RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 1/1
    1. Re: [DNA] Basic ICW Questions:
    2. Wjhonson via
    3. I think he means if the accounts match, each person is given a unique account id So it's matches those, not the names -----Original Message----- From: Andreas West via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Cc: Jim Leahy <j_leahy01@nc.rr.com> Sent: Tue, Dec 15, 2015 8:24 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Basic ICW Questions: That's kind of surprising, Jim. Do you mean that if you and I match on FTDNA and we both have John Smiths in our matches (albeit different people with that common name) then: - one of them - both of them Would show up as ICW? I can't imagine they go just by name. Here's what I think they do: 1) all matching segments between two people are in a table 2) if you (A) and I (B) have a third person (or more) irregardless of the exact position (as the table only store the status of who matches with whom, not where as where could be more than one record/segment) then it would show this third person as ICW to both of us So it's based on atDNA but it's missing the detailed information needed to do triangulation Andreas > On 15 Dec 2015, at 23:00, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Jim > > The ICW algorithm does not include arDNA. It does not include genealogy. It only matches names between your Match list and someone else's Match list. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Dec 15, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Jim Leahy via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> How does FTDNA determine the ICW status? >> >> In order for FTDNA to calculate the ICW status of an individual there must be an algorithm to evaluate the at-DNA results for that individual against some criteria based on the at-DNA results from the base pair. Has anybody been successful in back-engineering or divining the logic used for this comparison? >> >> A related question; what does the ICW "X status" actually tell us? >> >> I have seen a statement implying that it means that these individuals are "blood relatives". That would be great but seems a little too far reaching. >> >> Puzzled! >> >> Jim >> >> ssage > > > ------------------------------- > 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 ------------------------------- 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

    12/16/2015 07:13:50