Eric Shared matches can still be valuable clues, not just as definite about where the shared ancestry is as a TG. I have many tested cousins of assorted flavours, and as expected, not all of us match our (now) known "cousins" at the same spots but we do share a lot of ancestors and have expanded our trees, demolished brickwalls, regardless. Yes I really like having a TG to fully confirm the DNA and tree but shared matches with trees to compare that also connect aren't just "chaff". If one of the "chaff" matches showed up with a tree attached and a known relative in it, you wouldn't be ignoring them, they might be the clue to what happened to great uncle Harry when he disappeared from xyz. it would be better if the Relatives in Common had some sorting/filtering  options though, I do agree. Lorna Henderson http://LornaHen.com On 27/11/17 13:37, Eric S Johnson wrote: > So I can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something: 23andMe's "new > experience" provides, at the bottom of a match page's left-hand pane, > "relatives in common." As I understand it, anyone for whom "yes" is marked > is part of a "triangulated group" consisting of "me," my 23andMe "DNA > cousin," and all the other "yes"-marked folks in this RiC list. Correct? > > > > So, why does this list include anyone marked as "no"? Aren't those "no"s > just chaff? In which case, why's 23andMe include them (thus forcing us to > click through page after page of RiCs in order to find the few "yes"s)? > > > > Best, > > Eric > > > ------------------------------- > 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