It all depends why you're doing DNA genealogy. My goal is not only triangulation or corroborating of matches as IBD. I want to find the common ancestor as well and verify my family tree and correct/expand it. Is it 100% verified that you triangulate with a CoA match if you and another person (so all three of you) match on that same segment? But even then you can't communicate with that person. Andreas > On 9 Nov 2015, at 01:19, jlerch1@lighttube.net wrote: > > I guess I wasn't clear about the Anonymous persons with whom we match. The corroboration happens because on Countries of Ancestry as presently constructed I and my match who has no other corroboration BOTH MATCH the Anonymous person with supposed grandparent profile > (Vanuatu, Israel, Latvia, Slovakia) > ==>AT THE SAME SPOT my uncorroborated match and I match<==. As Jim B said, he (and I) on occassion even figured out who an anonymous person was. > Bottom line: I probably won't mind the new 23&Me setup. It's just that 23's various pronouncements are sufficiently ambiguous that unless they're saving a backup to the present setup, there potentially could be a lot of unhappy people here on genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com. > BTW the procedure above for corroborating my uncorroborated match worked better before 23 changed their protocol several months ago by increasing the weighting for grandparents with a profile of (4X Same Country) and (3X Same Country). > > > On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:38:18 +0800, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > It has no value as you will never find out on which chromosome and segment you match. As he/she isn't interested in genealogy. > > We have to accept that there are lots of people on 23andme that took the test for health concerns only. > > Also, as much as I love our hobby I also accepted that it's wrong to evangelize everyone how wonderful it is. Some people just don't want and the solution by 23andme is the best IMO. Let them have their peace. > > Andreas > > > On 8 Nov 2015, at 03:15, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > John > > > > You got me. You win! > > > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > >> On Nov 7, 2015, at 2:09 PM, jlerch1 via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> > >> Someone asked so what's not to like about losing all the ANONYMOUS Matches. Well: > >> There have been multiple times when I got a match with someone and NO ONE with whom I was Sharing matched that person. So I went to COuntries of Ancestry and Lo and Behold, both of us had 1 or more Anonymous matches with grandparent profiles LIKE > >> (Vanuatu, Israel, Latvia, Slovakia). > >> Now for those of you not getting it, how likely is that 2 person were to have that profile? So I reported the good news to that person that yes our match was corroborated even though I had no idea with whom. > >> Under the new system, those persons are just going to have to be uncorroborated and maybe that person will stop Sharing. And if Jim B is correct that persons might be Anonymous to everyone but those with whom they Share, that person might totally drop off my list and I'll NEVER be able to write to him on 23 again. > >> John L > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 meant to say GEDmatch doesn't use filters. I'm not aware of any filters by 23andMe. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 9, 2015, at 10:42 AM, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Andreas, > 23andMe doesn't use filters, so we see many Matches there that the 3 DTCs > didn't post. In my experience some of them are IBD and Triangulate, but many > don't (and go into my IBS bin) > > > > Jim Bartlett > > On 11/09/15, Andreas West via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Thanks Tim, the probabilities are known to me and they are exactly that, > probabilities. As Jim pointed out, there is no 100% guarantee. > As for small segments (less than 7cM or less than 700 SNP) the probabilities > posted are misleading as we only see what the DTC's already filtered out > with their algorithms. So for 23andme for example those shown to me have a > very high chance to triangulate into a group, for sure over 50%. The stats > shown for the same 5cM segment give the real probability based on looking at > all matches but like I said the DTC's filter out the rubbish (and some good > ones) already on their side before presenting us the best matches. > Andreas >> On 9 Nov 2015, at 14:06, Tim Janzen via <[1]genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: >> >> Dear Andreas, >> The answer to your question depends on a number of variables. The longer >> the HIR in CoA that people are triangulating on the higher the probability >> that you truly share DNA with the other people in question. This really >> boils down to the IBS/IBD statistics that we have discussed on this list a >> number of times previously. As a general rule HIRs over 15 cMs and >> containing at least 2000 SNPs will be IBD and so any group of people who >> triangulate on an HIR with these criteria will truly share the DNA segment >> in question. When people are triangulating on fairly short HIRs such as >> those with only 5 cMs and 500 SNPs then there is a strong possibility that >> some of the people in the triangulated group won't actually share DNA with >> each other, particularly if the group only has 3 or 4 people in it. When > in >> doubt try to use phased data in GEDmatch for the comparisons if that is >> feasible. >> Sincerely, >> Tim Janzen >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: g[2]enealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [[3]mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Andreas West > via >> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 8:10 PM >> To: [4]jlerch1@lighttube.net >> Cc: [5]genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [DNA] value of the present Countries of Ancestry >> >> >> Is it 100% verified that you triangulate with a CoA match if you and > another >> person (so all three of you) match on that same segment? >> >> Andreas >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > G[6]ENEALOGY-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 > G[7]ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > References > > 1. mailto:genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > 2. mailto:enealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > 3. mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > 4. mailto:jlerch1@lighttube.net > 5. mailto:genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > 6. mailto:ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com > 7. mailto:ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com > > ------------------------------- > 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

Thanks very much Shannon and Jim. Glad to hear that the FI:A/triangulation capabilities will be retained. Jim, to clarify my first question, I was wondering about the "conversations" in the 23andMe messaging system (with DNA Relatives matches that accepted contact, but declined sharing name and genome), rather than the "introductions"/"invitations". The "conversations" with these anonymous matches can currently be accessed through "View conversation" link (under "Introduction Accepted") on the right side of the DNA Relatives screen, as shown in one of the screen captures on Shannon's blog post (or through the Inbox/Sent/Archived messages). As for the introductions/invitations, I'm not sure that the genome sharing invitation messages can currently be accessed by the sender. But, the outstanding DNA Relatives introduction messages, can, I think, be accessed through the "View" link (next to "Cancel"), beneath "Introduction Sent" in DNA Relatives…I think they also appear in the "Sent" section of the messaging system. It seems clear that the "introduction" messages will all be going away with the transformation…but not a big loss from my perspective…like you, I almost always use the standard introduction, and even in cases where I didn't, it doesn't contain anything that I don't already know. Greg On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: > Greg, > > I'm curious. In 1) can you see those messages now? I always send a > standard message, so I know what it says, but I don't know who I am sending > it to, and don't know of a way to capture a link now. > > 23andMe has stated that the FI:A utility will remain - so yes, you should > still be able to compare B to C. > > Since some folks (I hope most of the genealogists) will opt for the Public > Sharing (like we have at FTDNA and GEDmatch), we will actually be getting > many more Matches at 23andMe. > > > > Jim Bartlett > > On 11/09/15, G. Magoon via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Thanks very much for this, Shannon. I had a couple of questions about the > changes that I hadn't seen addressed anywhere (my apologies if these are > already answered somewhere): > 1) "Soon, any anonymous matches with whom you are not sharing genomes will > be unreachable." Will we still have access to the old messages sent to/from > these anonymous matches? > 2) Will we retain the ability to do IBD cross-comparisons between people we > are sharing with? (i.e. if we are sharing with B and sharing with C, will > we still be able to see segments shared between B and C?) This is a really > nice feature of the current site (if somewhat cumbersome to use > extensively) as it can help with figuring out whether a particular match is > on the maternal or paternal side and figuring out who is included in a > group with a mutually shared IBD segment originating from the same > ancestor. > > Thanks very much in advance, > Greg > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Shannon Christmas via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Get ready for the new 23andMe. Here's how: > > > > > http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/132772718132/prepare-for-the-new-23andme > > #genealogy > > > > Very Respectfully, > > Shannon > > -- > > Mr. Shannon S. Christmas > > Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist > > The Christmas Collective > > <http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> > > Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions > > New York, NY | Washington, DC > > P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 > > F: 1.888.788.5984 > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/ > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 G > ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Jim, You said: "Since some folks (I hope most of the genealogists) will opt for the Public Sharing (like we have at FTDNA and GEDmatch), we will actually be getting many more Matches at 23andMe." I sincerely hope that is the case. Very Respectfully, Shannon On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: > Greg, > > I'm curious. In 1) can you see those messages now? I always send a > standard message, so I know what it says, but I don't know who I am sending > it to, and don't know of a way to capture a link now. > > 23andMe has stated that the FI:A utility will remain - so yes, you should > still be able to compare B to C. > > Since some folks (I hope most of the genealogists) will opt