I thought Jim's & Robert's explanations were good enough for me, but here's the segment in question again, newly derived this morning: Gedmatch: 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 ftDNA: 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1,955 The relationship is solid. The kit manager had her tree up on ftDNA, and I had already independently worked the relationship to the MRCAs in my tree. 4C1R. On 10/24/15 1:00 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 18:29:14 -0400 > From: David Hamill <dnhamill@aol.com> > Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 576 > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <14F5C288-84FF-4323-8A1D-93B5440D9B43@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I don?t think these results can both be correct. Not just a difference in criteria for a match or strictness of guidelines etc. If they really are reporting these results, I think there is something computationally rotten in Denmark. > > Maybe you could start by just double-checking these numbers.. just to be sure there are no typos etc involved? > > Does anyone else have a segment with about the same start and stop locations? ? if so how many cM? >
Did you check the quality of the kit? The two tools might handle no calls differently. I assume you used the standard settings on GEDmatch with 700 SNP and 7cM, right? I know FTDNA uses a very different criteria than anyone else, looking at total cM as well. Not sure how many mismatches they allow. Does anyone know? If FTDNA doesn't allow any mismatch and GEDmatch allows one in the standard settings that might explain the different size. Andreas > On 24 Oct 2015, at 23:47, Brooks Family via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I thought Jim's & Robert's explanations were good enough for me, but > here's the segment in question again, newly derived this morning: > > Gedmatch: > 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 > > ftDNA: > 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1,955 > > The relationship is solid. The kit manager had her tree up on ftDNA, > and I had already independently worked the relationship to the MRCAs in > my tree. 4C1R. > > >> On 10/24/15 1:00 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 18:29:14 -0400 >> From: David Hamill <dnhamill@aol.com> >> Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 10, Issue 576 >> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Message-ID: <14F5C288-84FF-4323-8A1D-93B5440D9B43@aol.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> I don?t think these results can both be correct. Not just a difference in criteria for a match or strictness of guidelines etc. If they really are reporting these results, I think there is something computationally rotten in Denmark. >> >> Maybe you could start by just double-checking these numbers.. just to be sure there are no typos etc involved? >> >> Does anyone else have a segment with about the same start and stop locations? ? if so how many cM? >> > > > ------------------------------- > 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