've always found that, when paralyzed in my push back through the generations, collateral lines can often be my end run around that frustrating genealogical brick wall.