Hello On AncestryDNA I can place my mother's matches into one or two ancestors even without a tree, if we share a match with another person but as for my fathers line, I'm still having problems. As I have said previously AncestryDNA changed the method in which they test and the majority of those who tested under the old method don't show up on AncestryDNA AncestryDNA needs to update it's testing method, to come into line with the other testing companies. Regards Gareth

But how is anybody supposed to know that? Especially if they have no tree on Ancestry.com? Answer: they won't. How is somebody supposed to know who to contact? I have 120,000 matches. Do I send out 120,000 emails? How does one do that? Its true that if one of your people matched me with say 100 cM or match, I would contact you. Maybe even 75 cM. But at 30 cM total on Ancestry is hopeless to try to contact every match. BUT .... I'm no longer finding anything useful from 75 cM matches. The potentially useful matches are ones with good trees and 10-20 cM largest segments. My tree already goes back to the "difficult cases". I'm looking for that miracle person who has the old family Bible and just got into Internet genealogy. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- From: Dave Naylor via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 11:39 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Cc: Dave Naylor <hotrumfamily@yahoo.ca> Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results Don't judge a book by it's cover. If matches bother to contact me they will be rewarded with more information about their match and possible confirmed cousins than they could ever imagine.

Great idea. I changed it in my tree profile but the actual member profile makes may e-mail too small to detect... -----Original Message----- From: Rebekah A. Canada (Unpaid Volunteer Administrator) [mailto:hmtdna@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 4:26 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results Put your name and your email in an image and make it your Ancestry profile picture. On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:39 AM Dave Naylor via GENEALOGY-DNA < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Don't judge a book by it's cover. > > ... > > Now if Ancestry only had place to include a message visible to our > matches I could let them know there were huge trees available with most > lineages going back at least 6 generations. > > Cheers! -- Dave > -- Regards, Rebekah A. Canada Volunteer Administrator, Family Tree DNA <https://affiliate.familytreedna.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=598> Author, Haplogroup <https://haplogroup.org> -- PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION -- This communication is privileged and contains confidential information. If it has been sent to you in error, please disregard, reply to the sender that you received it in error, and delete it. Any distribution or other reproduction is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Put your name and your email in an image and make it your Ancestry profile picture. On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:39 AM Dave Naylor via GENEALOGY-DNA < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Don't judge a book by it's cover. > > ... > > Now if Ancestry only had place to include a message visible to our > matches I could let them know there were huge trees available with most > lineages going back at least 6 generations. > > Cheers! -- Dave > -- Regards, Rebekah A. Canada Volunteer Administrator, Family Tree DNA <https://affiliate.familytreedna.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=598> Author, Haplogroup <https://haplogroup.org> -- PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION -- This communication is privileged and contains confidential information. If it has been sent to you in error, please disregard, reply to the sender that you received it in error, and delete it. Any distribution or other reproduction is strictly prohibited.

RabbitHunter? BeenVerified has 9 possible people who use that ID. On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:18 PM Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Until you hit a DNA kit just called John Smith, or worse RabbitHunterWith > no tree.... > > > -----Original Message----- -- Regards, Rebekah A. Canada Volunteer Administrator, Family Tree DNA <https://affiliate.familytreedna.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=598> Author, Haplogroup <https://haplogroup.org> -- PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION -- This communication is privileged and contains confidential information. If it has been sent to you in error, please disregard, reply to the sender that you received it in error, and delete it. Any distribution or other reproduction is strictly prohibited.