for the Public > Sharing (like we have at FTDNA and GEDmatch), we will actually be getting > many more Matches at 23andMe. > > > > Jim Bartlett > > On 11/09/15, G. Magoon via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Thanks very much for this, Shannon. I had a couple of questions about the > changes that I hadn't seen addressed anywhere (my apologies if these are > already answered somewhere): > 1) "Soon, any anonymous matches with whom you are not sharing genomes will > be unreachable." Will we still have access to the old messages sent to/from > these anonymous matches? > 2) Will we retain the ability to do IBD cross-comparisons between people we > are sharing with? (i.e. if we are sharing with B and sharing with C, will > we still be able to see segments shared between B and C?) This is a really > nice feature of the current site (if somewhat cumbersome to use > extensively) as it can help with figuring out whether a particular match is > on the maternal or paternal side and figuring out who is included in a > group with a mutually shared IBD segment originating from the same > ancestor. > > Thanks very much in advance, > Greg > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Shannon Christmas via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Get ready for the new 23andMe. Here's how: > > > > > http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/132772718132/prepare-for-the-new-23andme > > #genealogy > > > > Very Respectfully, > > Shannon > > -- > > Mr. Shannon S. Christmas > > Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist > > The Christmas Collective > > <http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> > > Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions > > New York, NY | Washington, DC > > P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 > > F: 1.888.788.5984 > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/ > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 G > ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Mr. Shannon S. Christmas Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist The Christmas Collective <http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions New York, NY | Washington, DC P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 F: 1.888.788.5984 http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/

That's my interpretation of the word, but I don't understand why Jim Bartlett said 23andMe didn't have any filters and the 3 (?) "DTC" companies do have filters. We know about AncestryDNA's Timber, FTDNA's 20 cM filter (which seems ill-conceived) and the ability to set your own thresholds at GEDmatch. GEDmatch suffers from the need to accommodate multiple testing platforms and generates a high percentage of false positives. Ann Turner On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Ann Turner <dnacousins@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not certain what you mean by filters, but 23andMe does have some > different thresholds in place for regions known to have "excess" IBD. They > increase the SNP and/or cM value, so if the "pile-up" is embedded in a > longer segment, it will pass muster. > > Ann Turner > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Jim Bartlett via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> Andreas, >> 23andMe doesn't use filters, so we see many Matches there that the 3 >> DTCs >> didn't post. In my experience some of them are IBD and Triangulate, >> but many >> don't (and go into my IBS bin) >> >> >> >> Jim Bartlett >> > > >

Andreas, 23andMe doesn't use filters, so we see many Matches there that the 3 DTCs didn't post. In my experience some of them are IBD and Triangulate, but many don't (and go into my IBS bin) Jim Bartlett On 11/09/15, Andreas West via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: Thanks Tim, the probabilities are known to me and they are exactly that, probabilities. As Jim pointed out, there is no 100% guarantee. As for small segments (less than 7cM or less than 700 SNP) the probabilities posted are misleading as we only see what the DTC's already filtered out with their algorithms. So for 23andme for example those shown to me have a very high chance to triangulate into a group, for sure over 50%. The stats shown for the same 5cM segment give the real probability based on looking at all matches but like I said the DTC's filter out the rubbish (and some good ones) already on their side before presenting us the best matches. Andreas > On 9 Nov 2015, at 14:06, Tim Janzen via <[1]genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Dear Andreas, > The answer to your question depends on a number of variables. The longer > the HIR in CoA that people are triangulating on the higher the probability > that you truly share DNA with the other people in question. This really > boils down to the IBS/IBD statistics that we have discussed on this list a > number of times previously. As a general rule HIRs over 15 cMs and > containing at least 2000 SNPs will be IBD and so any group of people who > triangulate on an HIR with these criteria will truly share the DNA segment > in question. When people are triangulating on fairly short HIRs such as > those with only 5 cMs and 500 SNPs then there is a strong possibility that > some of the people in the triangulated group won't actually share DNA with > each other, particularly if the group only has 3 or 4 people in it. When in > doubt try to use phased data in GEDmatch for the comparisons if that is > feasible. > Sincerely, > Tim Janzen > > -----Original Message----- > From: g[2]enealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [[3]mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Andreas West via > Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 8:10 PM > To: [4]jlerch1@lighttube.net > Cc: [5]genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] value of the present Countries of Ancestry > > > Is it 100% verified that you triangulate with a CoA match if you and another > person (so all three of you) match on that same segment? > > Andreas > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to G[6]ENEALOGY-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 G[7]ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message References 1. mailto:genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com 2. mailto:enealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com 3. mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com 4. mailto:jlerch1@lighttube.net 5. mailto:genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com 6. mailto:ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 7. mailto:ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com

Greg, I'm curious. In 1) can you see those messages now? I always send a standard message, so I know what it says, but I don't know who I am sending it to, and don't know of a way to capture a link now. 23andMe has stated that the FI:A utility will remain - so yes, you should still be able to compare B to C. Since some folks (I hope most of the genealogists) will opt for the Public Sharing (like we have at FTDNA and GEDmatch), we will actually be getting many more Matches at 23andMe. Jim Bartlett On 11/09/15, G. Magoon via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: Thanks very much for this, Shannon. I had a couple of questions about the changes that I hadn't seen addressed anywhere (my apologies if these are already answered somewhere): 1) "Soon, any anonymous matches with whom you are not sharing genomes will be unreachable." Will we still have access to the old messages sent to/from these anonymous matches? 2) Will we retain the ability to do IBD cross-comparisons between people we are sharing with? (i.e. if we are sharing with B and sharing with C, will we still be able to see segments shared between B and C?) This is a really nice feature of the current site (if somewhat cumbersome to use extensively) as it can help with figuring out whether a particular match is on the maternal or paternal side and figuring out who is included in a group with a mutually shared IBD segment originating from the same ancestor. Thanks very much in advance, Greg On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Shannon Christmas via < [1]genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Get ready for the new 23andMe. Here's how: > > [2]http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/132772718132/prepare-for-the-n ew-23andme > #genealogy > > Very Respectfully, > Shannon > -- > Mr. Shannon S. Christmas > Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist > The Christmas Collective > <[3]http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> > Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions > New York, NY | Washington, DC > P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 > F: 1.888.788.5984 > [4]http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > G[5]ENEALOGY-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 G[6]ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message References 1. mailto:genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com 2. http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/132772718132/prepare-for-the-new-23andme 3. http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective 4. http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/ 5. mailto:ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 6. mailto:ENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com

Thanks very much for this, Shannon. I had a couple of questions about the changes that I hadn't seen addressed anywhere (my apologies if these are already answered somewhere): 1) "Soon, any anonymous matches with whom you are not sharing genomes will be unreachable." Will we still have access to the old messages sent to/from these anonymous matches? 2) Will we retain the ability to do IBD cross-comparisons between people we are sharing with? (i.e. if we are sharing with B and sharing with C, will we still be able to see segments shared between B and C?) This is a really nice feature of the current site (if somewhat cumbersome to use extensively) as it can help with figuring out whether a particular match is on the maternal or paternal side and figuring out who is included in a group with a mutually shared IBD segment originating from the same ancestor. Thanks very much in advance, Greg On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Shannon Christmas via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Get ready for the new 23andMe. Here's how: > > http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/132772718132/prepare-for-the-new-23andme > #genealogy > > Very Respectfully, > Shannon > -- > Mr. Shannon S. Christmas > Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist > The Christmas Collective > <http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> > Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions > New York, NY | Washington, DC > P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 > F: 1.888.788.5984 > http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/ > > ------------------------------- > 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'm not certain what you mean by filters, but 23andMe does have some different thresholds in place for regions known to have "excess" IBD. They increase the SNP and/or cM value, so if the "pile-up" is embedded in a longer segment, it will pass muster. Ann Turner On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > wrote: > Andreas, > 23andMe doesn't use filters, so we see many Matches there that the 3 > DTCs > didn't post. In my experience some of them are IBD and Triangulate, but > many > don't (and go into my IBS bin) > > > > Jim Bartlett >

My guess is if you are using only the nickname line, but that's a good question Marilyn and one I wondered about too, but as it said initials were allowed and such my assumption tends to go with the nickname line On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Marilyn Bess via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > wrote: > What are they considering nicknames? The names put in the nick name line > or names that sound like nick it names? Will the profile stay public even > though it has a name that sounds like a nick name? I know initial are > allowed but how about a given name followed by numbers for a last name? > > Will the migration begin at 12AM on Nov. 11 or will we still have Nov 11 > to work. Thanks Marilyn > > ------------------------------- > 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

Andreas If you "know" the other two; the three shared segments all overlap at least 7cM; and no pair are close relatives; I don't why it wouldn't be triangulation. 100% is hard to certify when using DNA; but the odds would be very high. So if the other person is Anon, I still don't see much value, other than stabilizing a TG. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 8, 2015, at 11:09 PM, Andreas West via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > It all depends why you're doing DNA genealogy. My goal is not only triangulation or corroborating of matches as IBD. I want to find the common ancestor as well and verify my family tree and correct/expand it. > > Is it 100% verified that you triangulate with a CoA match if you and another person (so all three of you) match on that same segment? > > But even then you can't communicate with that person. > > Andreas > >> On 9 Nov 2015, at 01:19, jlerch1@lighttube.net wrote: >> >> I guess I wasn't clear about the Anonymous persons with whom we match. The corroboration happens because on Countries of Ancestry as presently constructed I and my match who has no other corroboration BOTH MATCH the Anonymous person with supposed grandparent profile >> (Vanuatu, Israel, Latvia, Slovakia) >> ==>AT THE SAME SPOT my uncorroborated match and I match<==. As Jim B said, he (and I) on occassion even figured out who an anonymous person was. >> Bottom line: I probably won't mind the new 23&Me setup. It's just that 23's various pronouncements are sufficiently ambiguous that unless they're saving a backup to the present setup, there potentially could be a lot of unhappy people here on genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com. >> BTW the procedure above for corroborating my uncorroborated match worked better before 23 changed their protocol several months ago by increasing the weighting for grandparents with a profile of (4X Same Country) and (3X Same Country). >> >> >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:38:18 +0800, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: >> It has no value as you will never find out on which chromosome and segment you match. As he/she isn't interested in genealogy. >> >> We have to accept that there are lots of people on 23andme that took the test for health concerns only. >> >> Also, as much as I love our hobby I also accepted that it's wrong to evangelize everyone how wonderful it is. Some people just don't want and the solution by 23andme is the best IMO. Let them have their peace. >> >> Andreas >>

We have the first Big Y result of our " Atlantic Western Iberian" cluster of J1-M365. Kit 373385. Now we can compare my kit 73612, F7S61A Full Genomes Corporation test, a very good one, with the Big Y. In my first analysis we share 99 FGC SNPs of the 188. We also share a first basal SNP FGC6064 with Kitching, English, kit 381875. With Darwish, Persian Gulf, kit M96967, we share 44 SNPs from my sequence: M365, FGC6020, FGC6027, FGC6028, FGC6029, FGC6030, FGC6031, FGC6034, FGC6036, FGC6044, FGC6045, FGC6048, FGC6051, FGC6057, FGC6068, FGC6069, FGC6076, FGC6080, FGC6096, FGC6098, FGC6099, FGC6101, FGC6103, FGC6104, FGC6112, FGC6113, FGC6115, FGC6118, FGC6125, FGC6126, FGC6127, FGC6130, FGC6141, FGC6142, FGC6144, FGC6145, FGC6150, FGC6153, FGC6156, FGC6159, FGC6167, FGC6169, FGC6170, FGC6174. With Sousa Lara, Portuguese, kit 373385 more 55 SNPs from my sequence (add the 44 with M9697, 44+55 = 99 SNPs) : FGC5988, FGC5989, FGC5990, FGC5992, FGC6018, FGC6019, FGC6023, FGC6024, FGC6025, FGC6033, FGC6034, FGC6035, FGC6037, FGC6038, FGC6039, FGC6040, FGC6041, FGC6047, FGC6060, FGC6066, FGC6070, FGC6071, FGC6072, FGC6073, FGC6075, FGC6077, FGC6081, FGC6085, FGC6088, FGC6090, FGC6094, FGC6095, FGC6097, FGC6107, FGC6109, FGC6111, FGC6119, FGC6128, FGC6132, FGC6133, FGC6134, FGC6136, FGC6137, FGC6139, FGC6143, FGC6146, FGC6147, FGC6149, FGC6151, FGC6157, FGC6158, FGC6165, FGC6168, FGC6171, FGC6175. Results will go to YFull as soon as we receive the BAM.file. It looks like geneticists are afraid to investigate J1 from Northern Iran and the Caspian Sea. The last article was "Afghan Hindu Kush: Where Eurasian Sub-Continent Gene Flows Converge". Julie Di Cristofaro et al. PLOS. October 2013. Figure S7 . Iran, Gilan - More than 10% of Gilaki, Caspian Sea is J-M267*(xPage08, xDYS388-13). They refused to test M365 there and Nadia Al-Zahery found another type of M365 positive to P58 in the "footprint of the Sumerians" when we know M365 is negative to P58 because now we have three full sequences. That can be an error or a rare recurrent SNP because no other J1 M365 was found in the entire FTDNA database except our J1-M365 group. FTDNA does not recognize M365 as a terminal SNP in the J1 haplotree, I don't know why ? I have found some relatively close STR matches between our Western Iberian and the Gilakis and I think they can be M365 or any basal SNP downstream of FGC6064 or any other basal SNP from our sequence and they have always been there because they were probably born in that region. We need fossils from Northern iran, like Hotu Cave, Belt Cave (Pinhasi - samples) or Northern Iranian sites from the Mesolithic or Paleolithic and we will be surprised ! I think J1-P58 was born around the Armenian Plateau and they only arrived and conquered the Arabian Plate and the Levant after the neolithisation with new types of arid pastoralism. J1 first developed and probably was born North and East of J2, just observe the Caucasian Eastern locations of J1 and I think some basal types of J1 were born close to the Iranian Plateau and the Caspian Sea. Unfortunately we don't have any NGS study about ancient Iranian J1 types because that's a very sensitive issue in the region and can challenge the established Indo-European and Semitic lobbies. Ancient J1 Near Eastern ancestry was different from the one giving rise to early European farmers and that ancient Near Eastern ancestry was present in the Yamnaya admixture from the steppe and came from the ancient Caspian populations of Iranic origin where types of J1 were born. Â Ricardo

Dear Andreas, The answer to your question depends on a number of variables. The longer the HIR in CoA that people are triangulating on the higher the probability that you truly share DNA with the other people in question. This really boils down to the IBS/IBD statistics that we have discussed on this list a number of times previously. As a general rule HIRs over 15 cMs and containing at least 2000 SNPs will be IBD and so any group of people who triangulate on an HIR with these criteria will truly share the DNA segment in question. When people are triangulating on fairly short HIRs such as those with only 5 cMs and 500 SNPs then there is a strong possibility that some of the people in the triangulated group won't actually share DNA with each other, particularly if the group only has 3 or 4 people in it. When in doubt try to use phased data in GEDmatch for the comparisons if that is feasible. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Andreas West via Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 8:10 PM To: jlerch1@lighttube.net Cc: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] value of the present Countries of Ancestry Is it 100% verified that you triangulate with a CoA match if you and another person (so all three of you) match on that same segment? Andreas

It has no value as you will never find out on which chromosome and segment you match. As he/she isn't interested in genealogy. We have to accept that there are lots of people on 23andme that took the test for health concerns only. Also, as much as I love our hobby I also accepted that it's wrong to evangelize everyone how wonderful it is. Some people just don't want and the solution by 23andme is the best IMO. Let them have their peace. Andreas > On 8 Nov 2015, at 03:15, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > John > > You got me. You win! > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Nov 7, 2015, at 2:09 PM, jlerch1 via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> Someone asked so what's not to like about losing all the ANONYMOUS Matches. Well: >> There have been multiple times when I got a match with someone and NO ONE with whom I was Sharing matched that person. So I went to COuntries of Ancestry and Lo and Behold, both of us had 1 or more Anonymous matches with grandparent profiles LIKE >> (Vanuatu, Israel, Latvia, Slovakia). >> Now for those of you not getting it, how likely is that 2 person were to have that profile? So I reported the good news to that person that yes our match was corroborated even though I had no idea with whom. >> Under the new system, those persons are just going to have to be uncorroborated and maybe that person will stop Sharing. And if Jim B is correct that persons might be Anonymous to everyone but those with whom they Share, that person might totally drop off my list and I'll NEVER be able to write to him on 23 again. >> John L >> > > > ------------------------------- > 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 guess I wasn't clear  about the Anonymous persons with whom we match. The corroboration happens because on Countries of Ancestry as presently constructed I and my match who has no other corroboration BOTH MATCH the Anonymous person with supposed grandparent profile (Vanuatu, Israel, Latvia, Slovakia) ==>AT THE SAME SPOT my uncorroborated match and I match> There have been multiple times when I got a match with someone and NO ONE with whom I was Sharing matched that person. So I went to COuntries of Ancestry and Lo and Behold, both of us had 1 or more Anonymous matches with grandparent profiles LIKE >> (Vanuatu, Israel, Latvia, Slovakia). Now for those of you not >> getting it, how likely is that 2 person were to have that profile? >> So I reported the good news to that person that yes our match was >> corroborated even though I had no idea with whom. Under the new >> system, those persons are just going to have to be uncorroborated >> and maybe that person will stop Sharing. And if Jim B is correct >> that persons might be Anonymous to everyone but those with whom they >> Share, that person might totally drop off my list and I'll NEVER be >> able to write to him on 23 again. John L >> > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Get ready for the new 23andMe. Here's how: http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/132772718132/prepare-for-the-new-23andme #genealogy Very Respectfully, Shannon -- Mr. Shannon S. Christmas Chief Market Advisor | Design Strategist The Christmas Collective <http://christmascollective.wix.com/the-christmas-collective> Strategic Real Estate and Land Use Solutions New York, NY | Washington, DC P: 212.433.0586 | 202.618.1687 F: 1.888.788.5984 http://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonchristmas/

List 8 further mtDNA sequneces have appeared on the GenBank database. They all come from FTDNA customers who have made thier own submissions. The sequences belong to Haplogroups: H1-T16189C, H1a, H1g1, H2a2b, H3q, H10e1, H26a1, U5b1 As ususal I have added the sequences to my 'Checker' program to ensusre accuracy of transcription. Ian www.ianlogan.co.uk ------------------- KT952462 FTDNA Haplogroup H26a1 04-NOV-2015 T152C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G C4059T A4769G A8860G A9545G T11152C T13500C G14162A A15326G C15790T T16519C KT956911(France) FTDNA Haplogroup U5b1 04-NOV-2015 A73G C150T A263G 315.1C A750G A1438G A2706G T3197C A4769G A5656G A6126G C7028T A7768G A8860G G9477A A11467G G11719A C12092T A12308G G12372A T13617C T14182C C14766T A15326G A16182- A16183- T16189C 16193.1C 16193.2C C16270T T16519C KT956961 FTDNA Haplogroup H10e1 04-NOV-2015 A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A4769G A8860G T13830C T14470A A15326G T16093C T16124C C16221T T16519C KT956962(Swedish) FTDNA Haplogroup H1a 04-NOV-2015 A73G A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G G3010A A4769G A8537G A8860G T9758C A15326G A16162G T16519C KT956963 FTDNA Haplogroup H2a2b 04-NOV-2015 A263G 309.1C 315.1C C522- A523- A8860G G14384A A15326G A16235G C16291T T16357C KT957320 FTDNA Haplogroup H3q 04-NOV-2015 A263G 315.1C A750G A1438G C3970T A4769G T6221C T6776C A8860G A15326G C16079T C16278T T16519C KT961625 FTDNA Haplogroup H1-T16189C 04-NOV-2015 A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C A750G A1438G G1462A G3010A A4769G A8860G A15326G T16126C T16189C A16293C C16400T T16519C KT961631 FTDNA Haplogroup H1g1 04-NOV-2015 A263G 315.1C A750G A1438G G3010A A4769G T8602C A8860G T14212C A15326G T16092C A16183- T16189C 16193.1C T16519C

That's all well and good; but of all my matches, the only ones who have even as much as my few (2 or 3) 4th cousin paper trails, only have them from far away from Latvia and Lithuania.  So some of us, do what we can. John L On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:21:48 -0600 (CST), Jim Bartlett wrote: John,   I  have found a few cases where I could even devine the name of the Anonymous person on my CoA list. But as a general rule, I don't have time, and don't chase those cases anymore. I have tested at all 3 companies and use GEDmatch to the hilt. I was recently called out for stating that our matches were about doubling each year. So I went back and did the math from date and initial Match numbers at FTDNA and 23andMe, and found the correct doubling delta-t has been 14 months. So, since I now have about 5,000 different Matches (not counting duplicates who tested at more than one company); I am anticipating about 5,000 more Matches 14 months from now - say the end of 2016.  I can barely keep up with the influx now (and I put a lot of hours into trying, every day). This is just getting them into my spreadsheet and determining which TG (maternal or paternal) the shared segments match (or declaring the shared segment as IBS.) I'm writing to most Matches, but am falling behind on my goal of reaching out to every Match. Although only a percentage respond, I do strike up a dialogue with some, and continue to find Common Ancestors which "fit" into my TGs. For me, this is where the biggest payoff comes - communicating with Matches - people who will share and reply. I know there are other avenues and tactics, but I'm focused on a process now to try to get good CA candidates for each TG. I'm aware that I haven't looked under every possible rock. And anyone who has a different system, I wish them well and good luck - this is not sarcasm. We need for a bunch of folks to get to reasonably complete chromosome maps with CAs, so we can get some examples of how they look, and what processes worked.   I was the one who said "what's not to like". I'm eager to get the cap lifted and my Anonymous Matches (each of whom I've invited multiple times) deleted from RDNA.    Jim Bartlett    On 11/07/15, jlerch1 via wrote:  I wasn't picking on you--I don't think it was you who asked what's not to like about losing Anonymous matches.  BTW winning isn't anything.  Unless winning is defined as taking care of all of nature as best as is possible.  And I've got enough fish to fry that I haven't tried hard enough to derail some of the catastrophic changes I foresee in the new 23 system.  On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:15:03 -0500, Jim Bartlett wrote: John You got me. You win! Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 7, 2015, at 2:09 PM, jlerch1 via wrote: > > Someone asked so what's not to like about losing all the ANONYMOUS > Matches. Well: > There have been multiple times when I got a match with someone and NO > ONE with whom I was Sharing matched that person. So I went to > COuntries of Ancestry and Lo and Behold, both of us had 1 or more > Anonymous matches with grandparent profiles LIKE > (Vanuatu, Israel, Latvia, Slovakia). Now for those of you not getting > it, how likely is that 2 person were to have that profile? So I > reported the good news to that person that yes our match was > corroborated even though I had no idea with whom. Under the new > system, those persons are just going to have to be uncorroborated and > maybe that person will stop Sharing. And if Jim B is correct that > persons might be Anonymous to everyone but those with whom they > Share, that person might totally drop off my list and I'll NEVER be > able to write to him on 23 again. John L >

I wasn't picking on you--I don't think it was you who asked what's not to like about losing Anonymous matches.  BTW winning isn't anything.  Unless winning is defined as taking care of all of nature as best as is possible.  And I've got enough fish to fry that I haven't tried hard enough to derail some of the catastrophic changes I foresee in the new 23 system.  On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:15:03 -0500, Jim Bartlett wrote: John You got me. You win! Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 7, 2015, at 2:09 PM, jlerch1 via wrote: > > Someone asked so what's not to like about losing all the ANONYMOUS > Matches. Well: > There have been multiple times when I got a match with someone and NO > ONE with whom I was Sharing matched that person. So I went to > COuntries of Ancestry and Lo and Behold, both of us had 1 or more > Anonymous matches with grandparent profiles LIKE > (Vanuatu, Israel, Latvia, Slovakia). Now for those of you not getting > it, how likely is that 2 person were to have that profile? So I > reported the good news to that person that yes our match was > corroborated even though I had no idea with whom. Under the new > system, those persons are just going to have to be uncorroborated and > maybe that person will stop Sharing. And if Jim B is correct that > persons might be Anonymous to everyone but those with whom they > Share, that person might totally drop off my list and I'll NEVER be > able to write to him on 23 again. John L >

John, I have found a few cases where I could even devine the name of the Anonymous person on my CoA list. But as a general rule, I don't have time, and don't chase those cases anymore. I have tested at all 3 companies and use GEDmatch to the hilt. I was recently called out for stating that our matches were about doubling each year. So I went back and did the math from date and initial Match numbers at FTDNA and 23andMe, and found the correct doubling delta-t has been 14 months. So, since I now have about 5,000 different Matches (not counting duplicates who tested at more than one company); I am anticipating about 5,000 more Matches 14 months from now - say the end of 2016. I can barely keep up with the influx now (and I put a lot of hours into trying, every day). This is just getting them into my spreadsheet and determining which TG (maternal or paternal) the shared segments match (or declaring the shared segment as IBS.) I'm writing to most Matches, but am falling behind on my goal of reaching out to every Match. Although only a percentage respond, I do strike up a dialogue with some, and continue to find Common Ancestors which "fit" into my TGs. For me, this is where the biggest payoff comes - communicating with Matches - people who will share and reply. I know there are other avenues and tactics, but I'm focused on a process now to try to get good CA candidates for each TG. I'm aware that I haven't looked under every possible rock. And anyone who has a different system, I wish them well and good luck - this is not sarcasm. We need for a bunch of folks to get to reasonably complete chromosome maps with CAs, so we can get some examples of how they look, and what processes worked. I was the one who said "what's not to like". I'm eager to get the cap lifted and my Anonymous Matches (each of whom I've invited multiple times) deleted from RDNA. Jim Bartlett On 11/07/15, jlerch1 via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: I wasn't picking on you--I don't think it was you who asked what's not to like about losing Anonymous matches.Ã BTW winning isn't anything.Ã Unless winning is defined as taking care of all of nature as best as is possible.Ã And I've got enough fish to fry that I haven't tried hard enough to derail some of the catastrophic changes I foresee in the new 23 system.Ã On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:15:03 -0500, Jim Bartlett wrote: John You got me. You win! Jim - [1]www.segmentology.org > On Nov 7, 2015, at 2:09 PM, jlerch1 via wrote: > > Someone asked so what's not to like about losing all the ANONYMOUS > Matches. Well: > There have been multiple times when I got a match with someone and NO > ONE with whom I was Sharing matched that person. So I went to > COuntries of Ancestry and Lo and Behold, both of us had 1 or more > Anonymous matches with grandparent profiles LIKE > (Vanuatu, Israel, Latvia, Slovakia). Now for those of you not getting > it, how likely is that 2 person were to have that profile? So I > reported the good news to that person that yes our match was > corroborated even though I had no idea with whom. Under the new > system, those persons are just going to have to be uncorroborated and > maybe that person will stop Sharing. And if Jim B is correct that > persons might be Anonymous to everyone but those with whom they > Share, that person might totally drop off my list and I'll NEVER be > able to write to him on 23 again. John L > References 1. http://www.segmentology.org/