List 20 new mtDNA sequences have appeared on the GenBank database. The first sequence is an Ancient Egyptian sequence, and the others are from FTDNA customers who have made their own submissions. The sequences belong to Haplogroups: H1a3, H1a7, H2a2b, H3b-G16129A, H5a1, I4a, J1c9, J1c2c2, K1a4a1, K1b2a1a1, K1c1h, T2b3d, T2b19, U1a1a, U8a1a3, U8b1a1, V3c, W4a1, X2e2b1 As usual I have added the sequences to my 'Checker' program to ensure accuracy of transcription. Note a 'T2b24' sequence requires revision. Ian www.ianlogan.co.uk -------------------- MF498884(Egypt-ancient) Parr Haplogroup U1a1a 30-AUG-2017 A73G A263G C285T 315.1C A385G A750G A1438G C2218T A2706G 3158.1T G3591A A4769G G4991A A5480G G6026A C7028T T7581C G8573A A8860G G11719A A12308G G12372A T12879C A13104G A13422G A14070G G14364A C14766T G15148A A15326G A15954C G16129A A16183- T16189C 16193.1C T16249C MF662102(England) FTDNA Haplogroup I4a 30-AUG-2017 A73G T199C T204C G207A T250C A263G 315.1C C522- A523- 573.1C 573.2C 573.3C 573.4C 573.5C A750G A1438G G1719A A2706G A4529T A4769G G5231A T6227C C7028T G8251A G8519A A8860G T10034C T10238C A10398G A10819G G11719A G12501A C12705T A13780G T14180C C14766T T14935C G15043A A15326G A15924G G16129A C16223T G16391A T16519C MF667539 FTDNA Haplogroup T2b24 30-AUG-2017 To be corrected MF684759(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup J1c2c2 30-AUG-2017 A73G T146C G185A A188G G228A A263G C295T 309.1C 315.1C C462T T489C A750G A1438G A2706G G3010A T4216C A4769G C7028T A8860G G8865A A8961R A10398G G10685A A11251G G11719A A12612G T13281C G13708A A13933G C14766T T14798C A15326G C15452A C16069T T16126C T16519C MF686116(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup H5a1 30-AUG-2017 A263G 315.1C C456T C522- A523- A750G A1438G T4336C A4769G T4947C A5582R A8860G A15326G C15833T T16304C MF686117(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup H2a2b 30-AUG-2017 A263G 309.1C 315.1C C522- A523- A8860G A15326G A16235G C16291T T16357C MF686118(Finland) FTDNA Haplogroup H1a7 30-AUG-2017 A73G A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G G3010A A4769G A5747G A8860G A15326G A16162G T16519C MF686412(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup K1b2a1a1 30-AUG-2017 A73G T146C T195C A263G 315.1C 523.1C 523.2A 523.3C 523.4A A750G T1189C A1438G A1811G A2706G A3480G A4769G G5913A C7028T A8860G G9055A T9698C A10398G A10550G T11299C A11467G G11719A C12019T A12308G G12372A T12738G G12771A G13759A C14167T C14766T T14798C A15326G T16224C C16278T T16311C T16519C A16524G MF686413(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup W4a1 30-AUG-2017 A73G G143A A189G T192C C194T T195C T196C T204C G207A A263G 315.1C C522- A523- 573.1C 573.2C G709A A750G T1243C A1438G A2706G A3505G G3531A A4769G G5046A G5460A C7028T G8251A A8860G G8994A C11674T G11719A A11947G T12414C C12705T C14766T A15326G G15884C C16223T T16519C MF686920(English) FTDNA Haplogroup U8a1a3 30-AUG-2017 A73G T204Y A263G T282C 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G G1503A A1811G A2706G C3738T A4769G A5240G T6392C C6455T C7028T A7055G G7340A A8860G C9365T T9698C C10733T A11467G G11719A A12308G G12372A G13145A G14259A C14766T A15326G A16162G T16172C T16342C MF693153(Norway) FTDNA Haplogroup K1a4a1 30-AUG-2017 A73G A263G 315.1C C497T C522- A523- A750G T1189C A1438G A1811G C2417A A2706G A3480G A4769G T5021C A5474G G6260A C7028T A8860G G9055A T9698C A10398G A10550G T11299C A11467G T11485C G11719A C11840T A12308G C12364T G12372A T13740C C14167T G14305A C14766T T14798C A15326G T16224C T16311C T16519C MF693154(Bulgaria) FTDNA Haplogroup H1a3 30-AUG-2017 A73G T152C A263G 315.1C A750G A1438G G3010A A4769G A8860G C15100T A15326G A16051G T16075C A16162G T16172C T16519C MF693156(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup T2b19 30-AUG-2017 A73G A263G 315.1C C522- A523- G709A A750G G930A A1438G G1709A G1888A A2706G T4216C A4769G A4917G G5147A C7028T G8697A A8860G T10463C A11251G G11719A A11812G G13368A G13928C A14233G C14766T G14905A A15326G C15452A A15607G G15928A T16126C C16294T C16296T T16304C T16519C MF693157(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup T2b3d 30-AUG-2017 A73G C151T T199C A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C G709A A750G G930A A1438G G1888A A2706G T4216C A4769G A4917G G5147A C7028T G8697A A8860G T10463C A10750G A11251G G11719A A11812G G13368A A14233G G14476A G14544A C14766T G14905A A15326G C15452A A15607G G15928A T16126C T16172C C16294T C16296T T16304C T16519C MF741772(Swedish) FTDNA Haplogroup J1c9 30-AUG-2017 A73G G185A G228A A263G C295T 315.1C C462T T489C A750G A1438G G1719A A2706G G3010A T4216C A4769G C6887T C7028T A8860G A10398G A11251G G11719A A12612G G13708A C14766T T14798C A15326G C15452A T15940C C16069T T16126C MF741773(Finland) FTDNA Haplogroup H3b-G16129A 30-AUG-2017 A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A2581G A4769G T6776C G7853R A8860G G13708A A15326G G16129A C16266T T16519C MF742397(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup X2e2b1 30-AUG-2017 A73G T152C A153G T195C A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C A750G A1438G G1719A A2706G A4769G T6221C C6371T C7028T G7853A A8860G T10034C G11719A T11875C C12084T C12705T A13966G T14470C C14766T T15310C A15326G T16189C C16223T A16265G C16278T T16519C MF765798(Belarus) FTDNA Haplogroup U8b1a1 30-AUG-2017 A73G T195C A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C C522- A523- A750G A1438G A1811G A2706G A3480G A4769G T6221C C6546T A6599G C7028T A8860G G9055A T9698C G9948A T10454C A11467G G11719A G11914A G12372A G12771A C14167T C14766T A15326G G16129A A16182- A16183- T16189C 16193.1C 16193.2C C16234T T16304C MF765799(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup K1c1h 30-AUG-2017 A73G T146C T152C A263G 315.1C C498- A750G T1189C A1438G A1811G A2706G A3480G A4769G C7028T T8473C A8860G G9055A A9093G T9698C A10398G A10550G T11299C G11377A A11467G G11719A A12308G G12372A G12630A C14167T C14766T T14798C A15326G T16224C T16311C T16519C MF765800(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup V3c 30-AUG-2017 T72C T152C A263G 315.1C A750G A1438G A2706G T3398C G4580A A4769G C7028T A8860G G10646A T12189C A12810G T15299Y A15326G A15613G C15904T A16216G T16298C C16301T C16355T
Interesting how our perceiption differs. On the OE, I am able to programmatically generate my comparisons and save them to a DB. I have dozens of new matches fully triangulated, checked and saved in less then an hour. On TNE I have completely gave up. Doing the same as above would take me days (some of my triangulation groups have 50 or even 80 members). [Just "clicking in" a single person against that TG is something I am not willing to go through. We need a REST API for the DNA Relatives of TNE.] Kind regards, Kuba On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 at 17:09, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Given that the old 5 worked barely (entering a character took about 5 > seconds), I'm happy that the New Experience 5 vs 1 is back up. > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Update? (Kuba Krchak) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 06:02:51 +0000 > From: Kuba Krchak > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] Update? > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Yes, > > it is the 1v5 from the old experience. > Your cookies are redirecting you to TNE. > > K. > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 at 18:07, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I've never seen this URL (I don't think)--unless it's the 5 > matches > > vs 1, but that's not the URL I recognize. But it came up "Update in > > Prograss too." > > So does anyone have a timetable for how long 23 is supposed to be > down? > > John L > > > > From: Kuba Krchak > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [DNA] Update? > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > >From 23andMe I am only using the > > https://www.23andme.com/you/labs/multi_ibd > > interface capable of programmatically comparing my matches. That is > working > > fine. > > > > Kind regards, > > Kuba > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Doris Wheeler wrote: > > > > > Me too. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Ann Turner wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > To contact the GENEALOGY-DNA list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list, send an email to > [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > 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 > email with no additional text. > > > ------------------------------ > > End of GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 12, Issue 612 > ********************************************** > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >
Karen, Thanks very much - your hint to copy my 23andMe rows to a new spreadsheet is the key for me - thanks. I've played around with the delete duplicates process but was unwilling to try it on my Master spreadsheet. I'll give your method a try. I know what you mean about learning the keystrokes for a process. I imbed hyperlinks in text all the time - in Word docs and Excel. I can copy a URL to the clipboard; then highlight the text I want use for the hyperlink; and type: ALT-I-I; CNTR-V; Enter in pretty much one quick flurry. When I go back to my typed notes I can easily CNTR-click a link to see the census record or Tree or whatever other reference I had. Thanks again for sharing your skills, Jim Bartlett [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Karen White <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Sep 1, 2017 4:24 pm Subject: [DNA] Downloading new 23andMe matches Jim Bartlett wrote: > If there is a more efficient way - I'd welcome it. Here is what I do. It doesn't take long. (It might be possible to write a macro to do it for you, but I don't know how.) Copy all the match names & sources from the spreadsheet you already have, into a new spreadsheet. Sort by source, and delete the ones that aren't from 23andMe. Then delete the source column, leaving only the names. Download all the matches from 23andMe. Delete everyone that isn't sharing or open sharing. Copy the column with the match's name into a second column in the new spreadsheet. In the new spreadsheet: Delete all extraneous spaces. (Use Ctrl-F "Replace all" and replace double spaces with single spaces. Might have to do it twice to make sure you get them all.) Highlight the first column and remove all duplicates (Data --> Remove Duplicates). Highlight the second colum and remove all duplicates. Select both columns. Home --> Conditional Formatting --> Highlight Cells Rules --> Duplicate Values Once there, click "Unique" instead of "Duplicate", then select which type text & fill you want. I use Green Fill with Dark Green Text. This makes everything green that is not in both columns. You don't care what's green in the first column. Sort the second column on font color, with green at the top (or whatever color you chose earlier). Those green ones are the matches that aren't already in your spreadsheet. It's then easy to go to the whole list you downloaded, find the new ones, and copy them over to the new spreadsheet. Once you've done this a few times, you get the hang of it and can do it in 5 minutes or so. Karen
This may be a bit tricky with your customized columns, but it seems like there should be a way to use Excel's tool to delete duplicate rows. You would append a fresh download to your master spreadsheet, lining up the columns to match your custom layout. Then tell Excel to delete duplicates based on the data in certain columns. Ann Turner On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > Kuba > > I, too, would like to see an automatic updating program - from 23andMe or > some 3rd party. > > In the meantime..... > I download the whole DNA Relatives list; adjust to my master spreadsheet > format (including adding a color coded column to distinguish all of these > rows); append to my spreadsheet; sort the whole thing by 23andMe kits and > Name; then look down the whole 23andMe list adding a tick for each new row > (usually an all-nighter); then resort to delete all new rows except the > ticked new ones; then sort only the 23andMe rows by Chr and Start. This > puts all the new 23andMe Match-segments intermingled in the two potential > previously determined Triangulated Groups. All prior analysis is preserved. > Then a long slog to determine the correct TG (or side) for each new one. It > goes pretty fast because there is a link (included in the download) that > take you straight to the Match's page - just scroll down to the ICW list > and check the "Yes" Matches - they will all be in the TG on one side (none > on the other TG). Frequently this review includes some of the other new > segments - so include them new, easily, in the same TG. Often another long > evening - I do this at 23andMe about every 3 months with a few hundred new > segments. I have a standard message (one paternal, one maternal) with links > to my Tree, blog, and a list of Patriarch for that side. As long as I'm on > the Match's page, I paste that in to the adjacent message box. > > If 23andMe just included a date for each Match in the download > spreadsheet, it would cut my time considerably. > > If there is a more efficient way - I'd welcome it. > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > >
Jim, Thank you so much for sharing. I am going to start sending e-mails at Ancestry. I am having good luck sending e-mails to my matches at Gedmatch who tested at Ancestry. I am asking them for their username at Ancestry so I can mark the match with the chromosome information. I almost always get an answer. But of course they have taken the time to upload to Gedmatch, so they have an interest in more than the ethnicity. LeeAnn On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > LeeAnn, > I work hard at this, but cannot take any credit for 707 SAH, or 1838 4C or > closer Matches, or 919pp (45,900+) Matches - that is all the luck of the > DNA draw. > > > I star only Matches with a Common Ancestor or a GEDmatch upload (which > also tells me the Triangulated Group they are in) - I have 993 stars (I can > take credit for all the work involved in that) > > > Here is my standard AncestryDNA message that is use most of the time: > > > > Iagree with the AncestryDNA Hint that our Common Ancestor may be [fill in > surnames] > > Itis possible that we have other Common Ancestors, perhaps behind one of > ourbrick walls. For this reason (and because I am mapping my DNA – specific > sharedDNA segments tied to specific ancestors), I hope you will upload your > DNA datato www.gedmatch.com. It’s a free site –easy to register – > complete instructions on their home page. My GEDmatch ID is[edited out for > this public post]. You will get many more Matches at GEDmatch, with their > emails. And GEDmatchhas the best deep ancestry/ethnicity/geographic > analysis utilities. No medicalor health info. Please let me know your > GEDmatch kit number if you upload atGEDmatch. If you upload to GEDmatch, > I’ll do the DNA analysis and report theresults back to you. I’ve already > helped many of my Matches in this way. > > FYI,I’m having success with atDNA and would be happy tohelp you. See my > How to