Don't judge a book by it's cover. Those kits are administered by me! I administer kits for about 20 different people and most of them have insignificant or no tree at Ancestry. That's because their trees are part of a huge one that is held on my home computer complete with full sourcing and lots of helpful notes. If matches bother to contact me they will be rewarded with more information about their match and possible confirmed cousins than they could ever imagine. Now if Ancestry only had place to include a message visible to our matches I could let them know there were huge trees available with most lineages going back at least 6 generations. Cheers! -- Dave On 2020-02-20 8:18 p.m., Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA wrote: > Until you hit a DNA kit just called John Smith, or worse RabbitHunterWith no tree.... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rebekah A. Canada (Unpaid Volunteer Administrator) <hmtdna@gmail.com> > To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2020 5:17 pm > Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results > > I just build trees for those that don't have them. :-) Most people in the > USA can be tracked in minutes through a service like BeenVerified and > Social Media. > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:30 PM McDonald, J Douglas <jdmcdona@illinois.edu> > wrote: > >> Because I thought it was 10 million. At 16 million it is 0.75% >> >> That's still what I consider "a lot". >> >> In any case, most are useless because they have no useful family tree. -- David Naylor, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada HOTRUM/HARTRUM One-Name Study: <https://sites.rootsweb.com/~hotrum/> ---

Hello I try to add to some peoples tree, using the free to use UK sites for births marriages and deaths and give the tree owner the site addresses for them to do the same. Regards Gareth On Friday, 21 February 2020, 01:17:35 GMT, Rebekah A. Canada (Unpaid Volunteer Administrator) <hmtdna@gmail.com> wrote: I just build trees for those that don't have them. :-) Most people in the USA can be tracked in minutes through a service like BeenVerified and Social Media.

Until you hit a DNA kit just called John Smith, or worse RabbitHunterWith no tree.... -----Original Message----- From: Rebekah A. Canada (Unpaid Volunteer Administrator) <hmtdna@gmail.com> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2020 5:17 pm Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results I just build trees for those that don't have them. :-) Most people in the USA can be tracked in minutes through a service like BeenVerified and Social Media. On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:30 PM McDonald, J Douglas <jdmcdona@illinois.edu> wrote: > Because I thought it was 10 million. At 16 million it is 0.75% > > That's still what I consider "a lot". > > In any case, most are useless because they have no useful family tree. > -- Regards, Rebekah A. Canada Volunteer Administrator, Family Tree DNA Author, Haplogroup <https://haplogroup.org> -- PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION -- This communication is privileged and contains confidential information. If it has been sent to you in error, please disregard, reply to the sender that you received it in error, and delete it. Any distribution or other reproduction is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

I just build trees for those that don't have them. :-) Most people in the USA can be tracked in minutes through a service like BeenVerified and Social Media. On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:30 PM McDonald, J Douglas <jdmcdona@illinois.edu> wrote: > Because I thought it was 10 million. At 16 million it is 0.75% > > That's still what I consider "a lot". > > In any case, most are useless because they have no useful family tree. > -- Regards, Rebekah A. Canada Volunteer Administrator, Family Tree DNA Author, Haplogroup <https://haplogroup.org> -- PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION -- This communication is privileged and contains confidential information. If it has been sent to you in error, please disregard, reply to the sender that you received it in error, and delete it. Any distribution or other reproduction is strictly prohibited.

Thanks. On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:27 PM Tim Janzen <tjanzen@comcast.net> wrote: > The last information I have seen is 16+ million tested. See > https://www.ancestry.com/corporate/about-ancestry/company-facts. > Tim Janzen > -- Regards, Rebekah A. Canada Volunteer Administrator, Family Tree DNA <https://affiliate.familytreedna.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=598> Author, Haplogroup <https://haplogroup.org> -- PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION -- This communication is privileged and contains confidential information. If it has been sent to you in error, please disregard, reply to the sender that you received it in error, and delete it. Any distribution or other reproduction is strictly prohibited.

