Please note that MyHeritage provides you with a platform to create and share a family tree and family memories. The DNA kits that are available through our site for our two partner companies, FamilyTreeDNA and 23andMe are not supplied by us and we also do not process the results of these kits.
Although you are able to enter DNA markers into a persons profile card within the Family Tree Builder Software only, these results are not published to your online family site and do not appear within the persons profile card.
Due to international privacy laws we here at MyHeritage are forbidden to allow this to happen and therefore non of the results can be used in any matching processes between family trees and or users.
I could understand if you would have received the reimbursment for sharing your DNA data, but in case you have paid for...
The only way is to check what you should get for yur money, to my understanding MH is not promising that you will be able to get the data of your testing, however I do understand your dissapointment.
I have even worse situation. I have paid Premium Plus subscription but I do not receive the proper support. I have paid for backup services - the reality is that tree restoration from backup is not functioning. You see the point, backups are created (I have paid for), but I have no access to backups (I have not paid for ?).
Presently, only the Smart Matches forum has new posts at the bottom, but it has happened before in other fora. Our comlaints have been ignored, but sometimes the problem experiences a "spotaineous cure". When checking a forum, first note the age of the first listed post; if it is obviously excessively old, click on the last numbered block (just above the "# Subject bar), go to the bottom of the file, and then back up a few clicks to see the most recent entry.
90 % of my tree is deceased ancestors. Their residence information gotten from the census material goes into contact info. That is not logical; it creates this huge contact list on their profile page. I am a transfer from Ancestry.com and mostly pleased with this site. I moved so that my family could view the tree and info without being "invited". Only reason for the move. I love Ancestry's front page for each individual; a life story tab followed by a facts tab etc. The Biograhpy section is at the end of the profile page. Maybe it could be moved up... tht is what people are interested in. Also ... while I'm at it. It should be easier to add photos to source material. I already uploaded all the images but when I try to add to source ... it wants to go to my computer. I can attach images to the people but that doesn't link it to the appropriate source.
You might want to reconsider the way that you calculate the percentage of a match because of a couple of problems I've noticed.
Firstly, consider two brothers born in different years, with the first names Jack and John. Given the parents' details, and place of birth, all match, this scores very highly - over 95%, despite them being different people. I don't really have a suggestion on how to avoid that.
However, I'm also getting matches in the high 70%, where the names, dates and places of birth and death, and spouse's and children's names and details are all exactly the same, but my tree has the the parents' names and the other tree does not. I think that is a logic flaw, and also very annoying in that the other tree has nothing to contibute to my tree, even though I do have something to contribute to theirs. I would agree that if the parents' names were different, then maybe 70% is appropriate, but where one tree has no parents' names and the other tree does, that should not lower the match percentage. So the percentage matching should not treat a lack of information as a "no match".
A further problenm is in addresses - "England", "Wiltshire, England", "Mere, Witshire", "Mere, England", and "Mere, Wiltshire, England" are treated as five different addresses, and then tripled because some people put "UK", or "United Kingdom' at the end - so 15 ways to show the same piece of information. My only suggestion for this is to not just deal with an address as a single string, but to parse it into country, state shire or county, region, etc and to calculate the match on the basis oof consistent or inconsistent information - that is, if one has a country only and the other has a city, region and country, that is not actually a mismatch at all.