Succeed list at: http://boards.rootsweb.com/ > topics.dnaresearch.autosomal/301/mb.ashx It has some good links at the > end. My DNASegment-ology blog is at www.segmentology.org – written for > genealogists in plain language > > Hope to hear from you. Jim Bartlett [email protected] > > Hereis a blog post I did on uploading to GEDmatch: > https://segmentology.org/2017/01/19/uploading-to-gedmatch/ > > > Hope the above helps - I think a key is a promise to help new Matches work > through all of this. > Anyone is free to also use the How to Succeed link (it's public) or any > link to one of my blog posts. > > > Jim Bartlett > [email protected] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: LeeAnn Stebbins <[email protected]> > To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Sep 1, 2017 11:24 am > Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > > Thanks Jim! :) I am VERY impressed with your 700 shared ancestor hints. I > have a pretty well developed tree, and have only 106 hints. But then again, > I only have 688 4th cousin or closer matches. One set of my > great-grandparents were immigrants. > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > LeeAnn, > > > > When I can get to my PC, I'll post my message. By Hints, I mean that I > > have 700 AncestryDNA Matches with green leaf Hints. I have almost 2,000 > of > > what AncestryDNA calls 4th cousins or closer (which are mostly 5C and > 6C) - > > these are the only Matches you'll see in any Shared Matches list. So even > > your 8C Matches may have some 4C, or closer, Shared Matches. Thank > goodness > > there's not a quiz on this;>j > > > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > > On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:08 AM, LeeAnn Stebbins <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Jim, since you have had such good luck with your matches uploading to > > > Gedmatch, would you mind sharing the verbiage of your standard message > to > > > them? And when you say 700 hints- do you mean shared ancestor hints? > > > > > > LeeAnn > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jim Bartlett < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> AncestryDNA will post Hints up to 8th cousins. I now have over 700 > > Hints, > > >> and I send a standard message to all urging an upload to GEDmatch, > with > > my > > >> promise to report back to them my analysis of what I can decipher from > > the > > >> segment info. Hundreds have uploaded! And I am finding that 3C to 8C > > Hints > > >> are lining up on some segments - not all, but some - and it's growing > > every > > >> day. I add info in the Notes field in each case, starting with the > > >> Ahnentafel number of the Common Ancestor (a great sort of the > download). > > >> Including non-Hint Matches, there are over 1,000 - many with segment > > data. > > >> All show up as little page icons in Shared Matches, which often gives > a > > >> very quick indication of where to look in the Trees of non-Hint > Matches. > > >> > > >> Acknowledged that a high percentage of AncestryDNA Matches have no, or > > >> very small, or Private Trees. Even so, I can encourage some of those > > >> Matches when our SMs clearly point to a CA. > > >> > > >> And there are, of course, many more Matches, with segment data, from > > FTDNA > > >> and 23andMe (and hopefully soon from MyHeritage) that are all in play > > >> through Triangulated Groups. > > >> > > >> I think we can "walk the Ancestors back" with some confidence to most > of > > >> the 1700s. > > >> > > >> Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > >> > > >>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I agree with Jim on this. I think that we are going to have a tough > > time > > >>> linking phased autosomal segments to ancestors born prior to 1500. > If > > we > > >>> were test every living person, get all their genealogies, and as well > > as > > >>> successfully test ancestors who have been buried in marked graves > then > > we > > >>> would have a shot at linking some phased autosomal segments to > > ancestors > > >>> born prior to 1500. However, I don't think that this is very > > realistic. > > >>> The relatively easy ground to cover is shared ancestors in the 1800s. > > >>> Confirming shared ancestors in the 1700s and 1600s is going to be > > really > > >>> tough due to a lack of genealogical records in many areas. > Confirming > > >>> relationships in the 1750 to 1800 time period is the next frontier > for > > >>> autosomal genetic genealogy from my standpoint. > > >>> Sincerely, > > >>> Tim Janzen > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > > >> Behalf Of > > >>> Jim Bartlett > > >>> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:13 AM > > >>> To: [email protected] > > >>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > > >>> > > >>> I'd say no, IMO! Because of all the endogamy involved. Without some > > >>> genealogical records, we could never sort it out. > > >>> > > >>> Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >
LeeAnn, I work hard at this, but cannot take any credit for 707 SAH, or 1838 4C or closer Matches, or 919pp (45,900+) Matches - that is all the luck of the DNA draw. I star only Matches with a Common Ancestor or a GEDmatch upload (which also tells me the Triangulated Group they are in) - I have 993 stars (I can take credit for all the work involved in that) Here is my standard AncestryDNA message that is use most of the time: Iagree with the AncestryDNA Hint that our Common Ancestor may be [fill in surnames] Itis possible that we have other Common Ancestors, perhaps behind one of ourbrick walls. For this reason (and because I am mapping my DNA – specific sharedDNA segments tied to specific ancestors), I hope you will upload your DNA datato www.gedmatch.com. It’s a free site –easy to register – complete instructions on their home page. My GEDmatch ID is[edited out for this public post]. You will get many more Matches at GEDmatch, with their emails. And GEDmatchhas the best deep ancestry/ethnicity/geographic analysis utilities. No medicalor health info. Please let me know your GEDmatch kit number if you upload atGEDmatch. If you upload to GEDmatch, I’ll do the DNA analysis and report theresults back to you. I’ve already helped many of my Matches in this way. FYI,I’m having success with atDNA and would be happy tohelp you. See my How to Succeed list at: http://boards.rootsweb.com/topics.dnaresearch.autosomal/301/mb.ashx It has some good links at the end. My DNASegment-ology blog is at www.segmentology.org – written for genealogists in plain language Hope to hear from you. Jim Bartlett [email protected] Hereis a blog post I did on uploading to GEDmatch: https://segmentology.org/2017/01/19/uploading-to-gedmatch/ Hope the above helps - I think a key is a promise to help new Matches work through all of this. Anyone is free to also use the How to Succeed link (it's public) or any link to one of my blog posts. Jim Bartlett [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: LeeAnn Stebbins <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Sep 1, 2017 11:24 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project Thanks Jim! :) I am VERY impressed with your 700 shared ancestor hints. I have a pretty well developed tree, and have only 106 hints. But then again, I only have 688 4th cousin or closer matches. One set of my great-grandparents were immigrants. On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > LeeAnn, > > When I can get to my PC, I'll post my message. By Hints, I mean that I > have 700 AncestryDNA Matches with green leaf Hints. I have almost 2,000 of > what