It is important to realize that DNA testers with predominantly US ancestry come from an endogamous background, compared with the rest of the world. That is, there is a degree of inbreeding in the USA, compared with the rest of the world. This may not be apparent to local researchers, as most of the statistics are calculated from USA data, where endogamy has been ASSUMED to be zero. It is small indeed when compared to Ashkenazi or French-Canadian populations, but it is larger than in mixed populations generally. One of the side-effects of this is that, although USA DNA testers get relationships predicted at roughly the right level, outsiders who share ancestral, but not modern, populations with USA testers, tend to get more US cousins than they would expect, and these cousins are predicted to be closer relatives than they really are. This occurs because the degrees of relationship are calibrated from USA data, so that testers from other areas, or from mixed populations, get misleadingly close predictions. This remark was prompted by Tim Janzen's remark earlier today that " My mom fortunately doesn't come from an endogamous ancestral background, which is helpful when working with her triangulated groups. Endogamy definitely complicates things." I have an enormous regard for Tim's knowledge and acumen when it comes to DNA matters, but this statement needs qualification. It can be regarded as correct in an American context. It is NOT appropriate for testers whose ancestors never lived in the USA, who but share older populations with them, such as Australians, Britishers, Irish, Germans, Poles, etc.

Hi Tim, Do you mean by your remark that with more DNA cousins in the TG you can make better predictions for their relationship to each other than rather focusing on just one relationship estimate between two people? If you are interested to try your idea out, then let's take the discussion offline and I will give it a try in my web app. BTW, we do automatic Chromosome mapping. Unfortunately can't send a picture on this email list to show you. Andreas > On 28 Sep 2017, at 20:25, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > You can improve the predictions if you > start using cousin clusters to generate the prediction for the genealogical > relationships. However, none of the companies are doing that yet. We need > to see the companies automate chromosome mapping, but that hasn't happened > yet either. > Sincerely, > Tim

I agree with Belinda that for us with, like in my case, purely European ancestors (born in Germany) the estimates on relationships are always off from 3rd cousin onwards. As the large majority of customer that were used to build up the models for relationship estimation is coming from the US, these models aren't accurate enough for us. To give a practical example, two verified DNA cousins of mine were able to quickly identify a common ancestor (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Adams-22118) who is born relatively early (1799) I was not able so far to make a connection from my nearby ancestors which are also well documented. I even bought the family book of the Hirten church in the hope to identify the common ancestor through it as it goes another 100 years further back (or more for unknown births but documented marriages). There is always the chance of a NPE or that my DNA cousins have more than one common ancestor but so far no evidence. The genetic distance (cM) isn't much different for us. Andreas > On 28 Sep 2017, at 17:19, Belinda Dettmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > from

Dear Belinda, I have been emphasizing in my presentations for quite a few years that trying to predict the precise genealogical connection between any two people who share say 50 cMs or less with each other is fraught with problems. I try to emphasize that the relationship could be as close as 2nd cousins or could be as distant as 20th cousins. You can improve the predictions if you start using cousin clusters to generate the prediction for the genealogical relationships. However, none of the companies are doing that yet. We need to see the companies automate chromosome mapping, but that hasn't happened yet either. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Belinda Dettmann Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 5:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data Thanks for that, Tim. The degree of endogamy becomes important in the context of predicting relationships. Examples are in the statistics and guidelines given in references such as ISOGG where values only apply to populations with a degree of endogamy similar to that found in the USA. As a practical guide, the commonly used predictions (at FTDNA, 23andMe and ancestry.com) for known relationships from third cousin outward are not correct for ancestry which comes from mixtures of populations with less inbreeding than in the USA overall. As an Australian with mixed ancestry from 8 different regions of the British Isles, plus Germany and Poland, I have thousands of DNA matches, for which, for third cousins and worse, the predictions are all wrong. The relationships are much more distant than predicted and most links are impossible to find. Ranges usually cover the right value, but the actual predictions are rubbish. Similar situations apply for testers who live in the British isles, or South Africa, or New Zealand, or Poland, to my certain knowledge. We all find it disconcerting when told how close our middle-distance matches should be, when we know they are nothing of the kind. I agree that chromosome mapping is essential in doubtful situations, and I routinely download DNA for my known relatives to Gedmatch for that purpose, if they agree. There again, the guidelines for length of segments need some adjustments, as I find that fewer long and more short segments are the order of the day for known cousins of third degree or more in testers from mixed populations.

