You and I are speaking at cross-purposesPedigree triangulation is *only* relevant when there is actually a single shared CA-Couple in all the ancestriesI'm not speaking of that case at all ICW, as used at FTDNA, does not presume that this is the caseIt's only showing you kits that match two other kitsThat does not mean that they all share the same CA-Couple however So it seems then that there are *three* types of shared matches -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:22 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation The companies all do what they want regardless of the community. FTDNA still uses ICW to refer to both shared and ICW matches. The terms have evolved since FTDNA first started using the term ICW CheersRichard Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: Are you saying that when FTDNA uses In Common With that they are NOT following some "official" definition?Because that is not have their ICW works -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:08 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation A match does not have to have a tree to be a shared match or ICW match The official definition for ICW is that the matches match each other (aka are shared) AND have overlapping segments. Shared matches may or may not have shared segments The two methods of working with matches are1) pedigree TriangulationMatches must be shared. They do not have to have overlapping segments 2) segment Triangulation Matches must be shared. They MUST have overlapping segments You can cluster shared matches to help figure out the tree and common ancestors of matches that don’t have a tree. CheersRichard WeissDNAAdoption Team Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: But In Common With is only those who are share matches withIt doesn't look at the segments. In Common With, is the soft triangulation. You can share match with two kits who match each other, on different segments.That's In Common With Also Pedigree can't be right, because in some cases we have no idea what the pedigree is, or who is ca-couples might be -----Original Message----- From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 11:45 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation Proper terms are Segment Triangulation aka your Hard Uses “ICW” Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft Uses “Shared” Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment. In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. > > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community
Two types of matches, not three Shared and ICW What terms the companies use to describe each type of match varies FTDNA uses ICW to cover both types FTDNA does presume DNA shared between ICW matches comes from a common ancestor Two ways to use the matches Pedigree Triangulation Segment Triangulation Both ways assume DNA came from common ancestor Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > You and I are speaking at cross-purposes > Pedigree triangulation is *only* relevant when there is actually a single shared CA-Couple in all the ancestries > I'm not speaking of that case at all > > ICW, as used at FTDNA, does not presume that this is the case > It's only showing you kits that match two other kits > That does not mean that they all share the same CA-Couple however > > So it seems then that there are *three* types of shared matches > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> > To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> > Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:22 pm > Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation > > The companies all do what they want regardless of the community. > > FTDNA still uses ICW to refer to both shared and ICW matches. > > The terms have evolved since FTDNA first started using the term ICW > > Cheers > Richard > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >> >> Are you saying that when FTDNA uses In Common With that they are NOT following some "official" definition? >> Because that is not have their ICW works >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> >> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> >> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 12:08 pm >> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation >> >> A match does not have to have a tree to be a shared match or ICW match >> >> The official definition for ICW is that the matches match each other (aka are shared) AND have overlapping segments. >> >> Shared matches may or may not have shared segments >> >> The two methods of working with matches are >> 1) pedigree Triangulation >> Matches must be shared. They do not have to have overlapping segments >> >> 2) segment Triangulation >> Matches must be shared. They MUST have overlapping segments >> >> You can cluster shared matches to help figure out the tree and common ancestors of matches that don’t have a tree. >> >> Cheers >> Richard Weiss >> DNAAdoption Team >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> But In Common With is only those who are share matches with >>> It doesn't look at the segments. >>> >>> In Common With, is the soft triangulation. You can share match with two kits who match each other, on different segments. >>> That's In Common With >>> >>> >>> Also Pedigree can't be right, because in some cases we have no idea what the pedigree is, or who is ca-couples might be >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> >>> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >>> Cc: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> >>> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2018 11:45 am >>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Triangulation >>> >>> Proper terms are >>> >>> Segment Triangulation aka your Hard >>> Uses “ICW” >>> >>> Pedigree Triangulation aka your Soft >>> Uses “Shared” >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > I wonder if my terminology is correct or I'm treading new territory. >>> > I do "hard" triangulation and "soft" triangulation. >>> > Hard is where three kits are all matching on the *same* segment. In that case, if the CA-couple are known, I can assign that exact segment to that couple. >>> > >>> > Soft is where three kits all match each other pair-wise, just not on the same segment.I cannot assign the segments to the CA-couple because it's *just* possible that there are two or more distinct lines that are causing this triangulation to occur, unrelated to the three-way-shared tree >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >>> > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >>> > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >>> > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >>> > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community