Matches will be marked as Sharing, Pending, Open Sharing, Not Sharing. https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212170718-Sorting-and-fil tering-your-matches-in-the-new-DNA-Relatives Barbara -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Karla Huebner via Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 8:06 AM To: B Griffiths <ibgriffiths@gmail.com> Cc: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] 23andme down? Thanks, Barbara, that was very helpful. So in other words there will still be two levels of DNA relatives and invitations will still need to be sent to quite a few people.... let's hope that at least we no longer have to click on every Public profile to see whether that person has already been invited. It has been my procedure to invite all DNA relatives, but I miss a lot of Public profiles because I have to open them to see if I've already invited them, and it's not as though they appear in alphabetical order or anything like that. At times like this I have the feeling that 23andMe not only does not care that we need to spend hundreds of hours--on a continual basis--in order to make effective use of their site, but that the company takes pleasure in ensuring that every DNA genealogist must devote insane amounts of time to tasks that could simply be automated or unnecessary. (Same, of course, for Ancestry with its impractical interface and refusal to provide a chromosome browser.) I work full time and have other interests besides genealogy, so I am a bit fed up with the way companies needlessly waste our time, and can see why many people test and then give up trying to figure out their results. Karla

Andreas, I'm going from my overall impression of reading several pages worth of discussion on a 23andMe forum thread. As I recall, this was where clicking on the link for more information about the change took me, but I couldn't say which page of the thread to go to. I read about the first six pages, but there are over 30 pages. Karla On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:44 PM, ahnen@awest.de <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > That would be indeed much different than was mentioned before Karla. Do > you have a quote where you read that from? > > Andreas > > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 08:41, Karla Huebner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > > Thank you, Jamie... sounds as though many of us should just take a break > > from expecting to do much with 23andMe for awhile. > > > > I did a bit of reading myself trying to catch up on 23andMe's forum > > discussion, and my impression, given the many intelligent questions > people > > had (only some of which were answered), is that there could be a lot of > > complexities unforeseen or unacknowledged by 23andMe. And... the company > > distinguishes between "invitations" and "introductions" in a manner I > don't > > think the average user (myself included) was aware of or will easily keep > > straight. If I understand correctly, we will still need to invite people > to > > share, just that the only people who can be invited will be Public. > Earlier > > it had been my understanding that all Public profiles would automatically > > share with their matches. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong!) > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jamie Arnold via < > > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> I don't know how many members are with 23andme or how many members will > be > >> in > >> each transition batch but it could take up to a couple of months or more > >> for the > >> completion of every member to be transferred to the new site. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Jamie > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com

A better answer to Eric's good questions: I don't know of a term for assigning to the other side. Perhaps ABL - Assigned By Logic - would work. In my case I have TGs covering most of my DNA, so new Matches almost always match someone in a TG. It is nice, and reassuring, when segments on one side are confirmed to not match on the other side - and I look for that test whenever possible. I'm pretty sure Ancestry's Smart Matches are NOT Triangulated. 1. If they were, there would be much more hype by AncestryDNA. 2. I've gone through my 400 SMs and they don't form TGs. Many of them match others who are not SMs with each other - a telltale sign that they are NOT TGs. 3. However, there may be associations there. I'm now trying to tie my Hints (spread out to distant cousins) back to 4th cousin SMs). Maybe the Hint CAs can be teased out of some of my 4C (most w/o hints). But perhaps a long shot since SMs are not TGs. This would be a hard pill for AncestryDNA to swallow. It would taste a lot like crow, because they have dissed Triangulation. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 13, 2015, at 12:13 AM, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Eric > > Be careful with a non-match. It might be a near-match at GEDmatch. A positive (IBD) match is good. But if that doesn't happen, it doesn't necessarily mean the opposite side. > > Are you talking about Circles or Shared Matches? It's my understanding that SMs are based on DNA (rather than genealogy), and are equivalent to ICW at FTDNA. Since we don't have any chromosome info at AncestryDNA, we cannot assume anything more than ICW. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Nov 12, 2015, at 11:04 PM, Eric S Johnson via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> When we triangulate the exome of our "DNA relative" N on our cousins' >> exomes, we're looking for a match so we can say "aha; now we know via which >> of our parents we're related to N!" But provided the cousin *does* match us >> at that same chromosomal address, that comparison can be just as useful in >> case of a *non*-match. Do we have a name for this kind of match? >> non-match match >> opposing match >> negative match >> en face match >> counter-match >> anti-match >> >> My 23andMe sharing management interface still says "1509 outgoing >> invitations." Just now I did receive a new-format notice of an accepted >> invitation which is HTML instead of the old-style plaintext >> notification--but alas it (the notification) still fails to tell me which of >> my 20+ exomes the invitation was sent from, so I have to continue comparing >> matches like this to all my genomes to figure it out. >> >> Do we know, yet, whether AncestryDNA's new ICW feature means "ICW on the >> same HIR"? >> >> Best, >> Eric >>

