An Ancestry.com subscription isn't required to see one's Ancestry DNA ethnicity results, but it is require to view DNA connections. Such connections are made based on DNA, not surnames. When I started all this, not knowing how it works, I purposely did not fill out a family tree. I didn't know if such information would bias results. It doesn't. I have over 300 DNA connections in Ancestry's database and several of those individuals have yet to fill out a tree as well.
While connections are based on DNA, a tree filled with surnames is necessary to see how we're related. Curiosity got the best of me, as I'm sure Ancestry knew it would. I signed up on a month-to-month basis and began filling out my family tree. Public records began popping up everywhere, and it wasn't long before I had generations of direct ancestors and their siblings on the tree, along with my husband, his direct ancestors, and their siblings.
So I was surprised when only four of my DNA connections came up with shared surnames. Yesterday, I did myself a favor by deleting the entire tree and starting again with only my direct ancestors. Without the competition of all those siblings, more hints relative to my direct line popped up. I found more names in my ancestry than I had before, and I was able to record more of my history.
Now, relationships with nineteen of my DNA connections have been established. More are forthcoming as I work out a puzzle in my ancestry and fill out even more info. It's exciting, and once again, I'm hooked. Well played, Ancestry.com. Well played.