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 >
Orin, I suspect we're all equally frustrated by our inability to enter into communication with a known "DNA cousin." But I've found that if I work hard enough, anyone (well, except those who are no longer with us) can be found (not that it's always worth it) ... and almost inevitably, their earlier lack of response stemmed from not knowing they were being sought. Out of the over 10,000 DNA cousins with whom I've actually been in touch (bilaterally), I can count on my fingers and toes the number who actually said "not interested" (although the %age who have reservations about copying their DNA to GEDmatch is of course much more substantive). That's why it seems to me genetic genealogy is (on several levels) a "game of numbers," which in turn is why it's worth (for any serious hobbyist) ensuring you fish in all five of the main pools (AncestryDNA, 23andMe, FTDNA, MyHeritage, GEDmatch). > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Orin Wells > Sent: September 1, 2017 01.44 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] size matters > identifying "cousins" than Family Tree. And I have experienced exactly the > same general lack of interest in the two systems on the part of people who > have tested to replying to contacts from people who appear to match them. > To me that is probably the most frustrating part of the Family Finder and > AncestryDNA testing. You know there is a match if you could only get them to > open up and help figure out the how of it.
Started happening earlier this week to me; I find it happens only ... --at 'night' in California --to the "DNA Relatives" screen. --for up to an hour at a time. It's happened several different nights. If it fixes bugs or adds features, one can only applaud ???? Best, Eric > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: August 31, 2017 23.41 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [DNA] Update? > > 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.
Dear Tim Thank you for your reply, it is much appreciated. Regards Kerrie Dear Kerrie, Ancestry.com only displays the matches who share DNA with people like Brian if they share more than 20 cMs. Your other relatives may not be sharing more than 20 cMs with Brian. A 4th cousin 3 times removed relationship is distant enough that the descendents on that ancestral line may not all share DNA with each other. I suggest you have Brian and your other relatives upload to GEDmatch where you can run the comparisons that you need to run. Sincerely, Tim Janzen Subject: [DNA] Question on shared matches I found a 4th cousin 3 times removed (Brian) through a DNA match with Ancestry. This is through my paternal grandfather's maternal grandmother and her brother who is Brian's ancestor (hope that makes sense). When I looked at the shared ancestry of Brian we only share two matches who are closely related to him. Why did other matches I have on my paternal grandfather's side not show up as matches with Brian? Does this mean that I have my great great grandmother's DNA which I share with Brian but my other cousins on my grandfather's side do not have this DNA?
For the most part I agree with Jim and Tim. Re 1750-1800, though, I would say that the success rate will depend a lot on whether one's recent ancestors came from different populations. In other words, I feel more optimistic about the chances of my identifying segments from some of my ancestors than others from that period. A sixth cousin of mine was able to figure out her hitherto unknown Norwegian connection to me (her grandfather proved to be Norwegian), but we don't know the exact route the segment took to my family as it could have come down several ways due to endogamy in Telemark. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com 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 >
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, <[email protected]> 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 >
The site seems to be up and running now. Jamie > > On 31 August 2017 at 23:42 Eric S Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Started happening earlier this week to me; I find it happens only ... > --at 'night' in California > --to the "DNA Relatives" screen. > --for up to an hour at a time. > It's happened several different nights. > > If it fixes bugs or adds features, one can only applaud ???? > > Best, > Eric > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of [email protected] > > Sent: August 31, 2017 23.41 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [DNA] Update? > > > > 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 >
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
This new Wirecutter comparison of the atDNA-testing companies … http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-dna-ancestry-testing-kit/ … says AncestryDNA’s database’s now (claimed to be) 5M, whereas 23andMe’ s only 2M, and FTDNA’s 1.5M. Does this comport with what y’all think? 5M seems like “a lot,” but I do find a lot more new “DNA cousins” popping in to my kits’ matchlists on AncestryDNA than on 23andMe, so, maybe so … … although it “feels to me” (again based on new matches popping in) like FTDNA’s much smaller than 23andMe … Best, Eric OpenPGP <https://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/DownloadKey.event?keyid=0xE0F58E0F1AF7E6F2> : 0x1AF7E6F2 ● Skype: oneota ● XMPP/OTR: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ● Silent Circle: +1 312 614-0159
Here are 12 people who are mostly related to each other according to gedmatch. All of the top 8 are related to ALL of each other top 8 according to gedmatch, except that A164545 is not related to A925969 A149200 [email protected] A047046 [email protected] A986619 [email protected] A874906 [email protected] A817814 [email protected] A164545 [email protected] A925969 [email protected] A572235 [email protected] A880323 [email protected] A205556 [email protected] M433997 [email protected] T276338 [email protected] T789849 [email protected] All of these people are more than 5.0 generations away from each other except the last one is my paternal cousin, Jack Sloan Anybody related to him must be from my father's side of the family. I cannot figure out how any of these 12 people are related to each other but gedmatch shows that we are all related. If I could even find just one ancestor in common that would be most helpful in solving this mystery. I created this by using Multiple Kit Analysis <https://www.gedmatch.com/MultiKitAnalysis.php> NEW on the gedmatch.com home page Just plug in all these gedmatch numbers into the matrix and you will see a matrix showing that all these people on this list are related to the top 4 and the top eight are all related to all of the others in the top eight. So we are all related to a common ancestor about 5-6 generations back. So now we have to find out who that common ancestor was.