Thanks, Jamie, Maybe this will give me time to focus on the genealogy part of the process. A breather from collecting Matches and Triangulation; and a shift to communicating with them to explore the genealogy side and a focus on finding Common Ancestors. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 12, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Jamie Arnold via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Well i have managed to log in after a few attempts and the first thing i noticed > is that all the anonymous matches in my DNA relatives list no longer no longer > show any contact button to send them a message. > > Also in the Ancestry Tools menu the Countries of Ancestry link is still showing > but on clicking that brings up a message to say that it is no longer available. > > Also, I have been reading some of the forum comments and there is a message from > Christine from 23andme to say "New customers (purchased in the US after 10/21) > should be receiving results on the new site shortly; after that we will be > transitioning the first group. We expect to move forward before the end of the > month." > > I have also read that the "open sharing" option will come into play on the new > site, so new customers who are already on the new site will be first with on > choosing whether to open share, remain anonymous etc. All those on the current > old site will be moved over to the new site in batches and each batch of people > will be notified by email a week before transition of the batch that they are in > that they are to be transitioned and then an email will be sent when the batch > has been transitioned and completed. > > I don't know how many members are with 23andme or how many members will be in > each transition batch but it could take up to a couple of months or more for the > completion of every member to be transferred to the new site. > > Regards > > Jamie > >> >> On 12 November 2015 at 18:47 Robert Paine via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> They have started doing the update, I have gotten a few error messages / >> time outs and things are moving really slow. Some of the old links are no >> longer working. >> >> RPaine. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Franklin Genetics via >> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:26 AM >> To: ISOGG@yahoogroups.com ; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com ; >> autosomal-dna-l@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [DNA] 23andme down? >> >> Is anyone else having trouble logging into their 23andME today? Was >> working fine early this morning. Am wondering if updates are going on now >> as it just sits and spins and does nada toward actually logging in once >> the >> signin info is entered. >> >> sigh.. >> thx------------------------------- >> 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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

I have less than 1% of my GEDmatch Matches w/o an email. Is this a major issue for some? With the doubling of of test takers every 14 months, I've got my hands full (and my TGs runneth over) with new Matches. I'm trying hard to keep up communications - the genealogy part of this puzzle - but am slipping behind. I won't miss the very few w/o emails - maybe this policy will convince a few to add their emails. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 13, 2015, at 1:17 AM, Brooks Family via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > /"/ /*Effective December 1, 2015, kits with hidden (private) email > addresses// > //will no longer be shown in comparison results. If you have a hidden > email// > //address, you can make it visible by clicking on the EDIT link at the > bottom// > //of your DNA resources box. *// > //// > //"So will those who have hidden addresses still have access to our > data? It// > //sound like they will not be able to see the results but not sure if I am// > //reading this correctly"/ > > OMG. The way I read this, it instantly makes private all email-less > kits. It doesn't state that a match list /for that kit /will not be > generated, just that it will not be on any other kits' match lists. > > I can see how the change would cut the amount of griping to gedmatch, > but IMO it doesn't solve the problem. Even if the kit owner decided to > give the kit an email, there's no requirement to answer an email or > share info. I have those now, anyway. > > Small matches aren't useful if a kit owner is unresponsive - but large > matches /are/ even when the owner is unresponsive! They can be used for > comparisons. And sometimes I can figure out who they are on the site > that the kit came from. > > Good grief. >