AncestryDNA calls 4th cousins or closer (which are mostly 5C and 6C) - > these are the only Matches you'll see in any Shared Matches list. So even > your 8C Matches may have some 4C, or closer, Shared Matches. Thank goodness > there's not a quiz on this;>j > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:08 AM, LeeAnn Stebbins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Jim, since you have had such good luck with your matches uploading to > > Gedmatch, would you mind sharing the verbiage of your standard message to > > them? And when you say 700 hints- do you mean shared ancestor hints? > > > > LeeAnn > > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> AncestryDNA will post Hints up to 8th cousins. I now have over 700 > Hints, > >> and I send a standard message to all urging an upload to GEDmatch, with > my > >> promise to report back to them my analysis of what I can decipher from > the > >> segment info. Hundreds have uploaded! And I am finding that 3C to 8C > Hints > >> are lining up on some segments - not all, but some - and it's growing > every > >> day. I add info in the Notes field in each case, starting with the > >> Ahnentafel number of the Common Ancestor (a great sort of the download). > >> Including non-Hint Matches, there are over 1,000 - many with segment > data. > >> All show up as little page icons in Shared Matches, which often gives a > >> very quick indication of where to look in the Trees of non-Hint Matches. > >> > >> Acknowledged that a high percentage of AncestryDNA Matches have no, or > >> very small, or Private Trees. Even so, I can encourage some of those > >> Matches when our SMs clearly point to a CA. > >> > >> And there are, of course, many more Matches, with segment data, from > FTDNA > >> and 23andMe (and hopefully soon from MyHeritage) that are all in play > >> through Triangulated Groups. > >> > >> I think we can "walk the Ancestors back" with some confidence to most of > >> the 1700s. > >> > >> Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > >> > >>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I agree with Jim on this. I think that we are going to have a tough > time > >>> linking phased autosomal segments to ancestors born prior to 1500. If > we > >>> were test every living person, get all their genealogies, and as well > as > >>> successfully test ancestors who have been buried in marked graves then > we > >>> would have a shot at linking some phased autosomal segments to > ancestors > >>> born prior to 1500. However, I don't think that this is very > realistic. > >>> The relatively easy ground to cover is shared ancestors in the 1800s. > >>> Confirming shared ancestors in the 1700s and 1600s is going to be > really > >>> tough due to a lack of genealogical records in many areas. Confirming > >>> relationships in the 1750 to 1800 time period is the next frontier for > >>> autosomal genetic genealogy from my standpoint. > >>> Sincerely, > >>> Tim Janzen > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > >> Behalf Of > >>> Jim Bartlett > >>> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:13 AM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > >>> > >>> I'd say no, IMO! Because of all the endogamy involved. Without some > >>> genealogical records, we could never sort it out. > >>> > >>> Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org
Jim Bartlett wrote: > If there is a more efficient way - I'd welcome it. Here is what I do. It doesn't take long. (It might be possible to write a macro to do it for you, but I don't know how.) Copy all the match names & sources from the spreadsheet you already have, into a new spreadsheet. Sort by source, and delete the ones that aren't from 23andMe. Then delete the source column, leaving only the names. Download all the matches from 23andMe. Delete everyone that isn't sharing or open sharing. Copy the column with the match's name into a second column in the new spreadsheet. In the new spreadsheet: Delete all extraneous spaces. (Use Ctrl-F "Replace all" and replace double spaces with single spaces. Might have to do it twice to make sure you get them all.) Highlight the first column and remove all duplicates (Data --> Remove Duplicates). Highlight the second colum and remove all duplicates. Select both columns. Home --> Conditional Formatting --> Highlight Cells Rules --> Duplicate Values Once there, click "Unique" instead of "Duplicate", then select which type text & fill you want. I use Green Fill with Dark Green Text. This makes everything green that is not in both columns. You don't care what's green in the first column. Sort the second column on font color, with green at the top (or whatever color you chose earlier). Those green ones are the matches that aren't already in your spreadsheet. It's then easy to go to the whole list you downloaded, find the new ones, and copy them over to the new spreadsheet. Once you've done this a few times, you get the hang of it and can do it in 5 minutes or so. Karen
Kuba I, too, would like to see an automatic updating program - from 23andMe or some 3rd party. In the meantime..... I download the whole DNA Relatives list; adjust to my master spreadsheet format (including adding a color coded column to distinguish all of these rows); append to my spreadsheet; sort the whole thing by 23andMe kits and Name; then look down the whole 23andMe list adding a tick for each new row (usually an all-nighter); then resort to delete all new rows except the ticked new ones; then sort only the 23andMe rows by Chr and Start. This puts all the new 23andMe Match-segments intermingled in the two potential previously determined Triangulated Groups. All prior analysis is preserved. Then a long slog to determine the correct TG (or side) for each new one. It goes pretty fast because there is a link (included in the download) that take you straight to the Match's page - just scroll down to the ICW list and check the "Yes" Matches - they will all be in the TG on one side (none on the other TG). Frequently this review includes some of the other new segments - so include them new! , easily, in the same TG. Often another long evening - I do this at 23andMe about every 3 months with a few hundred new segments. I have a standard message (one paternal, one maternal) with links to my Tree, blog, and a list of Patriarch for that side. As long as I'm on the Match's page, I paste that in to the adjacent message box. If 23andMe just included a date for each Match in the download spreadsheet, it would cut my time considerably. If there is a more efficient way - I'd welcome it. Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > On Sep 1, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Kuba Krchak <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting how our perceiption differs. On the OE, I am able to > programmatically generate my comparisons and save them to a DB. > I have dozens of new matches fully triangulated, checked and saved in less > then an hour. > > On TNE I have completely gave up. Doing the same as above would take me > days (some of my triangulation groups have 50 or even 80 members). > [Just "clicking in" a single person against that TG is something I am not > willing to go through. We need a REST API for the DNA Relatives of TNE.] > > Kind regards, > Kuba
I haven't been able to download 23andMe spreadsheets in about 6 months. It has become relatively useless for me. The "new experience" has become a "no experience" due to incessant timeouts and I have pleaded for some way to detach the lowest resolution 5000 matches for each of the 12 profiles but it has fallen on deaf ears. I have moved on...
