Check out this spreadsheet where people have been posting coupons they're not using. It's also handy because coupons can be marked as used. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CgXRKz2TySvRqSInveSIYoslO7yexAc9d-BzpNhaY1c/edit?usp=sharing Ann Turner On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Lindsey Britton via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I have a cousin who is interested. > > Lindsey > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

In considering to write a small web app for it but not sure if people are willing to upload their raw DNA to it. But local apps are so out nowadays Andreas > On 16 Dec 2015, at 09:59, David Schroeder via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I am happy to share the code. A word of caution: If you don't have > experience with MySQL, it would be a steep learning curve. > > I just noticed that Gedmatch ran all of my matches with the fixed files. > That was fast, it took only one day! > > I'll spend some time comparing the lists to see if fixing the no-calls made > any appreciable difference. > > David > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:43:36 -0500 > From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> > Subject: Re: [DNA] My Raw Data Files - Comparison 23andme vs > AncestryDNA > To: dschroed991@sbcglobal.net, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <151a6869334-642a-14728@webprd-m91.mail.aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Any chance to get the code that you used to do this? > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

That's kind of surprising, Jim. Do you mean that if you and I match on FTDNA and we both have John Smiths in our matches (albeit different people with that common name) then: - one of them - both of them Would show up as ICW? I can't imagine they go just by name. Here's what I think they do: 1) all matching segments between two people are in a table 2) if you (A) and I (B) have a third person (or more) irregardless of the exact position (as the table only store the status of who matches with whom, not where as where could be more than one record/segment) then it would show this third person as ICW to both of us So it's based on atDNA but it's missing the detailed information needed to do triangulation Andreas > On 15 Dec 2015, at 23:00, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Jim > > The ICW algorithm does not include arDNA. It does not include genealogy. It only matches names between your Match list and someone else's Match list. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Dec 15, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Jim Leahy via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> How does FTDNA determine the ICW status? >> >> In order for FTDNA to calculate the ICW status of an individual there must be an algorithm to evaluate the at-DNA results for that individual against some criteria based on the at-DNA results from the base pair. Has anybody been successful in back-engineering or divining the logic used for this comparison? >> >> A related question; what does the ICW "X status" actually tell us? >> >> I have seen a statement implying that it means that these individuals are "blood relatives". That would be great but seems a little too far reaching. >> >> Puzzled! >> >> Jim >> >> ssage > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Mary, Very high probability but not 100% It all comes down to how scientic/academic you do this hobby. I'm not worried about people like you who know what they are doing but I'm worried about people claiming their wrongly clicked together family tree is proven by DNA when they only used Ancestry. We can already see the human error in WikiTree were lately people assigned DNA tests to their ancestor who die 150 years ago (instead to themselves). Can be obviously easily fixed via software check. But what happens on Ancestry's "click it and lick it " is almost impossible to fix or correct! Andreas > On 16 Dec 2015, at 09:24, Mary E Hall via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > If you're lucky enough to have a parent (or both) tested with AncestryDNA > there is a Mother and/or Father icon after "Hints", "New", "Starred". > > Personally I've had very good results keeping track of shared match groups, > and building out those "DNA Trees" and running into common ancestral > couples. Sure, it would be interesting to also see the segment data. But > if 5 of us have the same ancestral couple in our trees and seem to share > 4th cousin or better quantity of cMs in common, I'm fairly satisfied we're > on the right track of confirming a line with DNA. > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Margo Lurvey via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> What icons does Ancestry have that show you which side of the family a >> match is on? I have not seen that one!! >> Margo >> >> ---------- Original Message ---------- >> From: Taryn Flock via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [DNA] Basic ICW Questions: >> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:21:38 +0000 >> >> Dear Mike, >> >> The catch with ancestry's shared matches list is that they only list of >> your shared matches above the "4th cousin" level. >> >> As example, I have a DNA cousin we'll call Mary. Mary and I share 17.2 cm >> across 1 segment. Mary and my father also share 17.2 cm across 1 segment. >> As 17.2 is apparently "distant cousin", the shared matches lists turn up >> empty. >> >> ( Because the second person is my father ancestry does have little icons >> that point out that Mary is in fact a paternal match, but the shared match >> would be at least as interesting if the second person were a more distant >> relative than my father, and without access to their match list and some >> effort, I'd have no idea that Mary was a shared match. ) >> >> Taryn >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The only thing you can do (and that's exactly what Ancestry wants you to do) is compare family trees of your SM with yours. They don't care if you will be successful (as for IBS segments you can compare until you take your last breath) but want you to spend as much time on their website as possible (to create