The point is that these are neither shared segments nor are they necessarily shared pedigrees at all They might have a ca and they might not  It’s a third type of matchOr false match if you will Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Friday, December 7, 2018, Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> wrote: As you note in your Example, FTDNA calls them ICW matches. Your example would be called Shared Matches at all the other companies and by the genetic genealogy community. if A, B, and C share the same segments on the same chromosomes, the other companies with a chromosome browser would call them ICW or (Segment) Triangulated matches Ancestry calls all matches Shared matches, doesn’t show segments, and doesn’t use ICW or Triangulated matches FTDNA calls both Shared matches and ICW matches ICW matches. This is unique to FTDNA Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 1:39 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > Kit A and B share a segment on chromosome 9 > Kit B and C share a segment on Chromosome 17 > Kit A and C share a segment on Chromosone 2 > > These kits are ICW.  They all share pair-wise, without sharing three-way-wise. > > FTDNA does *NOT* presume that ICW matches share a common ancestor > It *shows* ICW matches that *you* can determine if they share a common ancestor > The example I gave does *not* mean that all three kits share a common ancestor > > They might, they might not. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> > To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> > Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 1:36 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation > > Two types of matches, not three > Shared and ICW > > What terms the companies use to describe each type of match varies > FTDNA uses ICW to cover both types > FTDNA does presume DNA shared between ICW matches comes from a common ancestor > > Two ways to use the matches > Pedigree Triangulation > Segment Triangulation > Both ways assume DNA came from common ancestor > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >> >> You and I are speaking at cross-purposes >> Pedigree triangulation is *only* relevant when there is actually a single shared CA-Couple in all the ancestries >> I'm not speaking of that case at all >> >> ICW, as used at FTDNA, does not presume that this is the case >> It's only showing you kits that match two other kits >> That does not mean that they all share the same CA-Couple however >> >> So it seems then that there are *three* types of shared matches >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> >> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> >> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:22 pm >> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation >> >> The companies all do what they want regardless of the community. >> >> FTDNA still uses ICW to refer to both shared and ICW matches. >> >> The terms have evolved since FTDNA first started using the term ICW >> >> Cheers >> Richard >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> Are you saying that when FTDNA uses In Common With that they are NOT following some "official" definition? >>> Because that is not have their ICW works >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> >>> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> >>> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >>> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:08 pm >>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation >>> >>> A match does not have to have a tree to be a shared match or ICW match >>> >>> The official definition for ICW is that the matches match each other (aka are shared) AND have overlapping segments. >>> >>> Shared matches may or may not have shared segments >>> >>> The two methods of working with matches are >>> 1) pedigree Triangulation >>> Matches must be shared. They do not have to have overlapping segments >>> >>> 2) segment Triangulation >>> Matches must be shared. They MUST have overlapping segments >>> >>> You can cluster shared matches to help figure out the tree and common ancestors of matches that don’t have a tree. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Richard Weiss >>> DNAAdoption Team >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> But In Common With is only those who are share matches with >>>> It doesn't look at the segments. >>>> >>>> In Common With, is the soft triangulation.  You can share match with two kits who match each other, on different segments. >>>> That's In Common With >>>> >>>> >>>> Also Pedigree can't be right, because in some cases we have no idea what the pedigree is, or who is ca-couples might be >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> >>>> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >>>> Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> >>>> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 11:45 am >>>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation >>>> >>>> Proper terms are >>>> >>>> Segment Triangulation aka your Hard >>>> Uses “ICW” >>>> >>>> Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft >>>> Uses “Shared” >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. >>>> > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. >>>> > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment.  In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. >>>> > >>>> > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >>>> > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >>>> > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >>>> > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >>>> > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