Belinda, I'm aware that endogamy exists in the USA, but I'm somewhat puzzled by the assertion that endogamy is on the whole more of a factor in the US than in most of the rest of the world. Europeans and Africans have only been present in the territorial US for a few hundred years, and many Americans' European ancestors didn't even get here until after 1850. For instance, all of my immigrant ancestors arrived in the US between about 1850 and 1895. A huge wave of European immigrants came here later than that, in the early 20th century. So while I know that my Norwegian ancestors were endogamous, and that my Scottish and German ancestors probably were too, that was back in Europe, not in the US. Sure, the colonial population became endogamous, and some populations in the US have remained or become so, but I don't see how the American (or even just the Euro-American) population is overall unusually endogamous compared to the rest of the world. What am I missing here? Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Belinda Dettmann < [email protected]> wrote: > It is important to realize that DNA testers with predominantly US ancestry > come from an endogamous background, compared with the rest of the world. > That is, there is a degree of inbreeding in the USA, compared with the rest > of the world. This may not be apparent to local researchers, as most of the > statistics are calculated from USA data, where endogamy has been ASSUMED to > be zero. It is small indeed when compared to Ashkenazi or French-Canadian > populations, but it is larger than in mixed populations generally. > One of the side-effects of this is that, although USA DNA testers get > relationships predicted at roughly the right level, outsiders who share > ancestral, but not modern, populations with USA testers, tend to get more > US cousins than they would expect, and these cousins are predicted to be > closer relatives than they really are. This occurs because the degrees of > relationship are calibrated from USA data, so that testers from other > areas, > or from mixed populations, get misleadingly close predictions. > This remark was prompted by Tim Janzen's remark earlier today that " My mom > fortunately doesn't come from an endogamous ancestral background, which is > helpful when working with her triangulated groups. Endogamy definitely > complicates things." > I have an enormous regard for Tim's knowledge and acumen when it comes to > DNA matters, but this statement needs qualification. > It can be regarded as correct in an American context. It is NOT > appropriate > for testers whose ancestors never lived in the USA, who but share older > populations with them, such as Australians, Britishers, Irish, Germans, > Poles, etc. > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Just came across this... "In population genetics, effective population size is not a direct measure of the total number of people that lived at a given time. It is rather a measure of genetic diversity. Experts trace an individual’s DNA back through history, looking for differences in the DNA sequences between the two copies of his or her genome. Essentially, they estimate how many generations of relatedness separate the maternal copy of a gene from the paternal copy. If a population is small, they can expect to reach the common ancestor relatively quickly; if it is larger, it takes longer. 'It’s amazing that you can get this much information out of a single individual,' Rogers said." https://www.quantamagazine.org/genetics-spills-secrets-from-neanderthals-lost-history-20170918/ Best regards, Stephanie On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Belinda Dettmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for that, Tim. The degree of endogamy becomes important in the > context of predicting relationships. Examples are in the statistics and > guidelines given in references such as ISOGG where values only apply to > populations with a degree of endogamy similar to that found in the USA. As a > practical guide, the commonly used predictions (at FTDNA, 23andMe and > ancestry.com) for known relationships from third cousin outward are not > correct for ancestry which comes from mixtures of populations with less > inbreeding than in the USA overall. > As an Australian with mixed ancestry from 8 different regions of the British > Isles, plus Germany and Poland, I have thousands of DNA matches, for which, > for third cousins and worse, the predictions are all wrong. The > relationships are much more distant than predicted and most links are > impossible to find. Ranges usually cover the right value, but the actual > predictions are rubbish. Similar situations apply for testers who live in > the British isles, or South Africa, or New Zealand, or Poland, to my certain > knowledge. > We all find it disconcerting when told how close our middle-distance matches > should be, when we know they are nothing of the kind. > I agree that chromosome mapping is essential in doubtful situations, and I > routinely download DNA for my known relatives to Gedmatch for that purpose, > if they agree. There again, the guidelines for length of segments need some > adjustments, as I find that fewer long and more short segments are the order > of the day for known cousins of third degree or more in testers from mixed > populations. > > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Tim Janzen > Subject: Re: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data > > Dear Belinda, > You make some valid points. A point I would like to make is that endogamy > is population specific. There is a lot of admixture in some populations and > little in others. Even in the U. S. you have some areas and populations > where there is a lot of endogamy and others where there is little. As a > general rule, the Americans who live on the West Coast (outside Utah) have > less endogamy than those who live on the East Coast who have early Colonial > American roots... > The importance of chromosome mapping can't be overemphasized since you can't > use segments linked to one ancestral branch as part of the quantitative > analysis of a genealogical research question for a different ancestral > branch. > Sincerely, > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Belinda Dettmann > Subject: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data > > It is important to realize that DNA testers with predominantly US ancestry > come from an endogamous background, compared with the rest of the world. > That is, there is a degree of inbreeding in the USA, compared with the rest > of the world. This may not be apparent to local researchers, as most of the > statistics are calculated from USA data, where endogamy has been ASSUMED to > be zero. It is small indeed when compared to Ashkenazi or French-Canadian > populations, but it is larger than in mixed populations generally. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I would just qualify that to say that endogamy in the USA is more predominant if your ancestors were small farmers. Farming towns tended to have smaller populations to breed with, and tended to breed within a smaller group of the same families. -----Original Message----- From: Belinda Dettmann <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Sep 28, 2017 3:34 pm Subject: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data It is important to realize that DNA testers with predominantly US ancestry come from an endogamous background, compared with the rest of the world. That is, there is a degree of inbreeding in the USA, compared with the rest of the world. This may not be apparent to local researchers, as most of the statistics are calculated from USA data, where endogamy has been ASSUMED to be zero. It is small indeed when compared to Ashkenazi or French-Canadian populations, but it is larger than in mixed populations generally. One of the side-effects of this is that, although USA DNA testers get relationships predicted at roughly the right level, outsiders who share ancestral, but not modern, populations with USA testers, tend to get more US cousins than they would expect, and these cousins are predicted to be closer relatives than they really are. This occurs because the degrees of relationship are calibrated from USA data, so that testers from other areas, or from mixed populations, get misleadingly close predictions. This remark was prompted by Tim Janzen's remark earlier today that " My mom fortunately doesn't come from an endogamous ancestral background, which is helpful when working with her triangulated groups. Endogamy definitely complicates things." I have an enormous regard for Tim's knowledge and acumen when it comes to DNA matters, but this statement needs qualification. It can be regarded as correct in an American context. It is NOT appropriate for testers whose ancestors never lived in the USA, who but share older populations with them, such as Australians, Britishers, Irish, Germans, Poles, etc. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear Belinda, You make some valid points. A point I would like to make is that endogamy is population specific. There is a lot of admixture in some populations and little in others. Even in the U. S. you have some areas and populations where there is a lot of endogamy and others where there is little. As a general rule, the Americans who live on the West Coast (outside Utah) have less endogamy than those who live on the East Coast who have early Colonial American roots. If you want to take a look at my mom's tree at https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/tree/73764861/family/pedigree?cfpid=322 84129043&selnode=1 you can get a perspective about how diverse her ancestral background is. She has ancestors from Wales, Scotland, England, and North Ireland (Scots-Irish), as well as a little Native American ancestry. Some of her ancestral lines are Colonial American, but even those lines as scattered up and down the East Coast. When I need to do quantitative analysis to draw genealogical conclusions about probable genealogical relationships I can do that much more readily and accurately for my mom's relatives than I can with my dad, who comes from a Low German Mennonite background. The importance of chromosome mapping can't be overemphasized since you can't use segments linked to one ancestral branch as part of the quantitative analysis of a genealogical research question for a different ancestral branch. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Belinda Dettmann Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 3:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [DNA] Endogamy does exist in USA data It is important to realize that DNA testers with predominantly US ancestry come from an endogamous background, compared with the rest of the world. That is, there is a degree of inbreeding in the USA, compared with the rest of the world. This may not be apparent to local researchers, as most of the statistics are calculated from USA data, where endogamy has been ASSUMED to be zero. It is small indeed when compared to Ashkenazi or French-Canadian populations, but it is larger than in mixed populations generally. One of the side-effects of this is that, although USA DNA testers get relationships predicted at roughly the right level, outsiders who share ancestral, but not modern, populations with USA testers, tend to get more US cousins than they would expect, and these cousins are predicted to be closer relatives than they really are. This occurs because the degrees of relationship are calibrated from USA data, so that testers from other areas, or from mixed populations, get misleadingly close predictions. This remark was prompted by Tim Janzen's remark earlier today that " My mom fortunately doesn't come from an endogamous ancestral background, which is helpful when working with her triangulated groups. Endogamy definitely complicates things." I have an enormous regard for Tim's knowledge and acumen when it comes to DNA matters, but this statement needs qualification. It can be regarded as correct in an American context. It is NOT appropriate for testers whose ancestors never lived in the USA, who but share older populations with them, such as Australians, Britishers, Irish, Germans, Poles, etc.

Dear Andreas, It makes sense to concentrate on matches who share the most DNA with you when you are working with someone who has a poorly developed pedigree chart. However, in my case I have all my family lines traced back to 1800 or earlier for my mom's ancestry so focusing on triangulated groups that I can readily sort out with single segment matches at Ancestry.com has proven to have the most value for me. It is generally relatively easy for me to figure out the genealogical connection for people who share more than 2 segments with my mom. My mom fortunately doesn't come from an endogamous ancestral background, which is helpful when working with her triangulated groups. Endogamy definitely complicates things. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas West Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 2:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Thanks Tim for your success story. I do hope to see the same success rate when people are asked to upload their raw DNA data to our web app for automatic triangulation. The person I'm helping find her BF has way over 1200 shared matches groups. This seems to indicate colonial ancestors with most likely lots of triangulated groups that will have several segments of more than 20cM. Surely it won't be easy to untangle this in her case. I like your advise on concentrating on one segment shared matches groups to make the triangulation easier but then again with it being done automatically there is no more human being slowing the process down. Andreas

What does .&nbsp; mean please ? Cheers from Valerie Garton [nee Vaughan] in sunny Sydney -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 26 September 2017 10:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] class action lawsuit I agree I don't think the suit has merit; but IMO 23 has jacked up their price in anticipation that they would have to back it down in order to pay off this kind of thing.&nbsp; IOW I'm planing on using the coupon the way 23 intended from the start (IMO).&nbsp; Although I'd have rather there was a 3rd option of upgrading one's own kit to a newer chip for a bigger discount. Ann T wrote ... (which I find objectionable, BTW -- I don't feel the suit has merit). ... Ann Turner ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have no idea what either of you are talking about.&nbsp; Are you asking re the standard ellipsis symbol "...." which roughly speaking means etc but can mean pre-etc if it goes before?&nbsp; And since there were no HTML code in there, I have no idea what JO'G is saying. From: "John O'Grady" &lt;[email protected]&gt; To: "[email protected]" &lt;[email protected]&gt; Subject: Re: [DNA] class action lawsuit Message-ID: &lt;[email protected]od.outlook.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It is HTML code for non-breaking space. HTML code is not supposed to be used on Rootsweb message boards. If it is, you get gobbledygook like &nbsp;. ________________________________ From: GENEALOGY-DNA &lt;[email protected]&gt; on behalf of Valerie Barbara Garton &lt;[email protected]&gt; Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 8:43:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] class action lawsuit What does .&nbsp; mean please ?

Thanks Tim for your success story. I do hope to see the same success rate when people are asked to upload their raw DNA data to our web app for automatic triangulation. The person I'm helping find her BF has way over 1200 shared matches groups. This seems to indicate colonial ancestors with most likely lots of triangulated groups that will have several segments of more than 20cM. Surely it won't be easy to untangle this in her case. I like your advise on concentrating on one segment shared matches groups to make the triangulation easier but then again with it being done automatically there is no more human being slowing the process down. I think we will need to focus on the groups with 2-5 matching segments as well as they will be closer to the current time and with so much endogamy in colonial families I wonder if the common ancestor will be too far back, even with well documented family trees (not to forget the low quality of click together trees that I have already seen). Her case is an unique challenge anyway as from each MRCA we have to go down (!) and build up a tree of descendants to hopefully eventually have TG’s connecting downstream which will be the path to her BF. It’s good to hear that despite the challenges of not having easy access to the detailed data that we need, people do find value in the large number of matches at Ancestry. Thanks for your reply, Andreas > On 28 Sep 2017, at 03:17, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > triangulated

It is HTML code for non-breaking space. HTML code is not supposed to be used on Rootsweb message boards. If it is, you get gobbledygook like &nbsp. ________________________________ From: GENEALOGY-DNA <[email protected]> on behalf of Valerie Barbara Garton <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 8:43:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] class action lawsuit What does .&nbsp; mean please ? Cheers from Valerie Garton [nee Vaughan] in sunny Sydney -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 26 September 2017 10:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] class action lawsuit I agree I don't think the suit has merit; but IMO 23 has jacked up their price in anticipation that they would have to back it down in order to pay off this kind of thing.&nbsp; IOW I'm planing on using the coupon the way 23 intended from the start (IMO).&nbsp; Although I'd have rather there was a 3rd option of upgrading one's own kit to a newer chip for a bigger discount. Ann T wrote ... (which I find objectionable, BTW -- I don't feel the suit has merit). ... Ann Turner ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear Andreas, I have been working hard over the past year or so to put my family's Ancestry.com matches into triangulated groups. I look for clusters of 3 or more matches who all share DNA with each other, preferably people who only share one segment with my family member. The matching segments are generally between 20 cM and 30 cMs since Ancestry.com doesn't provide the shared matches for your matches who share less than 20 cMs with each other. In most cases, all of the members of such clusters will be members of a triangulated group. If I can get even one person from this cluster to upload to GEDmatch, I can then get the basic matching segment data for everyone else in that cluster. I haven't been able to get a member from every one of these clusters to upload to GEDmatch yet, but as Ancestry.com's database gets bigger and bigger I am find that it is becoming easier to get at least one member of each cluster to upload to GEDmatch. If you have matches who share more than one segment with you, then it is harder to put them into triangulated groups and to figure out the matching segment data for such matches, but I have been having some success with that as well. The bottom line is that all of us should be strongly encouraging all of our Ancestry.com matches to upload to GEDmatch. We all benefit from having as many of our Ancestry.com matches in GEDmatch as possible. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas West Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 6:56 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Hi everyone, having a hard time grasping the following about what this actually means in regards to Ancestry DNA’s shared matches. I’m helping someone find her BF and she has the following situation on her Ancestry DNA results: The difference between ICW and triangulation is clear to me, unfortunately without getting access to the raw DNA data there is no telling which of these shared matches turn into valid triangulated groups. But how do I interpret these 102 other shared matches groups? Is Judy a very important match for VW as she has such a large group of shared matches with other matches of VW? I’m trying to make sense out of this how we can use this information for her purpose. Unfortunately Ancestry won’t tell us if all of these people in the shared matches group match each other (to form a triangulated group). Andreas

Hello Andreas, The difference in who is showing where is probably to do with the level of relationship, as Ancestry only show the shared matches who are fourth cousins or closer. If a fourth cousin or closer is a shared match with someone who is more distant than that, the fourth cousin will show as a shared match on the more distant match's profile page, but the more distant one will not show as a shared match on the fourth cousin's page. Here's some examples which might help to describe it - I have three matches, P, T and V. They are all on my fourth cousins list and they all match each other so, when I look at the shared matches on any of their profile pages, the other two show. However, I have a distant match, G, who is a shared match with P. G does not show as a shared match when I look on P's page (since G is more distant to me than a 4th cousin). But, when I look on G's profile page, P does show there, as P is a 4th cousin to me. Another match, B, is also a distant cousin to me - when I look at B's profile page, I can see P and V, as they are shared matches with me and B, and are fourth cousins to me. But B doesn't show on either of P and V's pages, as B is a more distant match to me. So it's basically giving you some information towards ICW - but only for the closer matches. The easiest way to find the distant shared matches who match a fourth cousin seems to be to use the DNAGedcom Client app. It is possible to make some sense out of the shared matches, by looking at the networks of who matches who - I've written a bit on my blog at http://notjusttheparrys.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/ancestry-shared-matches-and-new.html to show my initial attempts at this, but still need to try more with the NodeXL program that other people have recommended. Having identified a shared ancestor with one person in a group, it does seem probable that the others in the group will connect through that same ancestral line (at some level.) In my view, the more 'important' ones are likely to be those who only connect to a small group of people - so far, they seem to be the ones that are genuinely more closely related to me. (But it's probably a bit like the issue of size of triangulating groups - much could depend on the backgrounds of the matches, etc.) And, as you say, without actually being able to compare the DNA data, there's no way to tell if the groups of matches form triangulating groups, they are just ICW. Best wishes Barbara Griffiths On 27 September 2017 at 14:56, Andreas West <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > > having a hard time grasping the following about what this actually means in regards to Ancestry DNA’s shared matches. I’m helping someone find her BF and she has the following situation on her Ancestry DNA results: > > Let’s call her VW. She has one match, let’s name her Judy, who on her profile page shows 3 shared matches (with VW). But at the same time, Judy is on 103 other matches (of VW) profile page shared matches. This is what I don’t get. > > From Ancestry’s help page: > > “ > What are Shared Matches? > > The shared matches list shows DNA matches that you and one of your DNA matches have in common. This might help you determine which family line you share or give you more evidence that you’re related to a specific person or match. For example, if you and your brother share DNA with a cousin, that cousin will show up as a shared match for both of you. Similarly, if you have a DNA match and your 2nd cousin has the same DNA match, this person would be a shared match to you and your 2nd cousin—and may help you determine how you’re related to this 2nd cousin." > > > The difference between ICW and triangulation is clear to me, unfortunately without getting access to the raw DNA data there is no telling which of these shared matches turn into valid triangulated groups. > > But how do I interpret these 102 other shared matches groups? Is Judy a very important match for VW as she has such a large group of shared matches with other matches of VW? I’m trying to make sense out of this how we can use this information for her purpose. > > Unfortunately Ancestry won’t tell us if all of these people in the shared matches group match each other (to form a triangulated group). > > Hope someone can share some light on this. Thanks in advance, > > Andreas > > Andreas West > Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 <http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5> > Author of https://www.dnagenealogy.tools <http://dnagenealogy.tools/>

ICW = InCommon With; TG = Triangulated Group; IDs = Identification Codes (names for TGs); Jim Bartlett [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Gail Schinnerer Jorgensen <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Sep 27, 2017 12:57 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches - covered entensively in my blog: www.segmentology.org which has recent posts about AncestryDNA Shared Matches; Notes; Uploading to GEDmatch; Getting Starting with GEDmatch; etc. Jim Bartlett ICW = ?TG = ?TIA (thanks in advance) Gail~ Gail Schinnerer Jorgensen ~On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]>wrote:> Andreas>> Shared Matches = ICW. Some may be on the same ancestor, but most will not.> The way I do it is with the Notes - and when the same group of folks wind> up in each other's Notes, it's much more probable that they are from the> same Ancestor. I'm linking AncestryDNA and GEDmatch kits and putting TG IDs> in the Notes. When one TG shows up in several Shared Matches it's very> positive.>> Jim Bartlett

in common with triangulated group Gail Schinnerer Jorgensen wrote: > ICW = ? > TG = ? > TIA (thanks in advance) Gail > > ~ Gail Schinnerer Jorgensen ~

Andreas Shared Matches = ICW. Some may be on the same ancestor, but most will not. The way I do it is with the Notes - and when the same group of folks wind up in each other's Notes, it's much more probable that they are from the same Ancestor. I'm linking AncestryDNA and GEDmatch kits and putting TG IDs in the Notes. When one TG shows up in several Shared Matches it's very positive. Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > On Sep 27, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Andreas West <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > having a hard time grasping the following about what this actually means in regards to Ancestry DNA’s shared matches. I’m helping someone find her BF and she has the following situation on her Ancestry DNA results: > > Let’s call her VW. She has one match, let’s name her Judy, who on her profile page shows 3 shared matches (with VW). But at the same time, Judy is on 103 other matches (of VW) profile page shared matches. This is what I don’t get. > > From Ancestry’s help page: > > “ > What are Shared Matches? > > The shared matches list shows DNA matches that you and one of your DNA matches have in common. This might help you determine which family line you share or give you more evidence that you’re related to a specific person or match. For example, if you and your brother share DNA with a cousin, that cousin will show up as a shared match for both of you. Similarly, if you have a DNA match and your 2nd cousin has the same DNA match, this person would be a shared match to you and your 2nd cousin—and may help you determine how you’re related to this 2nd cousin." > > > The difference between ICW and triangulation is clear to me, unfortunately without getting access to the raw DNA data there is no telling which of these shared matches turn into valid triangulated groups. > > But how do I interpret these 102 other shared matches groups? Is Judy a very important match for VW as she has such a large group of shared matches with other matches of VW? I’m trying to make sense out of this how we can use this information for her purpose. > > Unfortunately Ancestry won’t tell us if all of these people in the shared matches group match each other (to form a triangulated group). > > Hope someone can share some light on this. Thanks in advance, > > Andreas > > Andreas West > Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 <http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5> > Author of https://www.dnagenealogy.tools <http://dnagenealogy.tools/> > >

ICW = ? TG = ? TIA (thanks in advance) Gail ~ Gail Schinnerer Jorgensen ~ On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > Andreas > > Shared Matches = ICW. Some may be on the same ancestor, but most will not. > The way I do it is with the Notes - and when the same group of folks wind > up in each other's Notes, it's much more probable that they are from the > same Ancestor. I'm linking AncestryDNA and GEDmatch kits and putting TG IDs > in the Notes. When one TG shows up in several Shared Matches it's very > positive. > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > On Sep 27, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Andreas West <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > having a hard time grasping the following about what this actually means > in regards to Ancestry DNA’s shared matches. I’m helping someone find her > BF and she has the following situation on her Ancestry DNA results: > > > > Let’s call her VW. She has one match, let’s name her Judy, who on her > profile page shows 3 shared matches (with VW). But at the same time, Judy > is on 103 other matches (of VW) profile page shared matches. This is what I > don’t get. > > > > From Ancestry’s help page: > > > > “ > > What are Shared Matches? > > > > The shared matches list shows DNA matches that you and one of your DNA > matches have in common. This might help you determine which family line you > share or give you more evidence that you’re related to a specific person or > match. For example, if you and your brother share DNA with a cousin, that > cousin will show up as a shared match for both of you. Similarly, if you > have a DNA match and your 2nd cousin has the same DNA match, this person > would be a shared match to you and your 2nd cousin—and may help you > determine how you’re related to this 2nd cousin." > > > > > > The difference between ICW and triangulation is clear to me, > unfortunately without getting access to the raw DNA data there is no > telling which of these shared matches turn into valid triangulated groups. > > > > But how do I interpret these 102 other shared matches groups? Is Judy a > very important match for VW as she has such a large group of shared matches > with other matches of VW? I’m trying to make sense out of this how we can > use this information for her purpose. > > > > Unfortunately Ancestry won’t tell us if all of these people in the > shared matches group match each other (to form a triangulated group). > > > > Hope someone can share some light on this. Thanks in advance, > > > > Andreas > > > > Andreas West > > Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/ > treewidget/Basso-23/5 <http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5> > > Author of https://www.dnagenealogy.tools <http://dnagenealogy.tools/> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi everyone, having a hard time grasping the following about what this actually means in regards to Ancestry DNA’s shared matches. I’m helping someone find her BF and she has the following situation on her Ancestry DNA results: Let’s call her VW. She has one match, let’s name her Judy, who on her profile page shows 3 shared matches (with VW). But at the same time, Judy is on 103 other matches (of VW) profile page shared matches. This is what I don’t get. From Ancestry’s help page: “ What are Shared Matches? The shared matches list shows DNA matches that you and one of your DNA matches have in common. This might help you determine which family line you share or give you more evidence that you’re related to a specific person or match. For example, if you and your brother share DNA with a cousin, that cousin will show up as a shared match for both of you. Similarly, if you have a DNA match and your 2nd cousin has the same DNA match, this person would be a shared match to you and your 2nd cousin—and may help you determine how you’re related to this 2nd cousin." The difference between ICW and triangulation is clear to me, unfortunately without getting access to the raw DNA data there is no telling which of these shared matches turn into valid triangulated groups. But how do I interpret these 102 other shared matches groups? Is Judy a very important match for VW as she has such a large group of shared matches with other matches of VW? I’m trying to make sense out of this how we can use this information for her purpose. Unfortunately Ancestry won’t tell us if all of these people in the shared matches group match each other (to form a triangulated group). Hope someone can share some light on this. Thanks in advance, Andreas Andreas West Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 <http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5> Author of https://www.dnagenealogy.tools <http://dnagenealogy.tools/>