Because I thought it was 10 million. At 16 million it is 0.75% That's still what I consider "a lot". In any case, most are useless because they have no useful family tree. There are two reasons for this: 1) it only has zero or few people 2) it has FAR too many, i.e. the testees copy wrong trees with bogus people in them ... and they do so preferentially over trees, like mine, that have only real, verified, ancestors. And I have 4047 ancestors in my file. I finally broke down and wrote a scathing "support request" to them suggesting that they detect obvious bogus copying (i.e. people with 30 brothers and sisters, with duplicated names) and show a warning on such matches that they show signs of containing "ancestors" included by mistake. They really do need to warn people that their family trees are highly suspect. And you can't just ignore all trees ... I've found verified, from original, primary, data, ancestors by matches to their trees. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- From: Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 12:44 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results Why do you say 1%?  I think Ancestry passed four million kits a while back -----Original Message----- From: McDonald, J Douglas <jdmcdona@illinois.edu> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2020 8:16 am Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results Ancestry simply MUST be doing something seriously wrong. They are currently listing 121,210 matches for me. That's a lot! I've heard reports that they have millions of DNA test results. Do I really match over 1% of people? Also ... I have physically phased files of myself. These cover about 90% of the genome, with the rest filled with fake data that (by actual tests) matches essentially nobody. These files are at FTDNA, MyHeritage, and Gedmatch. If all regular matches were real, I would expect each file to match about 45% of people I do. Its in fact vastly fewer than that. I have also tested my phased files, using my own match program, against large numbers of the files I have accumulated (hundreds) which are from crystal clear marriages of ordinary Europeans to sub-Saharan Africans or 100% Mayans. This too shows that trial matches to random 100% Europeans are generating bogus matches. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- From: bps@norvic8.force9.co.uk <bps@norvic8.force9.co.uk> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2020 5:02 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results Ancestry phase their autosomal DNA results, for one thing. Then no-one short of the computer folk inside the testing companies really knows how their in-house algorithms then process the data, plus exactly how they do the matching to their reference data pools. Debbie does talk about all this.  Garrett Hellenthal did a lot of the computing analytical work for the PoBI DNA Project, on which Living DNA builds.  I think he is a consultant to the company. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxfiYGM-ChE Inferring Human History using DNA (Garrett Hellenthal) Brian _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

The last information I have seen is 16+ million tested. See https://www.ancestry.com/corporate/about-ancestry/company-facts. Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: Rebekah A. Canada (Unpaid Volunteer Administrator) [mailto:hmtdna@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:16 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results Last I checked, Ancestry is at around 15 million kits sold. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:44 PM Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Why do you say 1%? I think Ancestry passed four million kits a while back > -- Regards, Rebekah A. Canada

Last I checked, Ancestry is at around 15 million kits sold. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:44 PM Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Why do you say 1%? I think Ancestry passed four million kits a while back > -- Regards, Rebekah A. Canada Volunteer Administrator, Family Tree DNA <https://affiliate.familytreedna.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=598> Author, Haplogroup <https://haplogroup.org> -- PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION -- This communication is privileged and contains confidential information. If it has been sent to you in error, please disregard, reply to the sender that you received it in error, and delete it. Any distribution or other reproduction is strictly prohibited.

Why do you say 1%?  I think Ancestry passed four million kits a while back -----Original Message----- From: McDonald, J Douglas <jdmcdona@illinois.edu> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2020 8:16 am Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results Ancestry simply MUST be doing something seriously wrong. They are currently listing 121,210 matches for me. That's a lot! I've heard reports that they have millions of DNA test results. Do I really match over 1% of people? Also ... I have physically phased files of myself. These cover about 90% of the genome, with the rest filled with fake data that (by actual tests) matches essentially nobody. These files are at FTDNA, MyHeritage, and Gedmatch. If all regular matches were real, I would expect each file to match about 45% of people I do. Its in fact vastly fewer than that. I have also tested my phased files, using my own match program, against large numbers of the files I have accumulated (hundreds) which are from crystal clear marriages of ordinary Europeans to sub-Saharan Africans or 100% Mayans. This too shows that trial matches to random 100% Europeans are generating bogus matches. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- From: bps@norvic8.force9.co.uk <bps@norvic8.force9.co.uk> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2020 5:02 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results Ancestry phase their autosomal DNA results, for one thing. Then no-one short of the computer folk inside the testing companies really knows how their in-house algorithms then process the data, plus exactly how they do the matching to their reference data pools. Debbie does talk about all this.  Garrett Hellenthal did a lot of the computing analytical work for the PoBI DNA Project, on which Living DNA builds.  I think he is a consultant to the company. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxfiYGM-ChE Inferring Human History using DNA (Garrett Hellenthal) Brian _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello Ancestry doesn't include all of the earlier matches, mainly from the US because they changed the way they tested peoples DNA. I found plenty of inconsistencies when finding an Ancestry match from the US on GEDmatch. It's about time Ancestry upgraded their testing methods to match the other well known DNA testing sites. Regards Gareth