the impression how useful it is). I rather concentrate on finding MRCA's and CA's for those triangulate. Like Jim said, not possible to distinguish at AncestryDNA hence you need to download your data (and upload to GEDmatch) and ask all your SM to do the same. You see how stupid their approach is? I find it the most useless 99 dollars I've ever spend. Andreas PS: don't tell me to transfer to FTDNA as I still can't do triangulation there without my matches help and those SM are most likely not transferring either to FTDNA! > On 16 Dec 2015, at 00:31, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Mike > > AncestryDNA doesn't say explicitly (that I've seen), how the Shared Matches are determined, but it appears to be exactly the same as FTDNA ICW. I've analyzed a bunch of them, and "Shared Matches" is NOT Triangulation. Like ICW, some SMs will be on the same segment, but without the DNA data, AncestryDNA's SMs are much less helpful than FTDNA's ICW. There's just not much we can do with SM info. Maybe try to group them, but still nothing helpful as far as atDNA is concerned. A few people may find some genealogy groups, but those may or may not involve DNA. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Dec 15, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Michael Fisher <m.j.fisher@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> Jim >> >> How does this compare to AncestryDNA "shared matches" that DNAgedcom downloads as ICW ? >> (all my AncestryDNA kit have been imported into FTDNA and GEDMatch) >> >> Mike in a very damp Droitwich, England >> >>> On 15/12/2015 16:00, Jim Bartlett via wrote: >>> Jim >>> >>> The ICW algorithm does not include arDNA. It does not include genealogy. It only matches names between your Match list and someone else's Match list. >>> >>> Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Those of you who have been on the Genealogy-DNA list for awhile will remember a couple of years ago when I commissioned a TMRCA Challenge on three surnames that yDNA testing indicated had a common ancestor. The three surnames were Group 20 in the Walker Project and Christensen and Van Horne in the Van Horne Project. Earlier this year, a member of the Walker Group 20 did advanced yDNA testing in which the SNP Y10633 T+ was identified as the terminal SNP. Subsequently a Christensen and a Van Horne have been tested, they are both positive for the SNP. The Walker family lived in Britain probably for several hundred years before immigrating to North America. The Christensen immigrant ancestor arrived in the US in 1905 from Denmark. The Van Horne immigrant ancestor arrived in North America in 1663 from Denmark. I have not corresponded with Ken Nordtvedt, it is my understanding he places the original male ancestor of these three families as living in Norway about 2200 years ago. This also confirms and extends the estimates from the TMRCA Challenge. It was noted in the Challenge report that a node of three individuals in the Van Horne family had a higher than expected rate of mutation. It was suggested these men were not members of the Van Horne family, and that the conventional research was incorrect. The member of the Van Horne family who did the SNP test was from this node. In fact, he was the family member with the most mutations. Those of you who have high mutation nodes in your families should not discount these men, without doing additional testing to confirm or disprove the relationship. Now, can anyone tell me how we get this yDNA terminal SNP documented in the yDNA Phylogenetic Tree. Marleen Van Horne

Andreas OK, let me amend my statement to say FTDNA Kit number, rather than name. The point is the ICW list does not involve genetics (atDNA), it only matching Kits (individuals) that are in the match lists of both parties - a relatively simple calculation. We should not talk about segments when we examine how ICW is done - they are not part of the ICW process. Segments only come into play when we use the ICW lists to find highly probable TGs (using known overlapping segments). This works over 95% of the time (my estimate based on experience with a lot of TGs). Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 15, 2015, at 11:23 PM, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > That's kind of surprising, Jim. > > Do you mean that if you and I match on FTDNA and we both have John Smiths in our matches (albeit different people with that common name) then: > > - one of them > - both of them > > Would show up as ICW? > > I can't imagine they go just by name. Here's what I think they do: > > 1) all matching segments between two people are in a table > 2) if you (A) and I (B) have a third person (or more) irregardless of the exact position (as the table only store the status of who matches with whom, not where as where could be more than one record/segment) then it would show this third person as ICW to both of us > > So it's based on atDNA but it's missing the detailed information needed to do triangulation > > Andreas > >> On 15 Dec 2015, at 23:00, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> Jim >> >> The ICW algorithm does not include arDNA. It does not include genealogy. It only matches names between your Match list and someone else's Match list. >> >> Jim - www.segmentology.org >> >>> On Dec 15, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Jim Leahy via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> >>> How does FTDNA determine the ICW status? >>> >>>

I am happy to share the code. A word of caution: If you don't have experience with MySQL, it would be a steep learning curve. I just noticed that Gedmatch ran all of my matches with the fixed files. That was fast, it took only one day! I'll spend some time comparing the lists to see if fixing the no-calls made any appreciable difference. David Message: 7 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:43:36 -0500 From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Subject: Re: [DNA] My Raw Data Files - Comparison 23andme vs AncestryDNA To: dschroed991@sbcglobal.net, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <151a6869334-642a-14728@webprd-m91.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Any chance to get the code that you used to do this?

