RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: melba_schmelba on Wednesday 06 March 19 12:50 GMT (UK)
-
Following on from my obscurely titled thread, I thought I'd make a clearer one in the hope someone can answer this. Yesterday I came across this example, that challenged my belief, that all shared matches shared between two users, MUST share some DNA.
"I have Andrew P. who matches me on 2 segments at 31 centimorgans. He shows 4 shared matches between me and him, 3 on one segment A B C and 1 on two segments, D. But if I click through to A and B, they have a HUGE number of shared matches, including Andrew P, with one, two or three segment matches. But why were these HUGE number of shared matches also not showing on Andrew P's shared matches?"
The only way I can explain it, is imagining it this way-
I share segments with Andrew P on chromosome 1 between 30 and 45, and chromosome 4 between 55 and 71. But with user 'A' and 'B' I share segments on chromosome 1 between 39 and 59, and all of the other shared matches with A and B share segments with me on chromosome 1 between 46 and 76, so they match A and B, but they don't match Andrew. So Andrew is on A and B's shared match lists with me, but he shares no segments with most of the other shared matches?
Presumably this is the reason why people would like a chromosome browser so they can see exactly what is going on with Ancestry matches and see which shared matches do actually share segments and which don't.
-
"Shared Matches" on Ancestry won't show any names with less than 20cm DNA in common with you or him.
He probably shares less than 20 with those people
-
"Shared Matches" on Ancestry won't show any names with less than 20cm DNA in common with you or him.
He probably shares less than 20 with those people
Hi Confused. Thanks for your input. But what determines whether someone shows on a shared match list is their total centimorgan connection to YOU being over 20 centimorgans, their link to the other user you are looking at the shared matches of may be as low as 6 centimorgans on one segment. So if these other people on my shared matches with A & B did actually match Andrew P at all they would be listed on my shared matches with him.
I am now fairly certain that the overlapping segment situation is the only logical explanation for this example.
-
Actually now I’m not sure at all ;D. Taking the fact that what is displayed regarding centimorgans and segments in shared match lists relates to US and not to the person we are sharing matches with - in the above example, it may well be that many of the shared matches between me and A or B share multiple segments with A and B but only one with me. So I had falsely assumed that the people showing one segment on the shared match lists with A and B should match Andrew P when that is not the case because we simply do not know the amount of segments or centimorgans shared between our shared matches, only from each user to us.
So overlapping segments is not required for the above example, just different segments matching different people, but we can’t see the detail of that because Ancestry does not have a chromosome browser .
-
My head hurts, just thinking about this! I was actually about to ask a similar sort of question, but at a lower complexity level, but now I think I'll let things settle, and come back to it in a day or two!! ??? ???
Janex
-
My head hurts, just thinking about this! I was actually about to ask a similar sort of question, but at a lower complexity level, but now I think I'll let things settle, and come back to it in a day or two!! ??? ???
Janex
Hi Jane ;D. I think my confusion had all come from the wrong assumption that when you look at shared matches and it says
Shared DNA: x cM across y segments
I had assumed it meant - share between me, the match A at the top and that person B. But it doesn't. It just means how much I share with that one person B, it has nothing to do with how much I match the match A or how much that match A matches this other person B in the shared match list. So I well match to match A at only one segment. But person B might match them at 5 segments, we have no way of knowing, unless we ask match A to check, or we are the manager of match A's DNA account.
-
I think that for me the problem, is that, as a child you learned something over time, starting with the basics, slowly learning the ever more complicated details, constantly reinforcing the correct information, as you go on. It's like when I learned French, I must have studied it, on and off for about 12 years, and though I never use it, and am now 44 years post school, I can still pick up a book, or magazine and make some sense of it, though my memory of vocabulary is poor!!