...Thank goodness there's not a quiz on this;>j Isn't that the truth!???? On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > LeeAnn, > > When I can get to my PC, I'll post my message. By Hints, I mean that I > have 700 AncestryDNA Matches with green leaf Hints. I have almost 2,000 of > what AncestryDNA calls 4th cousins or closer (which are mostly 5C and 6C) - > these are the only Matches you'll see in any Shared Matches list. So even > your 8C Matches may have some 4C, or closer, Shared Matches. Thank goodness > there's not a quiz on this;>j > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:08 AM, LeeAnn Stebbins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Jim, since you have had such good luck with your matches uploading to > > Gedmatch, would you mind sharing the verbiage of your standard message to > > them? And when you say 700 hints- do you mean shared ancestor hints? > > > > LeeAnn > > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> AncestryDNA will post Hints up to 8th cousins. I now have over 700 > Hints, > >> and I send a standard message to all urging an upload to GEDmatch, with > my > >> promise to report back to them my analysis of what I can decipher from > the > >> segment info. Hundreds have uploaded! And I am finding that 3C to 8C > Hints > >> are lining up on some segments - not all, but some - and it's growing > every > >> day. I add info in the Notes field in each case, starting with the > >> Ahnentafel number of the Common Ancestor (a great sort of the download). > >> Including non-Hint Matches, there are over 1,000 - many with segment > data. > >> All show up as little page icons in Shared Matches, which often gives a > >> very quick indication of where to look in the Trees of non-Hint Matches. > >> > >> Acknowledged that a high percentage of AncestryDNA Matches have no, or > >> very small, or Private Trees. Even so, I can encourage some of those > >> Matches when our SMs clearly point to a CA. > >> > >> And there are, of course, many more Matches, with segment data, from > FTDNA > >> and 23andMe (and hopefully soon from MyHeritage) that are all in play > >> through Triangulated Groups. > >> > >> I think we can "walk the Ancestors back" with some confidence to most of > >> the 1700s. > >> > >> Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > >> > >>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I agree with Jim on this. I think that we are going to have a tough > time > >>> linking phased autosomal segments to ancestors born prior to 1500. If > we > >>> were test every living person, get all their genealogies, and as well > as > >>> successfully test ancestors who have been buried in marked graves then > we > >>> would have a shot at linking some phased autosomal segments to > ancestors > >>> born prior to 1500. However, I don't think that this is very > realistic. > >>> The relatively easy ground to cover is shared ancestors in the 1800s. > >>> Confirming shared ancestors in the 1700s and 1600s is going to be > really > >>> tough due to a lack of genealogical records in many areas. Confirming > >>> relationships in the 1750 to 1800 time period is the next frontier for > >>> autosomal genetic genealogy from my standpoint. > >>> Sincerely, > >>> Tim Janzen > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > >> Behalf Of > >>> Jim Bartlett > >>> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:13 AM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > >>> > >>> I'd say no, IMO! Because of all the endogamy involved. Without some > >>> genealogical records, we could never sort it out. > >>> > >>> Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >
Thanks Jim! :) I am VERY impressed with your 700 shared ancestor hints. I have a pretty well developed tree, and have only 106 hints. But then again, I only have 688 4th cousin or closer matches. One set of my great-grandparents were immigrants. On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > LeeAnn, > > When I can get to my PC, I'll post my message. By Hints, I mean that I > have 700 AncestryDNA Matches with green leaf Hints. I have almost 2,000 of > what AncestryDNA calls 4th cousins or closer (which are mostly 5C and 6C) - > these are the only Matches you'll see in any Shared Matches list. So even > your 8C Matches may have some 4C, or closer, Shared Matches. Thank goodness > there's not a quiz on this;>j > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:08 AM, LeeAnn Stebbins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Jim, since you have had such good luck with your matches uploading to > > Gedmatch, would you mind sharing the verbiage of your standard message to > > them? And when you say 700 hints- do you mean shared ancestor hints? > > > > LeeAnn > > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> AncestryDNA will post Hints up to 8th cousins. I now have over 700 > Hints, > >> and I send a standard message to all urging an upload to GEDmatch, with > my > >> promise to report back to them my analysis of what I can decipher from > the > >> segment info. Hundreds have uploaded! And I am finding that 3C to 8C > Hints > >> are lining up on some segments - not all, but some - and it's growing > every > >> day. I add info in the Notes field in each case, starting with the > >> Ahnentafel number of the Common Ancestor (a great sort of the download). > >> Including non-Hint Matches, there are over 1,000 - many with segment > data. > >> All show up as little page icons in Shared Matches, which often gives a > >> very quick indication of where to look in the Trees of non-Hint Matches. > >> > >> Acknowledged that a high percentage of AncestryDNA Matches have no, or > >> very small, or Private Trees. Even so, I can encourage some of those > >> Matches when our SMs clearly point to a CA. > >> > >> And there are, of course, many more Matches, with segment data, from > FTDNA > >> and 23andMe (and hopefully soon from MyHeritage) that are all in play > >> through Triangulated Groups. > >> > >> I think we can "walk the Ancestors back" with some confidence to most of > >> the 1700s. > >> > >> Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > >> > >>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I agree with Jim on this. I think that we are going to have a tough > time > >>> linking phased autosomal segments to ancestors born prior to 1500. If > we > >>> were test every living person, get all their genealogies, and as well > as > >>> successfully test ancestors who have been buried in marked graves then > we > >>> would have a shot at linking some phased autosomal segments to > ancestors > >>> born prior to 1500. However, I don't think that this is very > realistic. > >>> The relatively easy ground to cover is shared ancestors in the 1800s. > >>> Confirming shared ancestors in the 1700s and 1600s is going to be > really > >>> tough due to a lack of genealogical records in many areas. Confirming > >>> relationships in the 1750 to 1800 time period is the next frontier for > >>> autosomal genetic genealogy from my standpoint. > >>> Sincerely, > >>> Tim Janzen > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > >> Behalf Of > >>> Jim Bartlett > >>> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:13 AM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > >>> > >>> I'd say no, IMO! Because of all the endogamy involved. Without some > >>> genealogical records, we could never sort it out. > >>> > >>> Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >
LeeAnn, When I can get to my PC, I'll post my message. By Hints, I mean that I have 700 AncestryDNA Matches with green leaf Hints. I have almost 2,000 of what AncestryDNA calls 4th cousins or closer (which are mostly 5C and 6C) - these are the only Matches you'll see in any Shared Matches list. So even your 8C Matches may have some 4C, or closer, Shared Matches. Thank goodness there's not a quiz on this;>j Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:08 AM, LeeAnn Stebbins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jim, since you have had such good luck with your matches uploading to > Gedmatch, would you mind sharing the verbiage of your standard message to > them? And when you say 700 hints- do you mean shared ancestor hints? > > LeeAnn > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> AncestryDNA will post Hints up to 8th cousins. I now have over 700 Hints, >> and I send a standard message to all urging an upload to GEDmatch, with my >> promise to report back to them my analysis of what I can decipher from the >> segment info. Hundreds have uploaded! And I am finding that 3C to 8C Hints >> are lining up on some segments - not all, but some - and it's growing every >> day. I add info in the Notes field in each case, starting with the >> Ahnentafel number of the Common Ancestor (a great sort of the download). >> Including non-Hint Matches, there are over 1,000 - many with segment data. >> All show up as little page icons in Shared Matches, which often gives a >> very quick indication of where to look in the Trees of non-Hint Matches. >> >> Acknowledged that a high percentage of AncestryDNA Matches have no, or >> very small, or Private Trees. Even so, I can encourage some of those >> Matches when our SMs clearly point to a CA. >> >> And there are, of course, many more Matches, with segment data, from FTDNA >> and 23andMe (and hopefully soon from MyHeritage) that are all in play >> through Triangulated Groups. >> >> I think we can "walk the Ancestors back" with some confidence to most of >> the 1700s. >> >> Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org >> >>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Jim on this. I think that we are going to have a tough time >>> linking phased autosomal segments to ancestors born prior to 1500. If we >>> were test every living person, get all their genealogies, and as well as >>> successfully test ancestors who have been buried in marked graves then we >>> would have a shot at linking some phased autosomal segments to ancestors >>> born prior to 1500. However, I don't think that this is very realistic. >>> The relatively easy ground to cover is shared ancestors in the 1800s. >>> Confirming shared ancestors in the 1700s and 1600s is going to be really >>> tough due to a lack of genealogical records in many areas. Confirming >>> relationships in the 1750 to 1800 time period is the next frontier for >>> autosomal genetic genealogy from my standpoint. >>> Sincerely, >>> Tim Janzen >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of >>> Jim Bartlett >>> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:13 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project >>> >>> I'd say no, IMO! Because of all the endogamy involved. Without some >>> genealogical records, we could never sort it out. >>> >>> Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org
Given that the old 5 worked barely (entering a character took about 5 seconds), I'm happy that the New Experience 5 vs 1 is back up. Today's Topics: 1. Re: Update? (Kuba Krchak) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 06:02:51 +0000 From: Kuba Krchak To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Update? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Yes, it is the 1v5 from the old experience. Your cookies are redirecting you to TNE. K. On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 at 18:07, wrote: > > > > > > Well, I've never seen this URL (I don't think)--unless it's the 5 matches > vs 1, but that's not the URL I recognize. But it came up "Update in > Prograss too." > So does anyone have a timetable for how long 23 is supposed to be down? > John L > > From: Kuba Krchak > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] Update? > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > >From 23andMe I am only using the > https://www.23andme.com/you/labs/multi_ibd > interface capable of programmatically comparing my matches. That is working > fine. > > Kind regards, > Kuba > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Doris Wheeler wrote: > > > Me too. > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Ann Turner wrote: > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer To contact the GENEALOGY-DNA list administrator, send an email to [email protected] To post a message to the GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list, send an email to [email protected] __________________________________________________________ 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 email with no additional text. ------------------------------ End of GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 12, Issue 612 **********************************************
My particular problem is with multiple matches. A group of some 300 distinct families immigrated together in 1710 to the Hudson Valley (Palatines). Of those 300, I have traced my mother's lines to 50+. I often find matches to 4, 5, or more of those original immigrants. Which one actually passed DNA to me is unknown unless we can triangulate, a very rare occurrence. Maybe a Watson (IBM) can one day digest all the genealogical and genetic data and produce a universal genetic tree. It certainly won't be in my lifetime, but we are preparing the groundwork for that to happen. Doris On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Jim on this. I think that we are going to have a tough time > linking phased autosomal segments to ancestors born prior to 1500. If we > were test every living person, get all their genealogies, and as well as > successfully test ancestors who have been buried in marked graves then we > would have a shot at linking some phased autosomal segments to ancestors > born prior to 1500. However, I don't think that this is very realistic. > The relatively easy ground to cover is shared ancestors in the 1800s. > Confirming shared ancestors in the 1700s and 1600s is going to be really > tough due to a lack of genealogical records in many areas. Confirming > relationships in the 1750 to 1800 time period is the next frontier for > autosomal genetic genealogy from my standpoint. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of > Jim Bartlett > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:13 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > > I'd say no, IMO! Because of all the endogamy involved. Without some > genealogical records, we could never sort it out. > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >
that link comes up with update in progress for me The DNAGedCom client has changed from "invalid login" to cannot find your shares, go to DNA Relatives under the Tools menu and confirm you have acknowledged you messages Lorna Henderson http://LornaHen.com On 1/09/17 02:20, Kuba Krchak wrote: > From 23andMe I am only using the https://www.23andme.com/you/labs/multi_ibd > interface capable of programmatically comparing my matches. That is working > fine. > > Kind regards, > Kuba > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Doris Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Me too. >> >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Ann Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It's not just you. >>> >>> Ann Turner >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:41 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I presume it is not just I; but to verify--has everyone else >> encountered >>>> more than 12 hours of "Update in Progress" at 23&Me? It's >>>> annoying since I missed 1/2 of Tuesday and Wed morning because of >>> surgery. >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> 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 >>> >> ------------------------------- >> 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