I have found the Ancestry shared matches useful in so far as I have created a matrix of who shares with who and that can be instructive but without the ability to see the actual shared segments it is not really useful Jon Masterson Wales UK, Florida US jon@scruffyduck.co.uk Gedmatch: A488362, M938817 Surnames: Cannon, Coulter, Clinton, Dryman, Lance, Mabey, Pryor, Wrixon Locations: England, Illinois, Kentucky, Texas, Utah, Virginia On 15/12/2015 17:31, Jim Bartlett via wrote: > Mike > > AncestryDNA doesn't say explicitly (that I've seen), how the Shared Matches are determined, but it appears to be exactly the same as FTDNA ICW. I've analyzed a bunch of them, and "Shared Matches" is NOT Triangulation. Like ICW, some SMs will be on the same segment, but without the DNA data, AncestryDNA's SMs are much less helpful than FTDNA's ICW. There's just not much we can do with SM info. Maybe try to group them, but still nothing helpful as far as atDNA is concerned. A few people may find some genealogy groups, but those may or may not involve DNA. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Dec 15, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Michael Fisher <m.j.fisher@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> Jim >> >> How does this compare to AncestryDNA "shared matches" that DNAgedcom downloads as ICW ? >> (all my AncestryDNA kit have been imported into FTDNA and GEDMatch) >> >> Mike in a very damp Droitwich, England >> >>> On 15/12/2015 16:00, Jim Bartlett via wrote: >>> Jim >>> >>> The ICW algorithm does not include arDNA. It does not include genealogy. It only matches names between your Match list and someone else's Match list. >>> >>> Jim - www.segmentology.org > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

What icons does Ancestry have that show you which side of the family a match is on? I have not seen that one!! Margo ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Taryn Flock via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Basic ICW Questions: Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:21:38 +0000 Dear Mike, The catch with ancestry's shared matches list is that they only list of your shared matches above the "4th cousin" level. As example, I have a DNA cousin we'll call Mary. Mary and I share 17.2 cm across 1 segment. Mary and my father also share 17.2 cm across 1 segment. As 17.2 is apparently "distant cousin", the shared matches lists turn up empty. ( Because the second person is my father ancestry does have little icons that point out that Mary is in fact a paternal match, but the shared match would be at least as interesting if the second person were a more distant relative than my father, and without access to their match list and some effort, I'd have no idea that Mary was a shared match. ) Taryn On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Jim Bartlett via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Mike > > AncestryDNA doesn't say explicitly (that I've seen), how the Shared > Matches are determined, but it appears to be exactly the same as FTDNA ICW. > I've analyzed a bunch of them, and "Shared Matches" is NOT Triangulation. > Like ICW, some SMs will be on the same segment, but without the DNA data, > AncestryDNA's SMs are much less helpful than FTDNA's ICW. There's just not > much we can do with SM info. Maybe try to group them, but still nothing > helpful as far as atDNA is concerned. A few people may find some genealogy > groups, but those may or may not involve DNA. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > On Dec 15, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Michael Fisher <m.j.fisher@btinternet.com> > wrote: > > > > Jim > > > > How does this compare to AncestryDNA "shared matches" that DNAgedcom > downloads as ICW ? > > (all my AncestryDNA kit have been imported into FTDNA and GEDMatch) > > > > Mike in a very damp Droitwich, England > > > >> On 15/12/2015 16:00, Jim Bartlett via wrote: > >> Jim > >> > >> The ICW algorithm does not include arDNA. It does not include > genealogy. It only matches names between your Match list and someone else's > Match list. > >> > >> Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ____________________________________________________________ 4 Common Foods 'Destroying' Your Digestive Health ... Hattaka K et al, "Effect of long term consumption of probiotic milk on ... http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/56705d39748185d390191st04duc