In Genetic Genealogy, there is no 'gg for dummies' - you jump right in, reading about highly complicated topics and principles, and you do understand - but someone ask you about a closely related topic, and you realise how narrow your area of understanding is! I am forever suddenly questioning myself, re my understanding of bits of information, that I assumed were right, but - well maybe not!!
Anyway, that's enough of my 'mature woman's confidence issues'!! On to this specific subject!
So, the basics, as you say are that you share, say 100 cM , over say 9 segments. Depending on the company, that may be only segments over a minimum size, and it may be the cM's making up those segments. Or it may be the total cM's, whatever the size of any of the segments you have in common. So you share those amounts with him/her, and they share the same amounts with you. You would be matching for the cM's & segments given, if you could compare your DNA on a chromasome browser, the one Ancestry doesn't have!!
Your joint matches are a different kettle of fish. What I think is that you both have to have matches with any 'joint' match, but I don't know whether these have to be the same matches, or if you could have a match on Ch 1, and the other party matches the third individual on CH22, would that still constitute a joint match?
One of the reasons fore my sore head, is that I have just discovered a low level match, who by comparison with a'gold standard' match on my paternal side, I had allocated to my paternal side - easy yeh!! and yet 90 minutes later, I find him matched to a 'gold standard' match on my maternal side. I would say that, though I am from the great Irish diaspora, on both sides, I have never found any evidence that they had 'met' before, until both sets of Grandparents moved to my parents and my birthplace, just before my parents were born.
So, anybody with 'Genetic Genealogy for Dummies' - I'll pay a fair price!!
-
I think that for me the problem, is that, as a child you learned something over time, starting with the basics, slowly learning the ever more complicated details, constantly reinforcing the correct information, as you go on. It's like when I learned French, I must have studied it, on and off for about 12 years, and though I never use it, and am now 44 years post school, I can still pick up a book, or magazine and make some sense of it, though my memory of vocabulary is poor!!
In Genetic Genealogy, there is no 'gg for dummies' - you jump right in, reading about highly complicated topics and principles, and you do understand - but someone ask you about a closely related topic, and you realise how narrow your area of understanding is! I am forever suddenly questioning myself, re my understanding of bits of information, that I assumed were right, but - well maybe not!!
Anyway, that's enough of my 'mature woman's confidence issues'!! On to this specific subject!
So, the basics, as you say are that you share, say 100 cM , over say 9 segments. Depending on the company, that may be only segments over a minimum size, and it may be the cM's making up those segments. Or it may be the total cM's, whatever the size of any of the segments you have in common. So you share those amounts with him/her, and they share the same amounts with you. You would be matching for the cM's & segments given, if you could compare your DNA on a chromasome browser, the one Ancestry doesn't have!!
Your joint matches are a different kettle of fish. What I think is that you both have to have matches with any 'joint' match, but I don't know whether these have to be the same matches, or if you could have a match on Ch 1, and the other party matches the third individual on CH22, would that still constitute a joint match?
One of the reasons fore my sore head, is that I have just discovered a low level match, who by comparison with a'gold standard' match on my paternal side, I had allocated to my paternal side - easy yeh!! and yet 90 minutes later, I find him matched to a 'gold standard' match on my maternal side. I would say that, though I am from the great Irish diaspora, on both sides, I have never found any evidence that they had 'met' before, until both sets of Grandparents moved to my parents and my birthplace, just before my parents were born.
So, anybody with 'Genetic Genealogy for Dummies' - I'll pay a fair price!!
You are right Jane, this genetic genealogy is a bit of a steep learning curve, the problem is many of us think we have learnt enough, then we realise we didn't get it at all :o ::). We do have what I think we must consider our resident DNA expert here squawki11 who commented on my other thread
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=808668.0 (https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=808668.0)
They stated that shared matches 'do not necessarily triangulate' which in layman's terms ;D I think basically means the shared matches don't have to be related to each other at all.