It's a misconception that Ancestry is using completely phased data for matching. Statistical phasing works only for relatively short segments, with many phase switches along the length of a chromosome. Ancestry starts the process with a phased "seed", then extends the segment until a contradiction is encountered (opposite homozygotes). Ann Turner. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:16 AM McDonald, J Douglas <jdmcdona@illinois.edu> wrote: > Ancestry simply MUST be doing something seriously wrong. They are > currently > listing 121,210 matches for me. That's a lot! I've heard reports that they > have > millions of DNA test results. Do I really match over 1% of people? > > Also ... I have physically phased files of myself. These cover about 90% > of the genome, > with the rest filled with fake data that (by actual tests) matches > essentially nobody. > These files are at FTDNA, MyHeritage, and Gedmatch. If all regular matches > were real, I would expect each file to match about 45% of people I do. Its > in fact > vastly fewer than that. > > I have also tested my phased files, using my own match program, against > large > numbers of the files I have accumulated (hundreds) which are from crystal > clear > marriages of ordinary Europeans to sub-Saharan Africans or 100% Mayans. > This too shows that trial matches to random 100% Europeans are generating > bogus matches. > > > > Doug McDonald > > -----Original Message----- > From: bps@norvic8.force9.co.uk <bps@norvic8.force9.co.uk> > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2020 5:02 AM > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results > > Ancestry phase their autosomal DNA results, for one thing. > > > > Then no-one short of the computer folk inside the testing companies really > knows how their in-house algorithms then process the data, plus exactly how > they do the matching to their reference data pools. > > > > Debbie does talk about all this. Garrett Hellenthal did a lot of the > computing analytical work for the PoBI DNA Project, on which Living DNA > builds. I think he is a consultant to the company. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxfiYGM-ChE Inferring Human History using > DNA (Garrett Hellenthal) > > > > Brian > > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

Ancestry simply MUST be doing something seriously wrong. They are currently listing 121,210 matches for me. That's a lot! I've heard reports that they have millions of DNA test results. Do I really match over 1% of people? Also ... I have physically phased files of myself. These cover about 90% of the genome, with the rest filled with fake data that (by actual tests) matches essentially nobody. These files are at FTDNA, MyHeritage, and Gedmatch. If all regular matches were real, I would expect each file to match about 45% of people I do. Its in fact vastly fewer than that. I have also tested my phased files, using my own match program, against large numbers of the files I have accumulated (hundreds) which are from crystal clear marriages of ordinary Europeans to sub-Saharan Africans or 100% Mayans. This too shows that trial matches to random 100% Europeans are generating bogus matches. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- From: bps@norvic8.force9.co.uk <bps@norvic8.force9.co.uk> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2020 5:02 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent Results Ancestry phase their autosomal DNA results, for one thing. Then no-one short of the computer folk inside the testing companies really knows how their in-house algorithms then process the data, plus exactly how they do the matching to their reference data pools. Debbie does talk about all this. Garrett Hellenthal did a lot of the computing analytical work for the PoBI DNA Project, on which Living DNA builds. I think he is a consultant to the company. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxfiYGM-ChE Inferring Human History using DNA (Garrett Hellenthal) Brian

