The issue you are running into is that when you reduce the criteria for a segment to be reported as a match the likelihood of errors increases. Ftdna uses the most stringent criteria for reporting a match and its length while gedmatch can be the most relaxed. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Fwd: Comparison difference between gedmatch & ftDNA I've had a cousin on ftDNA for a while, but I can't get too excited about tracking down this small a segment: 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 but on gedmatch, even tho the boundaries & SNP count are almost identical, the cMs are much larger: 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 and there's another segment 13 103,165,059 105,554,332 7.1 873 which doesn't show up even as a snippet on ftDNA I know - different companies, different definitions of a match - but that's a large difference on the cM count? BTW - he's a 4C1R ------------------------------- 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

Not sure how that explains the much larger cM count, when the boundaries and SNPs are near identical in the two systems? On 10/23/15 1:05 PM, Robert Paine wrote: > The issue you are running into is that when you reduce the criteria > for a segment to be reported as a match the likelihood of errors > increases. Ftdna uses the most stringent criteria for reporting a > match and its length while gedmatch can be the most relaxed. > > RPaine > > -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Family via > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM FTDNA > 9 131,456,657 137,335,024 8.85 1955 > > > gedmatch near identical boundaries and SNPs, but cMs are much larger: > 9 131,390,868 137,505,316 18.8 1,904 >