Sorry. I would not support this change. Many people are afraid of identity theft. Many people will not upload to gedmatch.com because they fear their identity will be stolen. I have had people get very angry with me when I offer to give them a free DNA test even though I will be paying for it. I would rather have incomplete information than no information at all. Some day there will be a gigantic family tree and all of us will be on it. Sam Sloan On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Andreas West via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I've posted my number before when we started this discussion, it was 6 or > 7% > if I remember correctly. Indeed, let's hope these people read it and change > their settings. > > If not, those emotionally not capable of coping with the disappointment > (like > me, who brought this idea up) might break down and cry endlessly > (attention, > irony was intended). > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- > Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) > "Jim Bartlett via" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I have less than 1% of my GEDmatch Matches w/o an email. Is this a major > > issue for some? With the doubling of of test takers every 14 months, > I've got > > my hands full (and my TGs runneth over) with new Matches. I'm trying > hard to > > keep up communications - the genealogy part of this puzzle - but am > slipping > > behind. I won't miss the very few w/o emails - maybe this policy will > > convince a few to add their emails. > > > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 1:17 AM, Brooks Family via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > /"/ /*Effective December 1, 2015, kits with hidden (private) email > > > addresses// > > > //will no longer be shown in comparison results. If you have a hidden > > > email// > > > //address, you can make it visible by clicking on the EDIT link at the > > > bottom// > > > //of your DNA resources box. *// > > > //// > > > //"So will those who have hidden addresses still have access to our > > > data? It// > > > //sound like they will not be able to see the results but not sure if I > > am// > > > //reading this correctly"/ > > > > > > OMG. The way I read this, it instantly makes private all email-less > > > kits. It doesn't state that a match list /for that kit /will not be > > > generated, just that it will not be on any other kits' match lists. > > > > > > I can see how the change would cut the amount of griping to gedmatch, > > > but IMO it doesn't solve the problem. Even if the kit owner decided to > > > give the kit an email, there's no requirement to answer an email or > > > share info. I have those now, anyway. > > > > > > Small matches aren't useful if a kit owner is unresponsive - but large > > > matches /are/ even when the owner is unresponsive! They can be used for > > > comparisons. And sometimes I can figure out who they are on the site > > > that the kit came from. > > > > > > Good grief. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

Sounds to me more like a way to appease liberal whiners who first started this topic, to be honest. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Some folks just need to learn to deal with disappointment and move on. The world cannot solve your emotional inability to deal with life, the rest of us adapt and carry on. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Brooks Family via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I don't see where it says they won't be able to do queries? > I don't see where it says they won't be able to generate a match list > from their kit, only that their kit won't appear on /other/ kits' match > lists: > "will no longer be shown in comparison results" > > further clarification is needed > > On 11/12/15 11:33 PM, Andreas West wrote: > > I guess it all happens to ease their load on the server as this is their > constant problem with so many users. > > > > As those without an email are excluded from queries there is less to > computate. > > > > Andreas > > > >> On 13 Nov 2015, at 14:17, Brooks Family via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> > >> *Effective December 1, 2015, kits with hidden (private) email addresses > >> will no longer be shown in comparison results. If you have a hidden > email > >> address, you can make it visible by clicking on the EDIT link at the > bottom > >> of your DNA resources box. > >> > >> So will those who have hidden addresses still have access to our > >> data? It > >> sound like they will not be able to see the results but not sure if I am > >> reading this correctly > >> > >> OMG. The way I read this, it instantly makes private all email-less > >> kits. It doesn't state that a match list /for that kit /will not be > >> generated, just that it will not be on any other kits' match lists. > >> > >> I can see how the change would cut the amount of griping to gedmatch, > >> but IMO it doesn't solve the problem. Even if the kit owner decided to > >> give the kit an email, there's no requirement to answer an email or > >> share info. I have those now, anyway. > >> > >> Small matches aren't useful if a kit owner is unresponsive - but large > >> matches /are/ even when the owner is unresponsive! They can be used for > >> comparisons. And sometimes I can figure out who they are on the site > >> that the kit came from. > >> > >> Good grief. > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> 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 > -- Lisa R Franklin RN,BSN Admin, Franklin Y DNA Project http://trackingyourroots.com/FranklinGenetics/ FranklinGenetics@gmail.com http://trackingyourroots.com/DNA (How To presentation (23andme), tips, & helps. *2**3**&**m**e**: **The World's Largest database & coincidentally the ONLY one with all the tools you need for genealogy and DNA!--* http://refer.23andme.com/v2/share/6158544791499756901/4672616e6b6c696e47656e657469637340676d61696c2e636f6d BEST GENETIC GENEALOGY BOOK! http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Genealogy-Emily-D-Aulicino-ebook/dp/B00HJJWBU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391174801&sr=8-1&keywords=Genetic+Genealogy