I was just looking at an example last night of shared matches with a fairly close relative where I share a lot of close matches and in that list some much more distant matches. I realised, actually I have always known that shared matches are not all related, logically, because I know some people on that shared list match my close relatives on one particular side, and some other of those more distant matches connect on a completely different side which I know are not related. So clearly there is a logical disconnect in my brain here :o :o, as I continued to collect people in a shared match list as likely all related (i.e. descended from a recent common ancestor) when that may well not be the case ::).
I have also discovered that, in one example I recently found, even if, say three people in a shared match list match another person at a low level, say 6-20 cM, even just above that, you still really can't be sure that they all share the same DNA segments unless you get all their DNA on gedmatch genesis and use the one to one match tool from each user to another. That is because when you get to the 6-20 cM level, you could be talking about one out of 128 ancestors in common, even up to one in 1024 ancestors in common for very low cM, so the likelihood that a DNA link from A to B, A to C, A to D will all be on different segments and come from different ancestors greatly increases as the fact you are all connected simply becomes a statistical coincidence due to the fact there are only a certain amount of breeding people in the UK at any one time - obviously that likelihood increases as you have ancestors who lived in similar areas close to each other. In fact, I suppose that is why Ancestry imposes the above 20 cM limit for shared matches ;D.
-
Have been doing some tinkering with GEDMATCH Genesis this evening in a quest to see whether their 'People who match both or 1 of 2 kits' tool behaves in a similar way to the way we have now determined Ancestry shared matches works.
1. I picked a fairly small match from my match list of one segment.
2. I then put that kit number, and mine, into the 'People who match both or 1 of 2 kits' tool using the standard 10 cM minimum shared segment sizes.
3. I opened another tab with the 'One-to-One Autosomal DNA Comparison' tool.
4. I input my kit number and the other kit number I had chosen in 1. and noted down the chromosome and position on that chromosome on which we match.
5. I picked out a random kit number from the results in 2. and compared it to mine in the 'One-to-One Autosomal DNA Comparison' tool. I noted whether we matched on the same segment as I matched the first kit number in 4.
6. Repeated 20 times, even going down to a lower segment size.
THE RESULT
Not one of the other kits that both me and this distant match matched matched on the same segment as the first kit :o. Six of these matches, using the lower segment size of 8 cM were over 20 cM, but still, none of the matches were on the same segment. So this seems a fairly strong indication that for all shared matches, especially the lower ones under 40 cM, we should verify that matches we think might share a common ancestor actually do by using these tools on GEDMATCH, or similar (now I think paid ones) on myheritage or familytreedna especially in the absence of reliable genealogical data.
-
Given, what I found out, that many shared matches do not necessarily indicate any recent common ancestor at all between three people - what I do not understand is, where there IS actually an exact or overlapping segment match or matches between three people - why can these not be marked up as Super shared matches, Starred shared matches etc. etc.??? That would seem very useful, so why do they not do this? I'd say it would cause too much strain on the servers, but If I can check 20 in 1/2 hour, surely it should only take a computer a few seconds :-\ ????
I now really see why the DNA experts amongst us decry the lack of a chromosome browser on Ancestry, as I am sure many of us are being led a wild goose chase thinking people in shared match lists are connected when they are not.
-
Thanks so much for thinking that all through. I'm still in 'sore head' mode, though I have read your posts! I am off to Edinburgh for a weekend with my sister, away from much ancestry work - well I'll probably have a few wee peaks!
Back on the job on Monday!
-
Thanks so much for thinking that all through. I'm still in 'sore head' mode, though I have read your posts! I am off to Edinburgh for a weekend with my sister, away from much ancestry work - well I'll probably have a few wee peaks!
Back on the job on Monday!
It still confuses me Jane, even though I have supposedly proven how it works to myself ;D. I think the reason why a lot of us assume all people in a shared match list are connected is because the vast majority of the time when we look at shared matches, it is for more distant links, we rarely look at shared matches for our very close relatives as there seems no need.
