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/

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 >