If you're lucky enough to have a parent (or both) tested with AncestryDNA there is a Mother and/or Father icon after "Hints", "New", "Starred". Personally I've had very good results keeping track of shared match groups, and building out those "DNA Trees" and running into common ancestral couples. Sure, it would be interesting to also see the segment data. But if 5 of us have the same ancestral couple in our trees and seem to share 4th cousin or better quantity of cMs in common, I'm fairly satisfied we're on the right track of confirming a line with DNA. On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Margo Lurvey via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > What icons does Ancestry have that show you which side of the family a > match is on? I have not seen that one!! > Margo > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: Taryn Flock via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] Basic ICW Questions: > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:21:38 +0000 > > Dear Mike, > > The catch with ancestry's shared matches list is that they only list of > your shared matches above the "4th cousin" level. > > As example, I have a DNA cousin we'll call Mary. Mary and I share 17.2 cm > across 1 segment. Mary and my father also share 17.2 cm across 1 segment. > As 17.2 is apparently "distant cousin", the shared matches lists turn up > empty. > > ( Because the second person is my father ancestry does have little icons > that point out that Mary is in fact a paternal match, but the shared match > would be at least as interesting if the second person were a more distant > relative than my father, and without access to their match list and some > effort, I'd have no idea that Mary was a shared match. ) > > Taryn >

Dear Mike, The catch with ancestry's shared matches list is that they only list of your shared matches above the "4th cousin" level. As example, I have a DNA cousin we'll call Mary. Mary and I share 17.2 cm across 1 segment. Mary and my father also share 17.2 cm across 1 segment. As 17.2 is apparently "distant cousin", the shared matches lists turn up empty. ( Because the second person is my father ancestry does have little icons that point out that Mary is in fact a paternal match, but the shared match would be at least as interesting if the second person were a more distant relative than my father, and without access to their match list and some effort, I'd have no idea that Mary was a shared match. ) Taryn On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Jim Bartlett via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Mike > > AncestryDNA doesn't say explicitly (that I've seen), how the Shared > Matches are determined, but it appears to be exactly the same as FTDNA ICW. > I've analyzed a bunch of them, and "Shared Matches" is NOT Triangulation. > Like ICW, some SMs will be on the same segment, but without the DNA data, > AncestryDNA's SMs are much less helpful than FTDNA's ICW. There's just not > much we can do with SM info. Maybe try to group them, but still nothing > helpful as far as atDNA is concerned. A few people may find some genealogy > groups, but those may or may not involve DNA. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > On Dec 15, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Michael Fisher <m.j.fisher@btinternet.com> > wrote: > > > > Jim > > > > How does this compare to AncestryDNA "shared matches" that DNAgedcom > downloads as ICW ? > > (all my AncestryDNA kit have been imported into FTDNA and GEDMatch) > > > > Mike in a very damp Droitwich, England > > > >> On 15/12/2015 16:00, Jim Bartlett via wrote: > >> Jim > >> > >> The ICW algorithm does not include arDNA. It does not include > genealogy. It only matches names between your Match list and someone else's > Match list. > >> > >> Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Jim How does this compare to AncestryDNA "shared matches" that DNAgedcom downloads as ICW ? (all my AncestryDNA kit have been imported into FTDNA and GEDMatch) Mike in a very damp Droitwich, England On 15/12/2015 16:00, Jim Bartlett via wrote: > Jim > > The ICW algorithm does not include arDNA. It does not include genealogy. It only matches names between your Match list and someone else's Match list. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >

I think of them as shared matches also. If I have A and B on my list of matches and A also has B then I share B with A (ICW) Blood related it actually helpful in the sense that I am blood related to my mother and my aunt but not to my aunt's husband (assuming he is not related to me in some other way such as my mother married his brother). I am not going to actually share the same segment of DNA that my aunt's husband passed on to my cousin. Jon Masterson Wales UK, Florida US jon@scruffyduck.co.uk Gedmatch: A488362, M938817 Surnames: Cannon, Coulter, Clinton, Dryman, Lance, Mabey, Pryor, Wrixon Locations: England, Illinois, Kentucky, Texas, Utah, Virginia On 15/12/2015 14:53, Taryn Flock via wrote: > Dear Jim, > > My understanding is that FTDNA's ICW feature just computes the > "intersection of the set of matches". When they compute what matches I > have ICW a cousin, say Sarah, they look at my list of matches and Sarah's > list of matches and then list anyone that appears on both as an "ICW match" > (no base pairs involved). > > I think that X-matches are anyone you share x-dna with as well as at-DNA > dna. So if I share a small segment (>1cm) on the x with one of my