The N to the power of 4 is probably because they are checking phased haplotypes. They need to compare both of your haplotypes with both of the haplotypes in the other party. Ann Turner On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:32 AM, ahnen@awest.de via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I did't say that in my post, please read it again. If you have a deeper > understanding of databases, schemas and especially those requirements > behind Gedmatch to prepare the one-to-many list then you will understand > how they are going to safe computing resources and even disk space with > this move. > > Same btw for 23andme, both of them can exclude those anonymous from > matching list that are usually prepared up front (and stored). The > one-to-one is run on-the-fly, it means when requested by the user. BTW, > everyone who ever has got a new cousin in a TG and needs to do all the > one-to-one vs all other cousins knows how this work is increasing with > every single new cousin. Tedious work. > > Apparently it's N to the power of 4 for every new customer though I > haven't found out why (that's from a person who worked with Ancestry on > their database requirements when they switched to a NoSQL solution). But > it's surely N*N -1 > > Hope that makes it clearer computing power needed to run those queries for > DNA genealogy are enormous, especially with such a large user base that > they have. > > Andreas >

Open Sharing will be a new option, but it's not in place yet. Ann Turner On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Karla Huebner via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Thank you, Jamie... sounds as though many of us should just take a break > from expecting to do much with 23andMe for awhile. > > I did a bit of reading myself trying to catch up on 23andMe's forum > discussion, and my impression, given the many intelligent questions people > had (only some of which were answered), is that there could be a lot of > complexities unforeseen or unacknowledged by 23andMe. And... the company > distinguishes between "invitations" and "introductions" in a manner I don't > think the average user (myself included) was aware of or will easily keep > straight. If I understand correctly, we will still need to invite people to > share, just that the only people who can be invited will be Public. Earlier > it had been my understanding that all Public profiles would automatically > share with their matches. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong!) >

Eric Be careful with a non-match. It might be a near-match at GEDmatch. A positive (IBD) match is good. But if that doesn't happen, it doesn't necessarily mean the opposite side. Are you talking about Circles or Shared Matches? It's my understanding that SMs are based on DNA (rather than genealogy), and are equivalent to ICW at FTDNA. Since we don't have any chromosome info at AncestryDNA, we cannot assume anything more than ICW. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 12, 2015, at 11:04 PM, Eric S Johnson via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > When we triangulate the exome of our "DNA relative" N on our cousins' > exomes, we're looking for a match so we can say "aha; now we know via which > of our parents we're related to N!" But provided the cousin *does* match us > at that same chromosomal address, that comparison can be just as useful in > case of a *non*-match. Do we have a name for this kind of match? > non-match match > opposing match > negative match > en face match > counter-match > anti-match > > My 23andMe sharing management interface still says "1509 outgoing > invitations." Just now I did receive a new-format notice of an accepted > invitation which is HTML instead of the old-style plaintext > notification--but alas it (the notification) still fails to tell me which of > my 20+ exomes the invitation was sent from, so I have to continue comparing > matches like this to all my genomes to figure it out. > > Do we know, yet, whether AncestryDNA's new ICW feature means "ICW on the > same HIR"? > > Best, > Eric > > > ------------------------------- > 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

I don't see where it says they won't be able to do queries? I don't see where it says they won't be able to generate a match list from their kit, only that their kit won't appear on /other/ kits' match lists: "will no longer be shown in comparison results" further clarification is needed On 11/12/15 11:33 PM, Andreas West wrote: > I guess it all happens to ease their load on the server as this is their constant problem with so many users. > > As those without an email are excluded from queries there is less to computate. > > Andreas > >> On 13 Nov 2015, at 14:17, Brooks Family via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> *Effective December 1, 2015, kits with hidden (private) email addresses >> will no longer be shown in comparison results. If you have a hidden email >> address, you can make it visible by clicking on the EDIT link at the bottom >> of your DNA resources box. >> >> So will those who have hidden addresses still have access to our >> data? It >> sound like they will not be able to see the results but not sure if I am >> reading this correctly >> >> OMG. The way I read this, it instantly makes private all email-less >> kits. It doesn't state that a match list /for that kit /will not be >> generated, just that it will not be on any other kits' match lists. >> >> I can see how the change would cut the amount of griping to gedmatch, >> but IMO it doesn't solve the problem. Even if the kit owner decided to >> give the kit an email, there's no requirement to answer an email or >> share info. I have those now, anyway. >> >> Small matches aren't useful if a kit owner is unresponsive - but large >> matches /are/ even when the owner is unresponsive! They can be used for >> comparisons. And sometimes I can figure out who they are on the site >> that the kit came from. >> >> Good grief. >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