But if you do that it does become quite obvious that all shared matches cannot be related to each other, as for close relatives we can easily identify that some of the shared matches come from, say the paternal great grandfather's line, and other's the line of his wife, the paternal great grandmother, who we know are not connected. But looking at shared matches for more distant links, we probably don't know how many of those shared matches link to us, or to them, so we have assumed they are probably all linked.
So I think we all need to start bugging Ancestry, either for a super shared match feature that shows when three people all share at least part of the same segment, or for a chromosome browser as gedmatch/23andme/myheritage/familytreedna all have.
-
I am new to genetic genealogy too and it's making my head hurt. So far I have only managed to find a couple of matches with public trees whose trees actually have common ancestors - which is nice I guess, I know my paper trail was right in that respect.
Otherwise I am just going through high centimorgan matches, seeing who our common matches are, and sort of deducing what side of my tree they are from based on location/surnames etc (this is easier when, like me, you have some distinct areas eg one line is from Shetland) and whether they match with someone who I know to be verified from a particular line.
Not very scientific but it's a start! I haven't a clue how to break down any brick walls, as yet
-
I am new to genetic genealogy too and it's making my head hurt. So far I have only managed to find a couple of matches with public trees whose trees actually have common ancestors - which is nice I guess, I know my paper trail was right in that respect.
Otherwise I am just going through high centimorgan matches, seeing who our common matches are, and sort of deducing what side of my tree they are from based on location/surnames etc (this is easier when, like me, you have some distinct areas eg one line is from Shetland) and whether they match with someone who I know to be verified from a particular line.
Not very scientific but it's a start! I haven't a clue how to break down any brick walls, as yet
I agree it helps to have distinct areas tracing wise - only a small part of my tree is Irish so I know who all my Irish matches likely link up to. Of course actually proving those Irish lines is much more difficult than in England, although it's definitely getting better and more registers are being put online.
I definitely wouldn't say to dismiss shared matches full stop, obviously they can be very useful. But for lower matches i.e. below 35 cM, you need to be aware that the chance of the fact three people all match may then be coincidental increases the closer you get to 6 cM.
If all three people are known to have a good % of their tree that lived in the same area for generations, the chances of all three connecting coincidentally, and not actually having exact segment(s) in common between the three greatly increases I suspect.
-
Doing some more shared match hopping, it's becoming clear to me that the 20 centimorgan minimum criteria applies BOTH ways - so YOU have to match a shared match at a minimum of 20 centimorgans, and also the match at the top, ALSO has to match that shared match at 20 centimorgans or more or the shared match won't show up. But those matches may be on completely different segments. And this is regardless of how much you match the match at the top...confused?! I am !!! ::) :-\ :o…..
-
Melba, I don't think you are correct in saying 'YOU have to match a shared match at a minimum of 20 centimorgans, and also the match at the top, ALSO has to match that shared match at 20 centimorgans or more or the shared match won't show up.'
I have several examples of shared matches sharing less than 20 cMs with either me or a decent match.
I don't know their exact criteria, but it seems to be if two of the shared matches are closely related, then they will sometimes show up with a third match, even if they share less than 20 cMs.
For example, me and my first cousin share 723 cMs.
She matches with someone at 25 cMs, I match them at 15.2 cMs.
We show as shared matches with each other.
My third cousin and I share 153 cMs. Her daughter and five of her daughters (third cousin's grandaughters) have also tested. One of the grandaughters shares 7.7 cMs with me.
Shared matches for third cousin, this grandaughter doesn't appear, though the other 5 family members do, plus several more matches.
Shared matches for the grandaughter 7.7, the whole family of 6 appear as shared matches, plus a couple* more descended from the same branch as the third cousin, also a couple more.
Looking at the same family from my first cousin's match list.
Third cousin shares 63 cMs with my cousin, considerably less than me.
Shared matches for third cousin, only 3 family members show up, three grandaughters don't appear.