at-DNA > matches they will be listed as an X-match. ( I've found "x-matches" where > the cm count is 1.7 so usually I just ignore this feature on FTDNA. ) > > Taryn > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jim Leahy via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> How does FTDNA determine the ICW status? >> >> In order for FTDNA to calculate the ICW status of an individual there must >> be an algorithm to evaluate the at-DNA results for that individual against >> some criteria based on the at-DNA results from the base pair. Has anybody >> been successful in back-engineering or divining the logic used for this >> comparison? >> >> A related question; what does the ICW "X status" actually tell us? >> >> I have seen a statement implying that it means that these individuals are >> "blood relatives". That would be great but seems a little too far reaching. >> >> Puzzled! >> >> Jim >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

That's very interesting and I thought about such myself (especially with now having tested at all 3 companies over almost 3 years). How did you "clean up" your no-calls, did you manually go through it? Or is that part of your program you wrote? Great post, David! Andreas > On 15 Dec 2015, at 11:47, David Schroeder via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I was able to 'fix' the no-calls for matching RSIDs on both Ancestry and > 23andme when one, or the other, was not a no-call. I fixed 6,632 on 23andme > and 6,708 on Ancestry. > > Interestingly enough, there were 3,833 that were left as no-calls on both > 23andme and AncestryDNA for the same RSIDs. I am wondering if these are the > result of particularly difficult locations to test, or perhaps the SNP is > rare in my genome? The tests were over two years apart. > > I uploaded both fixed raw data files to gedmatch to see how it may affect my > 'one-to-many' matches. (Will have to wait on the processing). I ran the > Gedmatch File Diagnostic Utility, and the fixed files had significantly > reduced my error rates. It seems that most of my errors are in the X, Y or > MT Chromosomes. > > David > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:31:45 -0800 > From: Ann Turner <dnacousins@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [DNA] My Raw Data Files - Comparison 23andme vs > AncestryDNA > To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: > <CAA-Ub_COJUEcMV4v3aXj4hbEaj6cbFf01AT9yDSBMJwDoyTnsA@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I've always mentally thought about the "i" SNPs as "internal" catalog > numbers, but I'm not positive if I made that up or actually noticed someone > from 23andMe used that word :) > > As you probably noticed, AncestryDNA doesn't always present alleles in > alphabetical order. You will find instances of TC and CT, for example. > Illumina's base-calling software has something called a "top strand" and a > "bottom strand" (not the same thing as forward/reverse or plus/minus). > 23andMe does some post-processing to put alleles in alphabetical order. > Anyway, did you also look for TA? > > SNPs where the alternative alleles are also complementary base pairs in the > double helix ( A <-> T and C <-> G) are tricky to handle. 23andMe may have > developed custom probes to identify some of those. > > I've also noticed that AncestryDNA and FTDNA do not report any indels (the > I and D alleles you asked about). > > Tim, this may not be worth the effort to analyze, but I'm curious to know > if the "i" variants with rs numbers at FTDNA may be cases where 23andMe put > some additional probes on the chip for a particular locus. If you have a > list handy, I could explore that a bit. > > Ann Turner > > > > > > Ann Turner > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Tim Janzen via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> wrote: > >> Dear David, >> DD means a deletion and II means an insertion. The "i" SNPs in > the >> 23andMe files are those that don't have rs numbers assigned to them by >> 23andMe. It is possible that "i" stands for Illumina, but I am not > certain >> about that. It is also possible that it stands for "inserted", possibly >> because 23andMe inserted these SNPs onto the SNP chip because they were of >> special interest to 23andMe. Someone at 23andMe would know the answer to >> this question. >> It is interesting that AncestryDNA files don't have SNPs with the >> allele values AT. I don't have a definite answer for that. I checked my >> mom's file for the SNPs that have the allele values AT in 23andMe and > found >> a total of 322 of these SNPs. I then checked for these SNPs in my mom's >> AncestryDNA file and I couldn't find any of those SNPs in my mom's >> AncestryDNA file. My suspicion is that Ancestry.com has dropped all SNPs >> from their dataset with the values AT because they think that the results >> may be erroneous. >> Sincerely, >> Tim Janzen >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Schroeder >> via >> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 9:33 PM >> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [DNA] My Raw Data Files - Comparison 23andme vs AncestryDNA >> >> I have tested at both 23andme (V3) and AncestryDNA. I have written a >> program >> to add the raw data file information into a MySQL database, creating >> separate tables for my 23andme results and my AncestryDNA. >> >> I am trying to understand some things. >> >> I can understand all the A, C, G, T lettering. The single letters > represent >> SNPs on my Y and X chromosomes. I also understand that '--' is a no call. >> What are 'DD' and 'II'? >> >> >> I also found that AncestryDNA had no 'AT' SNPs for me, but 23andme had > 611: >> >> Can anyone explain why I have no 'AT' SNP pairs in my AncestryDNA raw data >> file? I verified this by browsing my Ancestry Raw data file. I had every >> other SNP pair represented. >> >> The final question is about RSIDs. What are the ones that begin with 'i' > in >> my 23andme raw data file? I have 10,709 RSIDs that begin with 'i-----'. >> >> David >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear Jim, My understanding is that FTDNA's ICW feature just computes the "intersection of the set of matches". When they compute what matches I have ICW a cousin, say Sarah, they look at my list of matches and Sarah's list of matches and then list anyone that appears on both as an "ICW match" (no base pairs involved). I think that X-matches are anyone you share x-dna with as well as at-DNA dna. So if I share a small segment (>1cm) on the x with one of my at-DNA matches they will be listed as an X-match. ( I've found "x-matches" where the cm count is 1.7 so usually I just ignore this feature on FTDNA. ) Taryn On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jim Leahy via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > How does FTDNA determine the ICW status? > > In order for FTDNA to calculate the ICW status of an individual there must > be an algorithm to evaluate the at-DNA results for that individual against > some criteria based on the at-DNA results from the base pair. Has anybody > been successful in back-engineering or divining the logic used for this > comparison? > > A related question; what does the ICW "X status" actually tell us? > > I have seen a statement implying that it means that these individuals are > "blood relatives". That would be great but seems a little too far reaching. > > Puzzled! > > Jim > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Taryn I think you mean that AncestryDNA only names 4th cousins and below as Shared Matches. Theoretically this applies to all of your Matches, but I've noticed many Matches don't have an SM link. And some Matches (even close ones) will not have any SMs. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 15, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Taryn Flock via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > The catch with ancestry's shared matches list is that they only list of > your shared matches above the "4th cousin" level. > > As example, I have a DNA cousin we'll call Mary. Mary and I share 17.2 cm > across 1 segment. Mary and my father also share 17.2 cm across 1 segment. > As 17.2 is apparently "distant cousin", the shared matches lists turn up > empty. > > ( Because the second person is my father ancestry does have little icons > that point out that Mary is in fact a paternal match, but the shared match > would be at least as interesting if the second person were a more distant > relative than my father, and without access to their match list and some > effort, I'd have no idea that Mary was a shared match. ) > > Taryn > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Jim Bartlett via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> Mike >> >> AncestryDNA doesn't say explicitly (that I've seen), how the Shared >> Matches are determined, but it appears to be exactly the same as FTDNA ICW. >> I've analyzed a bunch of them, and "Shared Matches" is NOT Triangulation. >> Like ICW, some SMs will be on the same segment, but without the DNA data, >> AncestryDNA's SMs are much less helpful than FTDNA's ICW. There's just not >> much we can do with SM info. Maybe try to group them, but still nothing >> helpful as far as atDNA is concerned. A few people may find some genealogy >> groups, but those may or may not involve DNA. >> >> Jim - www.segmentology.org