/"/ /*Effective December 1, 2015, kits with hidden (private) email addresses// //will no longer be shown in comparison results. If you have a hidden email// //address, you can make it visible by clicking on the EDIT link at the bottom// //of your DNA resources box. *// //// //"So will those who have hidden addresses still have access to our data? It// //sound like they will not be able to see the results but not sure if I am// //reading this correctly"/ OMG. The way I read this, it instantly makes private all email-less kits. It doesn't state that a match list /for that kit /will not be generated, just that it will not be on any other kits' match lists. I can see how the change would cut the amount of griping to gedmatch, but IMO it doesn't solve the problem. Even if the kit owner decided to give the kit an email, there's no requirement to answer an email or share info. I have those now, anyway. Small matches aren't useful if a kit owner is unresponsive - but large matches /are/ even when the owner is unresponsive! They can be used for comparisons. And sometimes I can figure out who they are on the site that the kit came from. Good grief.

I thought yesterday was the big reveal, so disappointed to hear this could take a much longer time to happen. I admit to not following all the particulars of the change before a few days ago >

Well i have managed to log in after a few attempts and the first thing i noticed is that all the anonymous matches in my DNA relatives list no longer no longer show any contact button to send them a message. Also in the Ancestry Tools menu the Countries of Ancestry link is still showing but on clicking that brings up a message to say that it is no longer available. Also, I have been reading some of the forum comments and there is a message from Christine from 23andme to say "New customers (purchased in the US after 10/21) should be receiving results on the new site shortly; after that we will be transitioning the first group. We expect to move forward before the end of the month." I have also read that the "open sharing" option will come into play on the new site, so new customers who are already on the new site will be first with on choosing whether to open share, remain anonymous etc. All those on the current old site will be moved over to the new site in batches and each batch of people will be notified by email a week before transition of the batch that they are in that they are to be transitioned and then an email will be sent when the batch has been transitioned and completed. I don't know how many members are with 23andme or how many members will be in each transition batch but it could take up to a couple of months or more for the completion of every member to be transferred to the new site. Regards Jamie > > On 12 November 2015 at 18:47 Robert Paine via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > They have started doing the update, I have gotten a few error messages / > time outs and things are moving really slow. Some of the old links are no > longer working. > > RPaine. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Franklin Genetics via > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:26 AM > To: ISOGG@yahoogroups.com ; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com ; > autosomal-dna-l@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DNA] 23andme down? > > Is anyone else having trouble logging into their 23andME today? Was > working fine early this morning. Am wondering if updates are going on now > as it just sits and spins and does nada toward actually logging in once > the > signin info is entered. > > sigh.. > thx------------------------------- > 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 >

Thank you, Jamie... sounds as though many of us should just take a break from expecting to do much with 23andMe for awhile. I did a bit of reading myself trying to catch up on 23andMe's forum discussion, and my impression, given the many intelligent questions people had (only some of which were answered), is that there could be a lot of complexities unforeseen or unacknowledged by 23andMe. And... the company distinguishes between "invitations" and "introductions" in a manner I don't think the average user (myself included) was aware of or will easily keep straight. If I understand correctly, we will still need to invite people to share, just that the only people who can be invited will be Public. Earlier it had been my understanding that all Public profiles would automatically share with their matches. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong!) On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jamie Arnold via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > I don't know how many members are with 23andme or how many members will be > in > each transition batch but it could take up to a couple of months or more > for the > completion of every member to be transferred to the new site. > > Regards > > Jamie > > >