>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 >
Yes. with no quibbles except "enough markers", the same ones in everybody. Doug McDonald ________________________________________ From: GENEALOGY-DNA [[email protected]] on behalf of Wjhonson [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [DNA] Every person project If every living person were Autosomal-DNA-tested, would it be possible to confirm genealogical lines into the medieval period? That's the question. ------------------------------- 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
Are you saying that endogamy creates a situation where it will never be possible to seperate the lines? So if in 1720 John Brown married his cousin Jane Smith, could we not test descendants of John Brown's brother and Jane Smith's brother to seperate the lines? -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Aug 31, 2017 11:13 am 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 > On Aug 31, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Thomas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not sure that I would agree as autosomal has a tough enough time reaching > back 10 or 12 generations . . . at least that is the case with today's > technology. Possibly with full genome processing AND advances in technology > and technique it will be possible in the future. For now, we need to rely > on yDNA and mtDNA to go the distance. AFAIK > > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > McDonald, J Douglas > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > > Yes. with no quibbles except "enough markers", the same ones in everybody. > > Doug McDonald > ________________________________________ > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [[email protected]] on behalf of > Wjhonson [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [DNA] Every person project > > If every living person were Autosomal-DNA-tested, would it be possible to > confirm genealogical lines into the medieval period? > > That's the question. > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
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 > On Aug 31, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Thomas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not sure that I would agree as autosomal has a tough enough time reaching > back 10 or 12 generations . . . at least that is the case with today's > technology. Possibly with full genome processing AND advances in technology > and technique it will be possible in the future. For now, we need to rely > on yDNA and mtDNA to go the distance. AFAIK > > -----Original Message----- > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > McDonald, J Douglas > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project > > Yes. with no quibbles except "enough markers", the same ones in everybody. > > Doug McDonald > ________________________________________ > From: GENEALOGY-DNA [[email protected]] on behalf of > Wjhonson [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [DNA] Every person project > > If every living person were Autosomal-DNA-tested, would it be possible to > confirm genealogical lines into the medieval period? > > That's the question. > >
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: >
Not sure that I would agree as autosomal has a tough enough time reaching back 10 or 12 generations . . . at least that is the case with today's technology. Possibly with full genome processing AND advances in technology and technique it will be possible in the future. For now, we need to rely on yDNA and mtDNA to go the distance. AFAIK -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of McDonald, J Douglas Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Every person project Yes. with no quibbles except "enough markers", the same ones in everybody. Doug McDonald ________________________________________ From: GENEALOGY-DNA [[email protected]] on behalf of Wjhonson [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [DNA] Every person project If every living person were Autosomal-DNA-tested, would it be possible to confirm genealogical lines into the medieval period? That's the question. ------------------------------- 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
List 12 further sequences from a Chinese hospital have appeared on the GenBank database. 5 of the sequences KY941903, KY941904, KY941905, KY941906 & KY941907 show abnormal mutations typical of cancer samples - although the author doesn't mention this. The sequences belong to Haplogroups: D4, D4a1e, D4b2b2, D4g2a1, D5a2a1b, F1a1a, F2a, G2a1a, J1b2, M7c1, N9a1, N9a1a As usual I have added the sequences to my 'Checker' program to ensure accuracy of transcription. Ian www.ianlogan co.uk -------------------------------- KY941897(China) You Haplogroup F2a 29-AUG-2017 A73G A249- A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G T1005C A1438G T1824C A2706G C3970T T4452C A4769G T6392C C7028T A7828G A8860G T9128C T9722C G10310A T10535C G10586A G11719A T12338C G13708A G13928C C14766T A15326G A16203G A16254- C16291T T16304C T16311C A16335G T16519C KY941898(China) You Haplogroup D4a1e 29-AUG-2017 A73G T152C A263G 309.1C 315.1C T489C A750G A1438G G1888A A2706G G3010A C3206T G4580A A4769G C4883T C5178A A6575G C7028T A7364G C8414T T8473C A8701G A8860G T9540C A10398G C10400T T10410C T10873C G11719A C12705T C13371T C14668T C14766T T14783C T14979C G15043A G15301A A15326G G16129A C16223T A16254- C16256T T16362C T16519C KY941899(China) You Haplogroup D4 29-AUG-2017 A73G A263G 315.1C T489C A750G A1438G A2706G G3010A A3523G A4769G C4883T