As you note in your Example, FTDNA calls them ICW matches. Your example would be called Shared Matches at all the other companies and by the genetic genealogy community. if A, B, and C share the same segments on the same chromosomes, the other companies with a chromosome browser would call them ICW or (Segment) Triangulated matches Ancestry calls all matches Shared matches, doesn’t show segments, and doesn’t use ICW or Triangulated matches FTDNA calls both Shared matches and ICW matches ICW matches. This is unique to FTDNA Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 1:39 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > Kit A and B share a segment on chromosome 9 > Kit B and C share a segment on Chromosome 17 > Kit A and C share a segment on Chromosone 2 > > These kits are ICW. They all share pair-wise, without sharing three-way-wise. > > FTDNA does *NOT* presume that ICW matches share a common ancestor > It *shows* ICW matches that *you* can determine if they share a common ancestor > The example I gave does *not* mean that all three kits share a common ancestor > > They might, they might not. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> > To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> > Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 1:36 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation > > Two types of matches, not three > Shared and ICW > > What terms the companies use to describe each type of match varies > FTDNA uses ICW to cover both types > FTDNA does presume DNA shared between ICW matches comes from a common ancestor > > Two ways to use the matches > Pedigree Triangulation > Segment Triangulation > Both ways assume DNA came from common ancestor > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >> >> You and I are speaking at cross-purposes >> Pedigree triangulation is *only* relevant when there is actually a single shared CA-Couple in all the ancestries >> I'm not speaking of that case at all >> >> ICW, as used at FTDNA, does not presume that this is the case >> It's only showing you kits that match two other kits >> That does not mean that they all share the same CA-Couple however >> >> So it seems then that there are *three* types of shared matches >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> >> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> >> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:22 pm >> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation >> >> The companies all do what they want regardless of the community. >> >> FTDNA still uses ICW to refer to both shared and ICW matches. >> >> The terms have evolved since FTDNA first started using the term ICW >> >> Cheers >> Richard >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> Are you saying that when FTDNA uses In Common With that they are NOT following some "official" definition? >>> Because that is not have their ICW works >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> >>> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> >>> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >>> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:08 pm >>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation >>> >>> A match does not have to have a tree to be a shared match or ICW match >>> >>> The official definition for ICW is that the matches match each other (aka are shared) AND have overlapping segments. >>> >>> Shared matches may or may not have shared segments >>> >>> The two methods of working with matches are >>> 1) pedigree Triangulation >>> Matches must be shared. They do not have to have overlapping segments >>> >>> 2) segment Triangulation >>> Matches must be shared. They MUST have overlapping segments >>> >>> You can cluster shared matches to help figure out the tree and common ancestors of matches that don’t have a tree. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Richard Weiss >>> DNAAdoption Team >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> But In Common With is only those who are share matches with >>>> It doesn't look at the segments. >>>> >>>> In Common With, is the soft triangulation. You can share match with two kits who match each other, on different segments. >>>> That's In Common With >>>> >>>> >>>> Also Pedigree can't be right, because in some cases we have no idea what the pedigree is, or who is ca-couples might be >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> >>>> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >>>> Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> >>>> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 11:45 am >>>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation >>>> >>>> Proper terms are >>>> >>>> Segment Triangulation aka your Hard >>>> Uses “ICW” >>>> >>>> Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft >>>> Uses “Shared” >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. >>>> > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. >>>> > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment. In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. >>>> > >>>> > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >>>> > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >>>> > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >>>> > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >>>> > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

I'm getting closer to having a fully properly phased FamilyFinder file of myself. I realized that the best way to upload this is as a file with two real, phased, people as the two chromosomes. One file has my paternal half as one, and another phased person as the othe one. The other file has my maternal half and the exact same set of chromosomes as tghe other half. I could of course and its trivial, use HUGO. But "he"d likely match people similar to me. Better to have a highly different person .. Chinese, sub--Saharan, or Native American. I need to find a phased Family Finder file. I have lots of phased old HGDP files that I can use. BUT ... they have strand errors so I can't use them. I went looking on the web for suitable files. E.G. 1000 genomes. But I find nothing described as phased and Build 37. There has to be a suitable file out there somewhere! I have lots of real Family Finder files of people who are half Chinese-half Afro, or half Euro-half Afro and my own phaser does those wonderfully .... but they are no usable due of course to the privacy of the owners. Anybody know where? Doug McDonald