Debbie Kennett wrote: "With nearly three million people tested then surely we must have some examples from people on this list of three fourth cousins who all match each other on the same segment (we'd have to exclude triangulated segments on more distant matches because of the difficulty in verifying trees and the problems of endogamy). I wonder if anyone has any examples they can share with us." I was behind in my reading of this group, and just came across this. I do have a couple of examples from my own chromosome mapping. I match two 4th cousins on chromosome 13, in amounts of 10.4 and 10.8 cM (these are both from Ftdna). Each of us descends from a different child of the common ancestral couple. Another person matching at the same spot lists one of the surnames of the ancestral couple in her profile, but has not responded to queries. In another situation, on chromosome 5, I match four 4th cousins once removed. (They would have been my late father's 4th cousins.) All of them descend from the same son of the ancestral couple. Two of them are 2nd cousins to each other, but other than that, their descent is from different children of that son. I descend from the ancestral couple in two different ways (from two daughters). The matching amounts are 22.4, 5.9, 8.5, and 8.1 cM. These are all from Ftdna also. I realize that these are fairly small numbers, but it's near a crossover event for me. I also match four of my late father's 1st cousins at the same place, and their matching segments with those 4th cousins (at the same spot) are longer - in the range of 12 to 28 cM. Let me know if you have any questions. Karen

I've interpreted their transition order, based on letters sent by 23&Me and a forum comment by their spokeswoman, as (1) purchased Oct 22 or later, (2) uncomplicated v. 4, (3) uncomplicated earlier chip versions which might require a free retest, and (4) complicated or mixed accounts. The last wasn't explained, but I'm guessing those are accounts with mixed chip versions and/or kits from more than one country. Could be way off on that. If Open Sharing requires both parties to be doing Open Sharing (and sounds like it will), we won't know how popular this choice is until everyone has been transitioned to the new site. Barbara

With the luck you're having today with vendor sites, maybe you should go for a walk:) Roberta -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Franklin Genetics via Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:26 PM To: ISOGG@yahoogroups.com; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com; autosomal-dna-l@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] 23andme down? ​Is anyone else having trouble logging into their 23andME today? Was working fine early this morning. Am wondering if updates are going on now as it just sits and spins and does nada toward actually logging in once the signin info is entered. sigh.. thx​ ------------------------------- 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