C5178A C7028T C8414T A8701G A8860G T9540C A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A C12705T T13474C A14203G C14668T C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G A16158G A16183- T16189C 16193.1C C16223T C16291T T16362C T16519C KY941900(China) You Haplogroup J1b2 29-AUG-2017 A73G C295T 315.1C C462T T489C A750G A1438G C1733T A2706G G3010A T4216C A4769G G4991A G5773A C7028T G8269A A8860G A10398G A11251G G11719A A12612G G13708A C14766T A15326G C15452A C15978T C16069T T16126C G16145A C16222T C16261T KY941901(China) You Haplogroup D4b2b2 29-AUG-2017 A73G C194T A263G 309.1C 315.1C T489C C522- A523- A750G A1382C A1438G A2581G A2706G G3010A A4769G C4883T C5178A C7028T G8020A C8414T A8701G A8860G C8964T C9296T T9540C T9824A T9861C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11499T G11719A A12358G C12705T C14668T C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G C16223T T16362C T16519C KY941902(China) You Haplogroup N9a1 29-AUG-2017 A73G C150T A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C C411G A750G A1438G A2706G T4386C A4769G G5231A G5417A C7028T A8860G G11719A G12007A A12358G G12372A C12705T T14212C C14766T A15326G C16111T G16129A C16223T C16257A C16261T KY941903(China) You Haplogroup D4g2a1 29-AUG-2017 A73G C298T 309.1C 315.1C T489C A750G A1438G A2706G G3010A C4394T A4769G C4883T C5178A G5231A T5655C C7028T C8414T A8701G A8860G T9540C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11059T G11719A G12372A C12705T T13022G C13054G A13104G C14668T C14766T T14783C G15043A A15085G G15301A A15326G T16093C C16169T C16223T G16274A T16362C KY941904(China) You Haplogroup M7c1 29-AUG-2017 A73G T146C T199C A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C T489C C522- A523- A750G A1438G A2706G C4071T A4769G C4850T T5442C C6455T C7028T A8701G A8860G C9449T T9540C T9824C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11665T G11719A T12091C C12705T A12810G A12960G T13106G C14281G T14307G C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G C16223T G16274A T16519C KY941905(China) You Haplogroup N9a1a 29-AUG-2017 A73G C150T A263G 309.1C 315.1C C522- A523- A750G A1438G A2706G T4386C A4769G G5231A G5417A C7028T A8860G G11719A G12007A A12358G G12372A C12705T A14381T C14766T C14962T A15095G A15326G C16111T G16129A C16223T C16257A C16261T T16311C KY941906(China) You Haplogroup D5a2a1b 29-AUG-2017 A73G C150T A263G 309.1C 315.1C T489C C522- A523- A750G C752T T1107C A2706G C3528T T4082C A4769G C4883T C5178A A5301G C7028T A8701G A8860G A9180G A9355G T9540C A10397G A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A T11944C A12026G C12705T G14040A C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G T16092C A16164G T16172C T16189C C16223T A16240G C16266T T16362C KY941907(China) You Haplogroup G2a1 29-AUG-2017 A73G A263G 309.1C 315.1C T489C G709A A750G A1438G A2706G A4225C C4229A A4769G A4833G T5108C C5601T C7028T G7600A A8701G A8860G A9377G T9540C G9575A A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A C12705T A13563G G13928C T14200C G14569A C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G C16223T G16274A C16278T T16362C KY941908(China) You Haplogroup F1a1a 29-AUG-2017 A73G T146C C150T A249- A263G 309.1C 315.1C C522- A523- A750G A1438G A2706G C3970T C4086T A4769G T6392C G6962A C7028T A8149G A8860G G9053A G9548A G10310A T10609C G11719A G12406A C12882T G13759A G13928C C14766T A15326G C16108T A16162G T16172C T16304C T16519C
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 >
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.
I wonder if Ancestry is counting the y-DNA testing they did before they abandoned doing them (twice) and the Sorenson Data that they acquired from Sorenson and then abandoned making both databases inaccessible to anyone? Maybe not, but I still have not forgiven them for that. I presume that as long as they keep making money selling the AncestryDNA tests they probably won't abandon that product. The differences may be due partially to the costs. Family Tree DNA tests overall have always been higher in cost than tests at Ancestry and 23AndMe I think. They have become more competitive in recent times. I am not in 23AndMe but I have not found Ancestry to be any more helpful in identifying "cousins" than Family Tree. And I have experienced exactly the same general lack of interest in the two systems on the part of people who have tested to replying to contacts from people who appear to match them. To me that is probably the most frustrating part of the Family Finder and AncestryDNA testing. You know there is a match if you could only get them to open up and help figure out the how of it. On 8/31/2017 1:30 AM, Eric S Johnson wrote: > This new Wirecutter comparison of the atDNA-testing companies … > > > http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-dna-ancestry-testing-kit/ > > … says AncestryDNA’s database’s now (claimed to be) 5M, whereas 23andMe’ > s only 2M, and FTDNA’s 1.5M. > > Does this comport with what y’all think? > > > > 5M seems like “a lot,” but I do find a lot more new “DNA cousins” > popping in to my kits’ matchlists on AncestryDNA than on 23andMe, so, maybe > so … > > … although it “feels to me” (again based on new matches > popping in) like FTDNA’s much smaller than 23andMe … > > > > Best, > > Eric > > OpenPGP > <https://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/DownloadKey.event?keyid=0xE0F58E0F1AF7E6F2> : > 0x1AF7E6F2 ● Skype: oneota ● XMPP/OTR: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> ● Silent Circle: +1 312 614-0159 > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > -- Orin Wells 253-630-5296