Ancestry phase their autosomal DNA results, for one thing. Then no-one short of the computer folk inside the testing companies really knows how their in-house algorithms then process the data, plus exactly how they do the matching to their reference data pools. Debbie does talk about all this. Garrett Hellenthal did a lot of the computing analytical work for the PoBI DNA Project, on which Living DNA builds. I think he is a consultant to the company. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxfiYGM-ChE Inferring Human History using DNA (Garrett Hellenthal) Brian -----Original Message----- From: Eric S Johnson <crates@oneotaslopes.org> Sent: 07 February 2020 22:35 To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent results > The gedmatch totals if corrected match the Living DNA ones but not the Ancestry results. Why are the Ancestry results so far off? I too have never scientifically understood how/why different PGSes can provide such widely-varying cM numbers. But I've never found the diversity of cM numbers to be relevant to genealogy in any meaningful way. So understanding the PGSes' differences seems non-germane to what I care about. I would be concerned if the PGSes' HIR start/stop points (in megabasepairs) diverged--but they don't. It does occasionally happen that one PGS picks up a small match and another PGS doesn't. But I find that I have (by now) enough DNA cousins to form 2 TGs at almost every possible chromosomal address (on all 11 of my seniors' kits), so it's not too hard to determine IBDness by whether an HIR slots into a TG. And this "one PGS sees a small HIR but another PGS doesn't" isn't that different than the fact that, with some of my DNA cousins who're on both 23andMe and AncestryDNA, we see a huge X-DNA match on 23andMe but no match on AncestryDNA (because AncestryDNA apparently simply doesn't see X-DNA matches). Best Eric

> The gedmatch totals if corrected match the Living DNA ones but not the > Ancestry results. Why are the Ancestry results so far off? I too have never scientifically understood how/why different PGSes can provide such widely-varying cM numbers. But I've never found the diversity of cM numbers to be relevant to genealogy in any meaningful way. So understanding the PGSes' differences seems non-germane to what I care about. I would be concerned if the PGSes' HIR start/stop points (in megabasepairs) diverged--but they don't. It does occasionally happen that one PGS picks up a small match and another PGS doesn't. But I find that I have (by now) enough DNA cousins to form 2 TGs at almost every possible chromosomal address (on all 11 of my seniors' kits), so it's not too hard to determine IBDness by whether an HIR slots into a TG. And this "one PGS sees a small HIR but another PGS doesn't" isn't that different than the fact that, with some of my DNA cousins who're on both 23andMe and AncestryDNA, we see a huge X-DNA match on 23andMe but no match on AncestryDNA (because AncestryDNA apparently simply doesn't see X-DNA matches). Best, Eric

I would also recommend you listen to one of Debbie Kennett's talks on YouTube where she discusses this sort of thing. You can just google 'Debbie Kennett, DNA, Autosomal Tests Ethnicity'. She has spoken about it several times in the past couple of years. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Karla Huebner <calypsospots@gmail.com> Sent: 07 February 2020 22:15 To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: Inconsistent results Hi Christene, It's my understanding that Ancestry's algorithm breaks up a lot of segments and can underreport. I'd go with what you see on Gedmatch. Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 3:57 PM Christene Hoffert < christene02hoffert@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I am matching a fourth cousin with MRCA. At Ancestry our match is > 53cM 4segments. At gedmatch comparing her Ancestry results with my > Living DNA results gives 97.9 cM again with 4 segments 32.1, 12.2 11.2 > and 32.3 which only total 87.8cM. Our Living DNA results have us > sharing 86.77 cM which does not yet have a chromosome browser to give segments. > > The gedmatch totals if corrected match the Living DNA ones but not the > Ancestry results. Why are the Ancestry results so far off? > > Christene > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal > RootsWeb community > _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community