Are you saying that we actually know that Ancestry, 23andMe, FTDNA are going *back* into matches and deleting pile-up segments when they find them? So that our match lists can change retroactively? -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Cc: David Hamill <dnhamill@aol.com> Sent: Sun, Dec 13, 2015 11:31 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Pile ups I discuss several kinds of pile-ups in a blogpost called Pileups. Some are good ones with segments over 9cM, and the pileup comes from many cousins from large families and/or distant Common Ancestors. They tend to cover TGs over 12cM. Some are smaller than 5cM and have been noted to occur in specific areas for many of us - there is an ISOGG/wiki that notes a dozen or so known areas. Some of us have noted some very "tight" areas, maybe 9cM wide with 100 or more 7-8cM segments that don't triangulate. These appear to be unique to individuals and occur at different areas for each person. These segments don't triangulate and are IBS. I don't think AncestryDNA has revealed which of these categories they find and delete pileup segments. My concern is that some pileups appear to be IBD and real TGs from a CA. The pileup term is being used in different situations. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 13, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Andreas West via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote:> > Hi David,> > > Thank you for sharing your experience.> > I have to correct one assumption in your post though. Not all people share the same pile ups.> > The person I talked about in my post is of Asian origin and she has pileups at different loci whereas she is missing the typical chromosome 2 Western Atlantic Autosomal Haplotype (WAAH) that most of us have.> > Andreas> >> On 13 Dec 2015, at 22:30, David Hamill via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote:>> >> I thought I would share my experience with a pile-up because it was instructive for me.>> >> I was building a triangulation group and started getting suspicious because too many people matched the segment. I apologize for forgetting the details here. By too many I mean something like 25% of the people on gedmatch when I did 1-1 comparisons with kits I suspected of being matches. I was looking at a relatively short segment (3-4cM?) so all these matches didn’t show up in the standard one-to-many search. I remembered the “pile-up” phenomenon and though I didn’t actually know what it was, it sounded like it might be an explanation of what was going on. I started checking kits totally at random and found a similar high frequency of matches.>> >> Researching Pile-ups I found that it refers to the phenominum where the percentage of people that have a particular segment is unreasonable based on any possible relatedness. The plausible explanation is that this genetic combination is favored by natural selection.>> >> Next I just looked for articles on pile-ups, and sure enough, the area where my too-frequent matches occurred was one that had been identified in several studies as one where these “pile-ups” are found. >> >> The point here is that pile-ups are not an aspect of ones particular group of matches but occur at the same places for everyone. I don’t know of a central compendium of pile-up areas that have been identified, but it would be nice if there was one.>> >> Maybe one quick and dirty way to see if a segment that appears to match for too many relatives is the result of a pile up, would be to see if it occurs in a similar frequency in both our relatives and kits selected at random…. Thats what tipped me off.>> >> In terms of the argument that it is caused by natural select -------------------------------To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you: Taryn, Jon and Jim. I was trying to make it more complicated than it really is; need to remember and apply the KISS acronym. ICW is simply the list of names in common from two sets of matches. The intersection of two sets. It is the same idea as the 2 kits list from GEDmatch when using "People who match one or both of 2 kits", except on GEDmatch you can control the matching. I tested this on two sets of my FTDNA matches where I can view both sides and yes, the ICW people are those that are in both lists. Thanks again, Jim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Mike AncestryDNA doesn't say explicitly (that I've seen), how the Shared Matches are determined, but it appears to be exactly the same as FTDNA ICW. I've analyzed a bunch of them, and "Shared Matches" is NOT Triangulation. Like ICW, some SMs will be on the same segment, but without the DNA data, AncestryDNA's SMs are much less helpful than FTDNA's ICW. There's just not much we can do with SM info. Maybe try to group them, but still nothing helpful as far as atDNA is concerned. A few people may find some genealogy groups, but those may or may not involve DNA. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 15, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Michael Fisher <m.j.fisher@btinternet.com> wrote: > > Jim > > How does this compare to AncestryDNA "shared matches" that DNAgedcom downloads as ICW ? > (all my AncestryDNA kit have been imported into FTDNA and GEDMatch) > > Mike in a very damp Droitwich, England > >> On 15/12/2015 16:00, Jim Bartlett via wrote: >> Jim >> >> The ICW algorithm does not include arDNA. It does not include genealogy. It only matches names between your Match list and someone else's Match list. >> >> Jim - www.segmentology.org >