Exact reason I am asking what he says in the e-mail to his matches. I want to say what he says. :) On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Sam Sloan <[email protected]> wrote: > You are doing a lot better than I am. > I would say that less than 5% of the people I ask to join gedmatch actually > do it. > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:08 AM, LeeAnn Stebbins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Jim, since you have had such good luck with your matches uploading to > > Gedmatch, would you mind sharing the verbiage of your standard message to > > them? And when you say 700 hints- do you mean shared ancestor hints? > > > > LeeAnn > > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > AncestryDNA will post Hints up to 8th cousins. I now have over 700 > Hints, > > > and I send a standard message to all urging an upload to GEDmatch, with > > my > > > promise to report back to them my analysis of what I can decipher from > > the > > > segment info. Hundreds have uploaded! And I am finding that 3C to 8C > > Hints > > > are lining up on some segments - not all, but some - and it's growing > > every > > > day. I add info in the Notes field in each case, starting with the > > > Ahnentafel number of the Common Ancestor (a great sort of the > download). > > > Including non-Hint Matches, there are over 1,000 - many with segment > > data. > > > All show up as little page icons in Shared Matches, which often gives a > > > very quick indication of where to look in the Trees of non-Hint > Matches. > > > > > > Acknowledged that a high percentage of AncestryDNA Matches have no, or > > > very small, or Private Trees. Even so, I can encourage some of those > > > Matches when our SMs clearly point to a CA. > > > > > > And there are, of course, many more Matches, with segment data, from > > FTDNA > > > and 23andMe (and hopefully soon from MyHeritage) that are all in play > > > through Triangulated Groups. > > > > > > I think we can "walk the Ancestors back" with some confidence to most > of > > > the 1700s. > > > > > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > > > > On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree with Jim on this. I think that we are going to have a tough > > time > > > > linking phased autosomal segments to ancestors born prior to 1500. > If > > we > > > > were test every living person, get all their genealogies, and as well > > as > > > > successfully test ancestors who have been buried in marked graves > then > > we > > > > would have a shot at linking some phased autosomal segments to > > ancestors > > > > born prior to 1500. However, I don't think that this is very > > realistic. > > > > The relatively easy ground to cover is shared ancestors in the 1800s. > > > > Confirming shared ancestors in the 1700s and 1600s is going to be > > really > > > > tough due to a lack of genealogical records in many areas. > Confirming > > > > relationships in the 1750 to 1800 time period is the next frontier > for > > > > autosomal genetic genealogy from my standpoint. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Tim Janzen > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > > > Behalf Of > > > > Jim Bartlett > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:13 AM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > > > > > > > > I'd say no, IMO! Because of all the endogamy involved. Without some > > > > genealogical records, we could never sort it out. > > > > > > > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >
Sam 5% is probably normal. I just keep pestering them every few months. -----Original Message----- From: Sam Sloan <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Sep 1, 2017 6:48 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project You are doing a lot better than I am. I would say that less than 5% of the people I ask to join gedmatch actually do it. On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:08 AM, LeeAnn Stebbins <[email protected]> wrote: > Jim, since you have had such good luck with your matches uploading to > Gedmatch, would you mind sharing the verbiage of your standard message to > them? And when you say 700 hints- do you mean shared ancestor hints? > > LeeAnn > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > AncestryDNA will post Hints up to 8th cousins. I now have over 700 Hints, > > and I send a standard message to all urging an upload to GEDmatch, with > my > > promise to report back to them my analysis of what I can decipher from > the > > segment info. Hundreds have uploaded! And I am finding that 3C to 8C > Hints > > are lining up on some segments - not all, but some - and it's growing > every > > day. I add info in the Notes field in each case, starting with the > > Ahnentafel number of the Common Ancestor (a great sort of the download). > > Including non-Hint Matches, there are over 1,000 - many with segment > data. > > All show up as little page icons in Shared Matches, which often gives a > > very quick indication of where to look in the Trees of non-Hint Matches. > > > > Acknowledged that a high percentage of AncestryDNA Matches have no, or > > very small, or Private Trees. Even so, I can encourage some of those > > Matches when our SMs clearly point to a CA. > > > > And there are, of course, many more Matches, with segment data, from > FTDNA > > and 23andMe (and hopefully soon from MyHeritage) that are all in play > > through Triangulated Groups. > > > > I think we can "walk the Ancestors back" with some confidence to most of > > the 1700s. > > > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > > On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I agree with Jim on this. I think that we are going to have a tough > time > > > linking phased autosomal segments to ancestors born prior to 1500. If > we > > > were test every living person, get all their genealogies, and as well > as > > > successfully test ancestors who have been buried in marked graves then > we > > > would have a shot at linking some phased autosomal segments to > ancestors > > > born prior to 1500. However, I don't think that this is very > realistic. > > > The relatively easy ground to cover is shared ancestors in the 1800s. > > > Confirming shared ancestors in the 1700s and 1600s is going to be > really > > > tough due to a lack of genealogical records in many areas. Confirming > > > relationships in the 1750 to 1800 time period is the next frontier for > > > autosomal genetic genealogy from my standpoint. > > > Sincerely, > > > Tim Janzen > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of > > > Jim Bartlett > > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:13 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > > > > > > I'd say no, IMO! Because of all the endogamy involved. Without some > > > genealogical records, we could never sort it out. > > > > > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > ------------------------------- 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
