Thanks Tim for your success story. I do hope to see the same success rate when people are asked to upload their raw DNA data to our web app for automatic triangulation. The person I'm helping find her BF has way over 1200 shared matches groups. This seems to indicate colonial ancestors with most likely lots of triangulated groups that will have several segments of more than 20cM. Surely it won't be easy to untangle this in her case. I like your advise on concentrating on one segment shared matches groups to make the triangulation easier but then again with it being done automatically there is no more human being slowing the process down. I think we will need to focus on the groups with 2-5 matching segments as well as they will be closer to the current time and with so much endogamy in colonial families I wonder if the common ancestor will be too far back, even with well documented family trees (not to forget the low quality of click together trees that I have already seen). Her case is an unique challenge anyway as from each MRCA we have to go down (!) and build up a tree of descendants to hopefully eventually have TG’s connecting downstream which will be the path to her BF. It’s good to hear that despite the challenges of not having easy access to the detailed data that we need, people do find value in the large number of matches at Ancestry. Thanks for your reply, Andreas > On 28 Sep 2017, at 03:17, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > triangulated

Dear Andreas, It makes sense to concentrate on matches who share the most DNA with you when you are working with someone who has a poorly developed pedigree chart. However, in my case I have all my family lines traced back to 1800 or earlier for my mom's ancestry so focusing on triangulated groups that I can readily sort out with single segment matches at Ancestry.com has proven to have the most value for me. It is generally relatively easy for me to figure out the genealogical connection for people who share more than 2 segments with my mom. My mom fortunately doesn't come from an endogamous ancestral background, which is helpful when working with her triangulated groups. Endogamy definitely complicates things. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas West Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 2:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Thanks Tim for your success story. I do hope to see the same success rate when people are asked to upload their raw DNA data to our web app for automatic triangulation. The person I'm helping find her BF has way over 1200 shared matches groups. This seems to indicate colonial ancestors with most likely lots of triangulated groups that will have several segments of more than 20cM. Surely it won't be easy to untangle this in her case. I like your advise on concentrating on one segment shared matches groups to make the triangulation easier but then again with it being done automatically there is no more human being slowing the process down. Andreas

Andreas, You note the person you are helping has "way over 1200 shared matches groups". Given that she has say 7200 total cM on both sides, that would be an average of 6cM per group. This is way too many if you are equating "shared match groups" to Triangulated Groups, and using a 7cM threshold. Note that a 7cM threshold does not equate to any TG that is 7cM - it usually equates to TGs in the 10cM to 30cM range. My estimate of 400 TGs would result in an average of 18cM per TG - with a wide range. Jim Bartlett [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Tim Janzen <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Sep 28, 2017 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Dear Andreas, It makes sense to concentrate on matches who share the most DNA with you when you are working with someone who has a poorly developed pedigree chart. However, in my case I have all my family lines traced back to 1800 or earlier for my mom's ancestry so focusing on triangulated groups that I can readily sort out with single segment matches at Ancestry.com has proven to have the most value for me. It is generally relatively easy for me to figure out the genealogical connection for people who share more than 2 segments with my mom. My mom fortunately doesn't come from an endogamous ancestral background, which is helpful when working with her triangulated groups. Endogamy definitely complicates things. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas West Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 2:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Thanks Tim for your success story. I do hope to see the same success rate when people are asked to upload their raw DNA data to our web app for automatic triangulation. The person I'm helping find her BF has way over 1200 shared matches groups. This seems to indicate colonial ancestors with most likely lots of triangulated groups that will have several segments of more than 20cM. Surely it won't be easy to untangle this in her case. I like your advise on concentrating on one segment shared matches groups to make the triangulation easier but then again with it being done automatically there is no more human being slowing the process down. Andreas

Andreas I have had remarkable success finding adoptees birth families just using ancestry data with DNAgedcom's GWorks, no segment data required. Here is the methodology http://blog.kittycooper.com/2017/09/solving-unknown-parentage-cases-with-dna/ Kitty On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:57 AM Andreas West <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Tim for your success story. I do hope to see the same success rate > when people are asked to upload their raw DNA data to our web app for > automatic triangulation. > > The person I'm helping find her BF has way over 1200 shared matches > groups. This seems to indicate colonial ancestors with most likely lots of > triangulated groups that will have several segments of more than 20cM. > Surely it won't be easy to untangle this in her case. > > I like your advise on concentrating on one segment shared matches groups > to make the triangulation easier but then again with it being done > automatically there is no more human being slowing the process down. > > I think we will need to focus on the groups with 2-5 matching segments as > well as they will be closer to the current time and with so much endogamy > in colonial families I wonder if the common ancestor will be too far back, > even with well documented family trees (not to forget the low quality of > click together trees that I have already seen). > > Her case is an unique challenge anyway as from each MRCA we have to go > down (!) and build up a tree of descendants to hopefully eventually have > TG’s connecting downstream which will be the path to her BF. > > It’s good to hear that despite the challenges of not having easy access to > the detailed data that we need, people do find value in the large number of > matches at Ancestry. > > > Thanks for your reply, > > Andreas > > > On 28 Sep 2017, at 03:17, Tim Janzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > triangulated > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Kitty Munson Cooper, San Diego,CA genetic genealogy blog at http://blog.kittycooper.com/

I agree with Kitty and most of the Adoption researchers. Finding a birth families is best done through the closest Matches with Trees - found at any/all of the DNA companies. Triangulation is a very labor intensive effort now, and getting to the birth families seems to be much faster with mirror Trees and other methods as outlined by Kitty in her blog. As you get farther out - looking for a birth family beyond the grandparent level, I think the process of mirror Trees, etc. gets harder, and Triangulation may offer some advantages. Jim Bartlett [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Kitty Cooper <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Oct 5, 2017 11:33 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Difficulty understand Ancestry's shared matches Andreas I have had remarkable success finding adoptees birth families just usingancestry data with DNAgedcom's GWorks, no segment data required. Here isthe methodologyhttp://blog.kittycooper.com/2017/09/solving-unknown-parentage-cases-with-dna/KittyOn Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:57 AM Andreas West <[email protected]> wrote:> Thanks Tim for your success story. I do hope to see the same success rate> when people are asked to upload their raw DNA data to our web app for> automatic triangulation.>> The person I'm helping find her BF has way over 1200 shared matches> groups. This seems to indicate colonial ancestors with most likely lots of> triangulated groups that will have several segments of more than 20cM.> Surely it won't be easy to untangle this in her case.>> I like your advise on concentrating on one segment shared matches groups> to make the triangulation easier but then again with it being done> automatically there is no more human being slowing the process down.>> I think we will need to focus on the groups with 2-5 matching segments as> well as they will be closer to the current time and with so much endogamy> in colonial families I wonder if the common ancestor will be too far back,> even with well documented family trees (not to forget the low quality of> click together trees that I have already seen).>> Her case is an unique challenge anyway as from each MRCA we have to go> down (!) and build up a tree of descendants to hopefully eventually have> TG’s connecting downstream which will be the path to her BF.>> It’s good to hear that despite the challenges of not having easy access to> the detailed data that we need, people do find value in the large number of> matches at Ancestry.