I joined The FT DNA group for the Davis surname, which this match was researching and then the mail icon worked. I had talked w/ the group moderator first just trying to figure out what was going on (it proved a hypothetical adoption in my line) and they told me once I joined that group I’d be able to contact the person, and it worked. I assumed it was some sort of privacy setting. But beyond that I don’t know. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 3:10 PM, Rhonda Flowers <rwflowers@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > It is interesting that this topic should appear at this time. I am receiving > more and more matches on FTDNA that don't have the email icon activated. At > least 5 this week. > > Is this happening to others as well? > > Laura what did you mean "joined the family group"? Did you mean you added > them into your family tree on DNA? You would have to know the relationaship > to do that! > Cheers > Rhonda > > -----Original Message----- > From: Laura Stewart <laurasgenealogy@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, 7 December 2018 11:34 PM > To: joanklince@earthlink.net; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DNA] Re: E-mail icon not activated for Family Finder match > > I have had this in the past and when I joined the family group the person > was in, the email icon came back for that person. *Shrug* > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Joan Lince <joanklince@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> The person who has a match with you either has no email address or has >> not given FTDNA permission to post it. And FTDNA doesn't have a >> messaging system. Even if they did, and you were to send your match a >> message, there's no guarantee that they would answer you. If this >> person is a close match, you might get in touch with FTDNA Support to >> see if they have a way to help you. But they surely are committed to >> protecting people's privacy if asked to. >> >> Joan >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: T/S Howle [mailto:thomaschowle@bellsouth.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 11:42 AM >> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [DNA] E-mail icon not activated for Family Finder match >> >> I have a Family Finder match with someone whose e-mail icon is not >> activated and, therefore, I can't make contact with him. What causes >> this and how is it corrected? >> >> Thanks, Tom >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe >> https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: >> https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal >> RootsWeb community >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe >> https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: >> https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal >> RootsWeb community > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is > funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Kit A and B share a segment on chromosome 9Kit B and C share a segment on Chromosome 17Kit A and C share a segment on Chromosone 2 These kits are ICW.  They all share pair-wise, without sharing three-way-wise. FTDNA does *NOT* presume that ICW matches share a common ancestorIt *shows* ICW matches that *you* can determine if they share a common ancestorThe example I gave does *not* mean that all three kits share a common ancestor They might, they might not. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 1:36 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation Two types of matches, not threeShared and ICW What terms the companies use to describe each type of match variesFTDNA uses ICW to cover both typesFTDNA does presume DNA shared between ICW matches comes from a common ancestor Two ways to use the matchesPedigree TriangulationSegment Triangulation Both ways assume DNA came from common ancestor Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: You and I are speaking at cross-purposesPedigree triangulation is *only* relevant when there is actually a single shared CA-Couple in all the ancestriesI'm not speaking of that case at all ICW, as used at FTDNA, does not presume that this is the caseIt's only showing you kits that match two other kitsThat does not mean that they all share the same CA-Couple however So it seems then that there are *three* types of shared matches -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:22 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation The companies all do what they want regardless of the community. FTDNA still uses ICW to refer to both shared and ICW matches.  The terms have evolved since FTDNA first started using the term ICW CheersRichard Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: Are you saying that when FTDNA uses In Common With that they are NOT following some "official" definition?Because that is not have their ICW works -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:08 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation A match does not have to have a tree to be a shared match or ICW match The official definition for ICW is that the matches match each other (aka are shared) AND have overlapping segments. Shared matches may or may not have shared segments The two methods of working with matches are1) pedigree TriangulationMatches must be shared. They do not have to have overlapping segments 2) segment Triangulation Matches must be shared. They MUST have overlapping segments You can cluster shared matches to help figure out the tree and common ancestors of matches that don’t have a tree. CheersRichard WeissDNAAdoption Team Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: But In Common With is only those who are share matches withIt doesn't look at the segments. In Common With, is the soft triangulation.  You can share match with two kits who match each other, on different segments.That's In Common With Also Pedigree can't be right, because in some cases we have no idea what the pedigree is, or who is ca-couples might be -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 11:45 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation Proper terms are Segment Triangulation aka your Hard Uses “ICW” Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft Uses “Shared” Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment.  In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. > > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Two types of matches, not three Shared and ICW What terms the companies use to describe each type of match varies FTDNA uses ICW to cover both types FTDNA does presume DNA shared between ICW matches comes from a common ancestor Two ways to use the matches Pedigree Triangulation Segment Triangulation Both ways assume DNA came from common ancestor Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > You and I are speaking at cross-purposes > Pedigree triangulation is *only* relevant when there is actually a single shared CA-Couple in all the ancestries > I'm not speaking of that case at all > > ICW, as used at FTDNA, does not presume that this is the case > It's only showing you kits that match two other kits > That does not mean that they all share the same CA-Couple however > > So it seems then that there are *three* types of shared matches > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> > To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> > Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:22 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation > > The companies all do what they want regardless of the community. > > FTDNA still uses ICW to refer to both shared and ICW matches. > > The terms have evolved since FTDNA first started using the term ICW > > Cheers > Richard > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >> >> Are you saying that when FTDNA uses In Common With that they are NOT following some "official" definition? >> Because that is not have their ICW works >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> >> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> >> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:08 pm >> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation >> >> A match does not have to have a tree to be a shared match or ICW match >> >> The official definition for ICW is that the matches match each other (aka are shared) AND have overlapping segments. >> >> Shared matches may or may not have shared segments >> >> The two methods of working with matches are >> 1) pedigree Triangulation >> Matches must be shared. They do not have to have overlapping segments >> >> 2) segment Triangulation >> Matches must be shared. They MUST have overlapping segments >> >> You can cluster shared matches to help figure out the tree and common ancestors of matches that don’t have a tree. >> >> Cheers >> Richard Weiss >> DNAAdoption Team >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> But In Common With is only those who are share matches with >>> It doesn't look at the segments. >>> >>> In Common With, is the soft triangulation. You can share match with two kits who match each other, on different segments. >>> That's In Common With >>> >>> >>> Also Pedigree can't be right, because in some cases we have no idea what the pedigree is, or who is ca-couples might be >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> >>> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >>> Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> >>> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 11:45 am >>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation >>> >>> Proper terms are >>> >>> Segment Triangulation aka your Hard >>> Uses “ICW” >>> >>> Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft >>> Uses “Shared” >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. >>> > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. >>> > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment. In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. >>> > >>> > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >>> > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >>> > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >>> > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >>> > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

It is interesting that this topic should appear at this time. I am receiving more and more matches on FTDNA that don't have the email icon activated. At least 5 this week. Is this happening to others as well? Laura what did you mean "joined the family group"? Did you mean you added them into your family tree on DNA? You would have to know the relationaship to do that! Cheers Rhonda -----Original Message----- From: Laura Stewart <laurasgenealogy@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, 7 December 2018 11:34 PM To: joanklince@earthlink.net; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: E-mail icon not activated for Family Finder match I have had this in the past and when I joined the family group the person was in, the email icon came back for that person. *Shrug* Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Joan Lince <joanklince@earthlink.net> wrote: > > The person who has a match with you either has no email address or has > not given FTDNA permission to post it. And FTDNA doesn't have a > messaging system. Even if they did, and you were to send your match a > message, there's no guarantee that they would answer you. If this > person is a close match, you might get in touch with FTDNA Support to > see if they have a way to help you. But they surely are committed to > protecting people's privacy if asked to. > > Joan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: T/S Howle [mailto:thomaschowle@bellsouth.net] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 11:42 AM > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DNA] E-mail icon not activated for Family Finder match > > I have a Family Finder match with someone whose e-mail icon is not > activated and, therefore, I can't make contact with him. What causes > this and how is it corrected? > > Thanks, Tom > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal > RootsWeb community > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal > RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

You and I are speaking at cross-purposesPedigree triangulation is *only* relevant when there is actually a single shared CA-Couple in all the ancestriesI'm not speaking of that case at all ICW, as used at FTDNA, does not presume that this is the caseIt's only showing you kits that match two other kitsThat does not mean that they all share the same CA-Couple however So it seems then that there are *three* types of shared matches -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:22 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation The companies all do what they want regardless of the community. FTDNA still uses ICW to refer to both shared and ICW matches.  The terms have evolved since FTDNA first started using the term ICW CheersRichard Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: Are you saying that when FTDNA uses In Common With that they are NOT following some "official" definition?Because that is not have their ICW works -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:08 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation A match does not have to have a tree to be a shared match or ICW match The official definition for ICW is that the matches match each other (aka are shared) AND have overlapping segments. Shared matches may or may not have shared segments The two methods of working with matches are1) pedigree TriangulationMatches must be shared. They do not have to have overlapping segments 2) segment Triangulation Matches must be shared. They MUST have overlapping segments You can cluster shared matches to help figure out the tree and common ancestors of matches that don’t have a tree. CheersRichard WeissDNAAdoption Team Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: But In Common With is only those who are share matches withIt doesn't look at the segments. In Common With, is the soft triangulation.  You can share match with two kits who match each other, on different segments.That's In Common With Also Pedigree can't be right, because in some cases we have no idea what the pedigree is, or who is ca-couples might be -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 11:45 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation Proper terms are Segment Triangulation aka your Hard Uses “ICW” Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft Uses “Shared” Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment.  In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. > > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

The companies all do what they want regardless of the community. FTDNA still uses ICW to refer to both shared and ICW matches. The terms have evolved since FTDNA first started using the term ICW Cheers Richard Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > Are you saying that when FTDNA uses In Common With that they are NOT following some "official" definition? > Because that is not have their ICW works > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> > To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> > Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:08 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation > > A match does not have to have a tree to be a shared match or ICW match > > The official definition for ICW is that the matches match each other (aka are shared) AND have overlapping segments. > > Shared matches may or may not have shared segments > > The two methods of working with matches are > 1) pedigree Triangulation > Matches must be shared. They do not have to have overlapping segments > > 2) segment Triangulation > Matches must be shared. They MUST have overlapping segments > > You can cluster shared matches to help figure out the tree and common ancestors of matches that don’t have a tree. > > Cheers > Richard Weiss > DNAAdoption Team > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >> >> But In Common With is only those who are share matches with >> It doesn't look at the segments. >> >> In Common With, is the soft triangulation. You can share match with two kits who match each other, on different segments. >> That's In Common With >> >> >> Also Pedigree can't be right, because in some cases we have no idea what the pedigree is, or who is ca-couples might be >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> >> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> >> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 11:45 am >> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation >> >> Proper terms are >> >> Segment Triangulation aka your Hard >> Uses “ICW” >> >> Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft >> Uses “Shared” >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> > >> > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. >> > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. >> > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment. In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. >> > >> > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >> > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >> > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >> > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Are you saying that when FTDNA uses In Common With that they are NOT following some "official" definition?Because that is not have their ICW works -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:08 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation A match does not have to have a tree to be a shared match or ICW match The official definition for ICW is that the matches match each other (aka are shared) AND have overlapping segments. Shared matches may or may not have shared segments The two methods of working with matches are1) pedigree TriangulationMatches must be shared. They do not have to have overlapping segments 2) segment Triangulation Matches must be shared. They MUST have overlapping segments You can cluster shared matches to help figure out the tree and common ancestors of matches that don’t have a tree. CheersRichard WeissDNAAdoption Team Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: But In Common With is only those who are share matches withIt doesn't look at the segments. In Common With, is the soft triangulation.  You can share match with two kits who match each other, on different segments.That's In Common With Also Pedigree can't be right, because in some cases we have no idea what the pedigree is, or who is ca-couples might be -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 11:45 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation Proper terms are Segment Triangulation aka your Hard Uses “ICW” Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft Uses “Shared” Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment.  In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. > > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

A match does not have to have a tree to be a shared match or ICW match The official definition for ICW is that the matches match each other (aka are shared) AND have overlapping segments. Shared matches may or may not have shared segments The two methods of working with matches are 1) pedigree Triangulation Matches must be shared. They do not have to have overlapping segments 2) segment Triangulation Matches must be shared. They MUST have overlapping segments You can cluster shared matches to help figure out the tree and common ancestors of matches that don’t have a tree. Cheers Richard Weiss DNAAdoption Team Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > But In Common With is only those who are share matches with > It doesn't look at the segments. > > In Common With, is the soft triangulation. You can share match with two kits who match each other, on different segments. > That's In Common With > > > Also Pedigree can't be right, because in some cases we have no idea what the pedigree is, or who is ca-couples might be > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> > To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> > Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 11:45 am > Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation > > Proper terms are > > Segment Triangulation aka your Hard > Uses “ICW” > > Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft > Uses “Shared” > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. > > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. > > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment. In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. > > > > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

But In Common With is only those who are share matches withIt doesn't look at the segments. In Common With, is the soft triangulation.  You can share match with two kits who match each other, on different segments.That's In Common With Also Pedigree can't be right, because in some cases we have no idea what the pedigree is, or who is ca-couples might be -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 11:45 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation Proper terms are Segment Triangulation aka your Hard Uses “ICW” Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft Uses “Shared” Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment.  In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. > > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Proper terms are Segment Triangulation aka your Hard Uses “ICW” Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft Uses “Shared” Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment. In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. > > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment.  In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree

I have had this in the past and when I joined the family group the person was in, the email icon came back for that person. *Shrug* Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 4, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Joan Lince <joanklince@earthlink.net> wrote: > > The person who has a match with you either has no email address or has not > given FTDNA permission to post it. And FTDNA doesn't have a messaging > system. Even if they did, and you were to send your match a message, there's > no guarantee that they would answer you. If this person is a close match, > you might get in touch with FTDNA Support to see if they have a way to help > you. But they surely are committed to protecting people's privacy if asked > to. > > Joan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: T/S Howle [mailto:thomaschowle@bellsouth.net] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 11:42 AM > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DNA] E-mail icon not activated for Family Finder match > > I have a Family Finder match with someone whose e-mail icon is not activated > and, therefore, I can't make contact with him. What causes this and how is > it corrected? > > Thanks, Tom > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi Doug, RE:  > "How small a block should I trust," You should trust down to 1 cM, if you have an interest in delineating a comparison to separate haplotype groups. I would say forget what you have been told about HIR less than 7 cMs, and remember what you know about Y-DNA - that SNPs want to hang around forever. That means HIRs also want to hang around forever. My thoughts are that the segments under 7 cMs tell us most of what we need to know about distant relationships. You should concentrate on segments less than 7 cMs. RE:  > "This is because the "other person" would have some markers that are homozygous and don't match the  same side as the supposedly matching side of me." I think the normal amount of recombination is in the 8% range. Other than recombination, if you are looking at inherited segments that are ancient, then you should expect to see some strange stuff. So, I would also advise that you forget about what you have been told about cMs and segment age. That only works for the closest relationships, more like a side effect of what is actually going on.  - Dave Hamm RE: On 12/3/2018 1:45 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 17:46:35 +0000 > From: "McDonald, J Douglas" <jdmcdona@illinois.edu> > Subject: [DNA] HIR size and physical phasing, probability of reality > To: "genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <DM6PR11MB3097A06605A0160474A74333BFAE0@DM6PR11MB3097.namp > rd11.prod.outlook.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I have a question. Its usually said that a HIR smaller than say 7 cM is frequently not really from > shared descent. > > I presume this means that just by accident its half identical ... and that if we actually had truely > phased (from a physical measurement, which I have of myself) data of one person we could be > surer of a real match with the other person. This is because the "other person" would have > some markers that are homozygous and don't match the same side as the supposedly matching > side of me. I'm sorry if this is unclear, but that's the best I can say it. > > If indeed this is the case, then smaller segments should be "real". This is important since I > don't have parents available to "genealogically" phase me, and have to use not coly close > cousins but some more distant ones. How small a block should I trust, given that a different LARGE > block on the other person has a known, triangulated relation to me, has the same relation to me? > > > Doug McDonald --

The person who has a match with you either has no email address or has not given FTDNA permission to post it. And FTDNA doesn't have a messaging system. Even if they did, and you were to send your match a message, there's no guarantee that they would answer you. If this person is a close match, you might get in touch with FTDNA Support to see if they have a way to help you. But they surely are committed to protecting people's privacy if asked to. Joan -----Original Message----- From: T/S Howle [mailto:thomaschowle@bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 11:42 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] E-mail icon not activated for Family Finder match I have a Family Finder match with someone whose e-mail icon is not activated and, therefore, I can't make contact with him. What causes this and how is it corrected? Thanks, Tom _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 20:01:15 +0000 (UTC) > From: Wesley Johnston <wwjohnston01@yahoo.com> > Subject: [DNA] FTDNA Y-STR vs Big Y-500 Genetic Distance differences > To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <611245829.1124450.1543867275239@mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > There must be some explanation somewhere on the FTDNA web site to explain this, but I cannot find it if there is one. > The new format of Y-DNA matches includes a new column "Big Y-500 STR Differences" which is thus a genetic distance column. > I clearly do not understand how best to interpret and use the Big Y-500 information. Comparing the prior and new genetic distance columns, some things do not make sense, which almost certainly means that my understanding of the Big Y-500 is flawed. > 1 - Some Y-111 matches have a genetic distance that that is greater than the Big Y-500 difference. For example, one matching kit has a Y-111 genetic distance of 6, but a Big Y-500 of "1 of 442". And another is Y-111 at 5 and Big Y-500 at "2 of 437". I had thought that the Big Y-500 STRs included those in the Y-111 plus some more. If that were the case, then the Y-111 genetic distance would always be less than or equal to the number of differences in the Big Y-500. But clearly that is not the case. So what is the relationship of the STRs in the Y-111 test to those in the Big Y-500 STR results? > 2 - The other thing that sticks out very noticably is that the closeness of matches at Y-111 genetic distance is sometimes the exact opposite of the number of Bug Y-500 differences. For example, three kits match at a Y-111 genetic distance of 3 (call it Kit A), 5 (B) and (6). But in the Big Y-500 STR differences, they are 5 (A), 2 (B) and 1 (C). How should I interpret and use this significant difference in order? And which order is the "real" order"? > The first number is genetic distance. But this is "Infinite Alleles" genetic distance where any change of a marker value counts as only one mutation (multi-step mutations count only as one mutation). Any small twist, Y500 has a lot of no-calls. This genetic distance is only for markers that are called by both testers that are being compared with each other (no calls of either tester remove the YSTR from the analysis). The second higher number is a form of testing resolution. It is the number of called mutations that are shared. So if two testers both have few no calls - the number will be higher and resolution will slightly higher. This would result in slightly higher accuracy due to a higher sample size. Also, if real low, some key mutations could be missing and manual inspection may reveal that key markers are missing in the comparison.

I have a Family Finder match with someone whose e-mail icon is not activated and, therefore, I can't make contact with him. What causes this and how is it corrected? Thanks, Tom

I believe he was convicted of murder or something similar. The only evidence against him was the "10% DNA" evidence. The jury that convicted him must have believed that the DNA evidence was conclusive proof/ On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 8:34 AM Patty Drabing searchangelpatty@gmail.com [DNA-NEWBIE] <DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > > What were the charges he was convicted of? > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:14 AM Judith jbramlage@cox.net [DNA-NEWBIE] < > DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Our public prosecutors are so ridiculous here in Florida. I know of >> another case where a man is in jail for firing a gun into the ceiling of a >> bar— no previous runs in with the law. And because he is an ideal prisoner, >> the prison system doesn’t want to put him up for parole, after all they >> would lose the income for his keep and labor. And none of his friends or >> family can afford a real lawyer. >> >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Sam Sloan samhsloan@gmail.com [DNA-NEWBIE] < >> DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> Right. They did not have autosomal DNA or Gedmatch back in 1990. They had >> very primitive DNA testing back then by today's standards.. Also, the >> prosecutors statement about 10% DNA was ridiculous.. >> Still the man was convicted and is in jail. You can look him up.. >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 9:13 AM Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> But again I’m speaking of autosomal dna and gedmatch >>> >>> This case is neither >>> >>> Sent from AOL Mobile Mail >>> Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com <http://mail.mobile..aol.com/> >>> >>> On Friday, November 30, 2018, Sam Sloan <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I knew of an especially bad case of wrongful conviction due to DNA >>> evidence. He was named Willie Moore. He was serving a life sentence for >>> murder in Powhatan State Farm Prison in Virginia. This happened in 1990 in >>> Petersburg Virginia. The prosecuting Commonwealth Attorney was Casandra >>> Byrnes. The murder victim was an elderly man who dealt in counterfeit >>> cigarettes. Counterfeit cigarettes may be cigarettes in which the Virginia >>> State Tobacco tax has not been paid. I believe the murder victim was going >>> to North Carolina where the tax was less. He stayed up all night selling >>> cigarettes and slept all day. The evidence produced in court showed that >>> the saliva on one of the cigarettes found at the crime scene showed that it >>> had DNA characteristics of less than 10% of the Black population. There was >>> no doubt that Willie Moore had visited the crime victim in the night of the >>> murder but he was just one of the many customers. Willie Moore was an >>> absolute schizophrenic who used to yell and scream all day and all night >>> long in his prison cell and he probably did yell “Yess I killt the mother” >>> or words to that effect. I filed a habeas corpus petition for him but I >>> knew he had no chance because those petitions are never granted in >>> Virginia. He is probably still in prison 28 years later. >>> Sam Sloan >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > Patty Drabing > President > http://dnaadoption.com > Gedmatch M153553 > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: Patty Drabing <searchangelpatty@gmail.com> > ------------------------------ > Reply via web post > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DNA-NEWBIE/conversations/messages/59987;_ylc=X3oDMTJybjVuNTBmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1Nzc1NzY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTY5MDkzMgRtc2dJZAM1OTk4NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE1NDM5MzAzNDk-?act=reply&messageNum=59987> > • Reply to sender > <searchangelpatty@gmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BDNA-NEWBIE%5D%20Re%3A%20A%20Wrongful%20Conviction%20Due%20to%20DNA%20%22Evidence%22%20Willie%20Moore> > • Reply to group > <DNA-NEWBIE@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BDNA-NEWBIE%5D%20Re%3A%20A%20Wrongful%20Conviction%20Due%20to%20DNA%20%22Evidence%22%20Willie%20Moore> > • Start a New Topic > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DNA-NEWBIE/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOHJrN3F0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1Nzc1NzY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTY5MDkzMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE1NDM5MzAzNDk-> > • Messages in this topic > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DNA-NEWBIE/conversations/topics/59969;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ajNnN2hvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1Nzc1NzY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTY5MDkzMgRtc2dJZAM1OTk4NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE1NDM5MzAzNDkEdHBjSWQDNTk5Njk-> > (3) > ------------------------------ > Have you tried the highest rated email app? <https://yho.com/1wwmgg> > With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email > app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your > inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email > again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. > ------------------------------ > Follow ISOGG on Twitter for the latest DNA news: > > http://twitter.com/isogg > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DNA-NEWBIE/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNzg2Z2tjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1Nzc1NzY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTY5MDkzMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE1NDM5MzAzNDk-> > > - New Members > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DNA-NEWBIE/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbm4wcGhnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1Nzc1NzY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTY5MDkzMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxNTQzOTMwMzQ5> > 5 > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJldTExMjZkBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE1Nzc1NzY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTY5MDkzMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTU0MzkzMDM0OQ--> > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <DNA-NEWBIE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > • Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > SPONSORED LINKS > . > > __,_._,___ >