The enormous number of matches is what makes me think that we can actually walk the ancestors back to the 1500s *if* we can carefully separate the lines. Even with endogamy, it seems that you could separate the families on the "right" of that ancestor from the ones on the "left" with matches who descend from one side versus the other. It's clear that some segments are preferentially descending on certain cousin-lines. The main situation now is that so many people have puny trees which makes us have to do their work for them to make the connection. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Sep 1, 2017 6:00 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project AncestryDNA will post Hints up to 8th cousins. I now have over 700 Hints, and I send a standard message to all urging an upload to GEDmatch, with my promise to report back to them my analysis of what I can decipher from the segment info. Hundreds have uploaded! And I am finding that 3C to 8C Hints are lining up on some segments - not all, but some - and it's growing every day. I add info in the Notes field in each case, starting with the Ahnentafel number of the Common Ancestor (a great sort of the download). Including non-Hint Matches, there are over 1,000 - many with segment data. All show up as little page icons in Shared Matches, which often gives a very quick indication of where to look in the Trees of non-Hint Matches. Acknowledged that a high percentage of AncestryDNA Matches have no, or very small, or Private Trees. Even so, I can encourage some of those Matches when our SMs clearly point to a CA. And there are, of course, many more Matches, with segment data, from FTDNA and 23andMe (and hopefully soon from MyHeritage) that are all in play through Triangulated Groups. I think we can "walk the Ancestors back" with some confidence to most of the 1700s. Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with Jim on this. I think that we are going to have a tough time > linking phased autosomal segments to ancestors born prior to 1500. If we > were test every living person, get all their genealogies, and as well as > successfully test ancestors who have been buried in marked graves then we > would have a shot at linking some phased autosomal segments to ancestors > born prior to 1500. However, I don't think that this is very realistic. > The relatively easy ground to cover is shared ancestors in the 1800s. > Confirming shared ancestors in the 1700s and 1600s is going to be really > tough due to a lack of genealogical records in many areas. Confirming > relationships in the 1750 to 1800 time period is the next frontier for > autosomal genetic genealogy from my standpoint. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Jim Bartlett > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:13 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > > I'd say no, IMO! Because of all the endogamy involved. Without some > genealogical records, we could never sort it out. > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > ------------------------------- 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
You are doing a lot better than I am. I would say that less than 5% of the people I ask to join gedmatch actually do it. On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:08 AM, LeeAnn Stebbins <[email protected]> wrote: > Jim, since you have had such good luck with your matches uploading to > Gedmatch, would you mind sharing the verbiage of your standard message to > them? And when you say 700 hints- do you mean shared ancestor hints? > > LeeAnn > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > AncestryDNA will post Hints up to 8th cousins. I now have over 700 Hints, > > and I send a standard message to all urging an upload to GEDmatch, with > my > > promise to report back to them my analysis of what I can decipher from > the > > segment info. Hundreds have uploaded! And I am finding that 3C to 8C > Hints > > are lining up on some segments - not all, but some - and it's growing > every > > day. I add info in the Notes field in each case, starting with the > > Ahnentafel number of the Common Ancestor (a great sort of the download). > > Including non-Hint Matches, there are over 1,000 - many with segment > data. > > All show up as little page icons in Shared Matches, which often gives a > > very quick indication of where to look in the Trees of non-Hint Matches. > > > > Acknowledged that a high percentage of AncestryDNA Matches have no, or > > very small, or Private Trees. Even so, I can encourage some of those > > Matches when our SMs clearly point to a CA. > > > > And there are, of course, many more Matches, with segment data, from > FTDNA > > and 23andMe (and hopefully soon from MyHeritage) that are all in play > > through Triangulated Groups. > > > > I think we can "walk the Ancestors back" with some confidence to most of > > the 1700s. > > > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > > On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I agree with Jim on this. I think that we are going to have a tough > time > > > linking phased autosomal segments to ancestors born prior to 1500. If > we > > > were test every living person, get all their genealogies, and as well > as > > > successfully test ancestors who have been buried in marked graves then > we > > > would have a shot at linking some phased autosomal segments to > ancestors > > > born prior to 1500. However, I don't think that this is very > realistic. > > > The relatively easy ground to cover is shared ancestors in the 1800s. > > > Confirming shared ancestors in the 1700s and 1600s is going to be > really > > > tough due to a lack of genealogical records in many areas. Confirming > > > relationships in the 1750 to 1800 time period is the next frontier for > > > autosomal genetic genealogy from my standpoint. > > > Sincerely, > > > Tim Janzen > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of > > > Jim Bartlett > > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:13 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > > > > > > I'd say no, IMO! Because of all the endogamy involved. Without some > > > genealogical records, we could never sort it out. > > > > > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >
Jim, since you have had such good luck with your matches uploading to Gedmatch, would you mind sharing the verbiage of your standard message to them? And when you say 700 hints- do you mean shared ancestor hints? LeeAnn On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: > AncestryDNA will post Hints up to 8th cousins. I now have over 700 Hints, > and I send a standard message to all urging an upload to GEDmatch, with my > promise to report back to them my analysis of what I can decipher from the > segment info. Hundreds have uploaded! And I am finding that 3C to 8C Hints > are lining up on some segments - not all, but some - and it's growing every > day. I add info in the Notes field in each case, starting with the > Ahnentafel number of the Common Ancestor (a great sort of the download). > Including non-Hint Matches, there are over 1,000 - many with segment data. > All show up as little page icons in Shared Matches, which often gives a > very quick indication of where to look in the Trees of non-Hint Matches. > > Acknowledged that a high percentage of AncestryDNA Matches have no, or > very small, or Private Trees. Even so, I can encourage some of those > Matches when our SMs clearly point to a CA. > > And there are, of course, many more Matches, with segment data, from FTDNA > and 23andMe (and hopefully soon from MyHeritage) that are all in play > through Triangulated Groups. > > I think we can "walk the Ancestors back" with some confidence to most of > the 1700s. > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I agree with Jim on this. I think that we are going to have a tough time > > linking phased autosomal segments to ancestors born prior to 1500. If we > > were test every living person, get all their genealogies, and as well as > > successfully test ancestors who have been buried in marked graves then we > > would have a shot at linking some phased autosomal segments to ancestors > > born prior to 1500. However, I don't think that this is very realistic. > > The relatively easy ground to cover is shared ancestors in the 1800s. > > Confirming shared ancestors in the 1700s and 1600s is going to be really > > tough due to a lack of genealogical records in many areas. Confirming > > relationships in the 1750 to 1800 time period is the next frontier for > > autosomal genetic genealogy from my standpoint. > > Sincerely, > > Tim Janzen > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of > > Jim Bartlett > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:13 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > > > > I'd say no, IMO! Because of all the endogamy involved. Without some > > genealogical records, we could never sort it out. > > > > Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >