When we triangulate the exome of our "DNA relative" N on our cousins' exomes, we're looking for a match so we can say "aha; now we know via which of our parents we're related to N!" But provided the cousin *does* match us at that same chromosomal address, that comparison can be just as useful in case of a *non*-match. Do we have a name for this kind of match? non-match match opposing match negative match en face match counter-match anti-match My 23andMe sharing management interface still says "1509 outgoing invitations." Just now I did receive a new-format notice of an accepted invitation which is HTML instead of the old-style plaintext notification--but alas it (the notification) still fails to tell me which of my 20+ exomes the invitation was sent from, so I have to continue comparing matches like this to all my genomes to figure it out. Do we know, yet, whether AncestryDNA's new ICW feature means "ICW on the same HIR"? Best, Eric

Eric Be careful with a non-match. It might be a near-match at GEDmatch. A positive (IBD) match is good. But if that doesn't happen, it doesn't necessarily mean the opposite side. Are you talking about Circles or Shared Matches? It's my understanding that SMs are based on DNA (rather than genealogy), and are equivalent to ICW at FTDNA. Since we don't have any chromosome info at AncestryDNA, we cannot assume anything more than ICW. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Nov 12, 2015, at 11:04 PM, Eric S Johnson via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > When we triangulate the exome of our "DNA relative" N on our cousins' > exomes, we're looking for a match so we can say "aha; now we know via which > of our parents we're related to N!" But provided the cousin *does* match us > at that same chromosomal address, that comparison can be just as useful in > case of a *non*-match. Do we have a name for this kind of match? > non-match match > opposing match > negative match > en face match > counter-match > anti-match > > My 23andMe sharing management interface still says "1509 outgoing > invitations." Just now I did receive a new-format notice of an accepted > invitation which is HTML instead of the old-style plaintext > notification--but alas it (the notification) still fails to tell me which of > my 20+ exomes the invitation was sent from, so I have to continue comparing > matches like this to all my genomes to figure it out. > > Do we know, yet, whether AncestryDNA's new ICW feature means "ICW on the > same HIR"? > > Best, > Eric > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

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

Jim, keep us updated on how your work with the (not so) smart matches goes on. No one else is having as many TG's and mapped it's chromosome out like you. So results are easy to check against your huge database of TG's. Andreas (WEST) born BASSO My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) "Jim Bartlett via" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > A better answer to Eric's good questions: > > I don't know of a term for assigning to the other side. Perhaps ABL - > Assigned By Logic - would work. In my case I have TGs covering most of my > DNA, so new Matches almost always match someone in a TG. It is nice, and > reassuring, when segments on one side are confirmed to not match on the other > side - and I look for that test whenever possible. > > I'm pretty sure Ancestry's Smart Matches are NOT Triangulated. > 1. If they were, there would be much more hype by AncestryDNA. > 2. I've gone through my 400 SMs and they don't form TGs. Many of them match > others who are not SMs with each other - a telltale sign that they are NOT > TGs. > 3. However, there may be associations there. I'm now trying to tie my Hints > (spread out to distant cousins) back to 4th cousin SMs). Maybe the Hint CAs > can be teased out of some of my 4C (most w/o hints). But perhaps a long shot > since SMs are not TGs. > > This would be a hard pill for AncestryDNA to swallow. It would taste a lot > like crow, because they have dissed Triangulation. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org