*Effective December 1, 2015, kits with hidden (private) email addresses will no longer be shown in comparison results. If you have a hidden email address, you can make it visible by clicking on the EDIT link at the bottom of your DNA resources box. * So will those who have hidden addresses still have access to our data? It sound like they will not be able to see the results but not sure if I am reading this correctly On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Wjhonson via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > This however (not including their own email address in each kit they > manage) would be a major mistake related to those kit managers not > understanding well how Autosomal DNA works. > > Also it seems very rude to the people who supplied their DNA that they > don't even get a chance to know that they have found a missing cousin. As > a multiple-kit-manager myself, if I don't have time to deal with a cousin > who clearly doesn't match my kit, I would always forward them to that > cousin to *choose* if they wanted to speak to each other or not. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Franklin Genetics via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > To: Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> > Cc: Curtis Rogers <GEDmatch@gmail.com>; genealogy-dna < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 9:04 am > Subject: [DNA] Would you support the suggestion to GEDmatch to make email > addresses mandatory to contact? > > > I'm sorry but you're not understanding. the kits probably are all > under > under one manager, but for some people managing a very large number > of > kits, trying to do your own research, and have a life, they just don't > have > time to deal with all matches for every kit on their account. By > doing it with > no email address shown the kit is available for the person > managing it to use in > the way they need to for their research which no > doubt that is the reason it was > uploaded to begin with. I'm sorry if you > can't understand this it probably means > that you don't manage very many > kits or you're retired and don't have a job or > family obligations. I fully > understand why some people might would have to do > this and I respect that > choice. > > On Wednesday, September 23, 2015, Andreas West > <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > I have kits from my family members as well who > authorized me to use their > DNA test results. But all of them are under my email > address as main point > of contact. > > Yes, they don't want to be contacted > directly either but that's not a > problem as I'm the main contact person. > > So I > don't understand what your point is. > > Andreas > > > > > > > > On 23 Sep 2015, at 18:46, > Franklin Genetics <franklingenetics@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > No, that is a privacy > issue. And I'm sure Curtis and crew are aware of > that. My understanding is some > are uploaded and are family who've agreed to > participate for a set purpose, but > not to be involved and are therefore not > willing to have their email divulged > but are instead managed by a family > member who is utilizing the data for a > specific line and cannot assist > general matches. I known it's frustrating, but > such is life. > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Andreas West via > < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> > >> I'm growing > more and more frustrated with what seems a growing number of > >> people that > submit their DNA result to GEDmatch (that's good) but without > >> giving their > email address to contact them (that's bad). > >> > >> I just did some calculations > and I have 5.99% of my matches in GEDmatch > that > >> have given any email address > (they have given an email as part of the > >> registration process but opted to > not show it to matches). > >> > >> This is not only very frustrating for our > research (as we can't contact > them > >> and some of them are very large matching > segments) but they are > controlling > >> whom they want to contact (as we do > provide our email addresses → very > one > >> sided behavior). > >> > >> As many others > have pointed out, it's perfectly ok to setup a separate > email > >> address just > for GEDmatch if anyone is concerned with privacy. So I don't > >> think this is > something that should be allowed, especially with GEDmatch > now > >> having over > 200k DNA kits uploaded (that means 12000 of them haven't > provided > >> a method to > contact them). > >> > >> Would you support that we ask GEDmatch to make publishing > the users email > >> address mandatory from now on? Maybe even go so far to send > out an email > of > >> their policy change to all who have hidden it so far and > enable > displaying the > >> email to matches in the future (with maybe a blackout > period of 30 days > so > >> they have a chance to delete their DNA kit if they don't > accept this > policy > >> change)? > >> > >> That would make all our research a lot more > fruitful instead of > frustrated. > >> Looking forward to your comments. > >> > >> FYI - > I've copied Curtis Rogers from GEDmatch in this email. > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > >> > >> My ancestors: > [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- > >> > Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) > >> > >> > ------------------------------- > >> 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 > > > > > > -- > > Lisa R Franklin > RN,BSN > > Admin, Franklin Y DNA Project > > > http://trackingyourroots.com/FranklinGenetics/ > > FranklinGenetics@gmail.com > > > http://trackingyourroots.com/DNA (How To presentation (23andme), tips, > & > helps. > > > > 23&me: The World's Largest database & coincidentally the ONLY one > with > all the tools you need for genealogy and > DNA!-- > > > > http://refer.23andme.com/v2/share/6158544791499756901/4672616e6b6c696e47656e657469637340676d61696c2e636f6d > > > > > BEST GENETIC GENEALOGY > BOOK! > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Genealogy-Emily-D-Aulicino-ebook/dp/B00HJJWBU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391174801&sr=8-1&keywords=Genetic+Genealogy > > > > > > -- > > Lisa R Franklin RN,BSN > Admin, Franklin Y DNA > Project > http://trackingyourroots.com/FranklinGenetics/ > FranklinGenetics@gmail.com > http://trackingyourroots.com/DNA > (How To presentation (23andme), tips, & > helps. > > *2**3**&**m**e**: **The World's > Largest database & coincidentally the ONLY > one with all the tools you need for > genealogy and > DNA!--* > > http://refer.23andme.com/v2/share/6158544791499756901/4672616e6b6c696e47656e657469637340676d61696c2e636f6d > > BEST > GENETIC GENEALOGY > BOOK! > > http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Genealogy-Emily-D-Aulicino-ebook/dp/B00HJJWBU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391174801&sr=8-1&keywords=Genetic+Genealogy > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

List A pair of Spanish mtDNA sequences has appeared on the GenBank database. They are to accompany the unpublished paper: Lopez-Gallardo,E. "A mitocondrial DNA mutation modifies the effect of tributyltin chloride on bioenergetics parameters" The first sequence comes from Haplogroup H3ab (a typically Spanish group) and contains the mutation T8993G which is known to be pathogenic. See perhaps: http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/h3aa-av_genbank_sequences.htm The second sequence comes from Haplogroup U5a1a2b but I do not see anything particularly special. See perhaps: http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/u5a1a2_genbank_sequences.htm As usual I have added the sequences ot my 'Checker' program to ensure accuracy of transcription. Ian ------------------ KT002148(Spain) Lopez-Gallardo Haplogroup H3ab 10-NOV-2015 A263G 315.1C A750G A1438G T2392C C3107N T4386C A4769G T6776C A8860G T8993G A9194G T10724C A15326G T16519C KT002149(Spain) Lopez-Gallardo Haplogroup U5a1a2b 10-NOV-2015 A73G A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G T1700C A2706G C3107N T3197C A4769G C7028T A8860G G9477A A11467G G11719A A12308G C12346T G12372A A13105G T13617C C14766T A14793G G15148A A15218G A15326G T15530C C16256T C16270T A16399G