My cousin is not a match at all with one of them. One other shares 8.3 cMs.
Shared matches for grandaughter 8.3, the whole family appear, less the missing match, plus the same couple*
Ancestry are really a law unto themselves. Without a chromosome browser there is no way of sorting out matches properly. Recent improvements (with the exception of Thrulines) have been very helpful, but combined with a browser they would be exceptionally helpful.
Regards Margaret
-
Melba, I don't think you are correct in saying 'YOU have to match a shared match at a minimum of 20 centimorgans, and also the match at the top, ALSO has to match that shared match at 20 centimorgans or more or the shared match won't show up.'
Hi Margaret :), thanks for your input. I know it is unbelievably confusing but I think what I said is compatible with your examples, I will attempt to explain below ;D
I have several examples of shared matches sharing less than 20 cMs with either me or a decent match.
I don't know their exact criteria, but it seems to be if two of the shared matches are closely related, then they will sometimes show up with a third match, even if they share less than 20 cMs.
For example, me and my first cousin share 723 cMs.
She matches with someone at 25 cMs, I match them at 15.2 cMs.
We show as shared matches with each other.
If you look via your first cousin's account, with the match to this person at 25 cM, you will show in the shared matches, as will this person as you both match your 1st cousin above 20cM. However, if you look via your account, it is not possible that this other person will show in shared matches between you and your first cousin - no matches are shown in shared match lists below 20 cM.
My third cousin and I share 153 cMs. Her daughter and five of her daughters (third cousin's grandaughters) have also tested. One of the grandaughters shares 7.7 cMs with me.
Shared matches for third cousin, this grandaughter doesn't appear, though the other 5 family members do, plus several more matches.
Shared matches for the grandaughter 7.7, the whole family of 6 appear as shared matches, plus a couple* more descended from the same branch as the third cousin, also a couple more.
If you are talking about accessing via your DNA account, it is correct that the granddaughter who matches you at 7.7 cM will not show in a shared match list with your third cousin. It is also correct that if you look at the granddaughter's profile, the whole family of 6 will show in the shared matches - as they all match the granddaughter at a level much higher than 20 cM. As I said in my original post, the level of cM connection between you (or whoever's DNA account you are accessing) and the match 'A' at the top, is not a factor, it is only how much 'A' matches shared matches B, C, D, E, F etc.
Looking at the same family from my first cousin's match list.
Third cousin shares 63 cMs with my cousin, considerably less than me.
Shared matches for third cousin, only 3 family members show up, three grandaughters don't appear.
My cousin is not a match at all with one of them. One other shares 8.3 cMs.
Shared matches for grandaughter 8.3, the whole family appear, less the missing match, plus the same couple*
Similarly as above, the shared matches between the 8.3 granddaughter will show people that are closely related to her, as they all match her at 20 cM or above, anyone that matches the granddaughter at less than 20cM will not show up.
Ancestry are really a law unto themselves. Without a chromosome browser there is no way of sorting out matches properly. Recent improvements (with the exception of Thrulines) have been very helpful, but combined with a browser they would be exceptionally helpful.
Regards Margaret
I think the rules are as I have discovered, that for people to show on a shared match list:
Both you (or the DNA account you are accessing) 'X' AND the match 'A' must match all shared matches at a minimum of 20 centimorgans.
This is regardless of how much 'X' matches the match 'A'. It also is regardless of where 'X' or 'A' match any of the shared matches - so 'X' and 'A' may match the shared matches on completely different segments. So many people on a shared match list may share no common ancestry.
Given that, I 100% agree with you that a chromosome browser is a must as a lot of people will be making false assumptions otherwise that people on a shared match list are all linked when they very likely are not :-\.
-
I have just become aware of the segment search facility on GEDMATCH Genesis premium Tier 1 tools ($10/month). This seems to be the only current way to automatically find all your matches that match segments exactly between each other (rather than the shared matches that can match anywhere) - it groups your top 3000 matches by segments in common - Mercedes Brons has written a detailed blog on this:
http://whoareyoumadeof.com/blog/2017/11/18/how-to-use-the-gedmatch-matching-segment-search/ (http://whoareyoumadeof.com/blog/2017/11/18/how-to-use-the-gedmatch-matching-segment-search/)
In her case, in studying her husband's DNA, she found a small group of matches that all matched on a certain segment all had English/Irish sounding names which was odd as her husband is Mexican, of mostly native ancestry so she was able to work out this segment must have come from his Irish ancestor - and if those matches have GEDCOM trees attached that is useful to determine what the exact connection is.
-
I was just coming on to ask about finding all who share a particular segment (or overlap) and see that you've already discovered one. I'm not sure about the $10 though! I might suggest it to the match who contacted me about herself and 2 2nd cousins, all sharing same segment!
Thanks for link.
Gadget
Added - I can't find a link in paper trails and she has a VERY large tree! We're talking circa 34cMs
-
I was just coming on to ask about finding all who share a particular segment (or overlap) and see that you've already discovered one. I'm not sure about the $10 though! I might suggest it to the match who contacted me about herself and 2 2nd cousins, all sharing same segment!
Thanks for link.
Gadget
Added - I can't find a link in paper trails and she has a VERY large tree! We're talking circa 34cMs
Hi Gadget, I haven't yet tried it, but I think the charge is probably fair - Andy Lee of Family History Fanatics did a summing up of the differences between the old GEDMATCH and GEDMATCH Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BILMRJH1Qzo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BILMRJH1Qzo)
He states that all the tools in the paid for Tier 1 bracket are very server intensive, and they simply cannot afford to offer them for free. When you realise a segment search analyses all the segments of 3000 matches and lists everything in common, you can see that would take a lot of number crunching so consequentially greater electricity costs and server load on their side :). I wonder if this is why Ancestry can't do similar with our matches - on the other hand we do pay them far more for the privilege and they are no doubt rolling in dosh which they could expend on a few more servers ::).
-
OK - you've convinced me. I'll go get my card before the £ sinks yet again against the $ :-X
Gadget
-
OK - you've convinced me. I'll go get my card before the £ sinks yet again against the $ :-X
Gadget
Oh, tell us how you get on, I'll probably do it myself later :). Don't forget to use Mercedes Brons' blog if you need any help
http://whoareyoumadeof.com/search-results/?q=gedmatch (http://whoareyoumadeof.com/search-results/?q=gedmatch)
-
I've heard from my match who did a Tier 1 segment match and I'm not on that list, although I am on the My Heritage one (and triangulate). In fact she and her other relatives who match with me (and triangulate) on My Heritage have much lower shared cMs on Gedmatch.
Very odd. ???
Gadget
-
I've heard from my match who did a Tier 1 segment match and I'm not on that list, although I am on the My Heritage one (and triangulate). In fact she and her other relatives who match with me (and triangulate) on My Heritage have much lower shared cMs on Gedmatch.
Very odd. ???
Gadget
Strange, are you definitely checking the right chromosome :D. I took the plunge myself and have confirmed some shared matches on Ancestry do share the same segments, but unfortunately only a tiny % of Ancestry users are on there. Also a tiny % of GEDMATCH users have GEDCOM trees so it's hard to get a bearing on who or where most people are.
One thing I do think is the case, is the GEDMATCH segment match hasn't yet been updated with the new Q-Match matching algorithm - the one to many tools both are and kits that match one or two tools are, but the segment search still seems to use the old matching method, which is confusing. The One to One Q-Matching is a currently a premium feature - the free One to One uses the old match system which doesn't match the other free tools, which is again, confusing! Haven't yet tried the triangulate tools, and haven't got enough close family members tested to try the phasing yet.
-
Strange, are you definitely checking the right chromosome
So she said - it's on C12. Off hand, I can't remember the segment but My Heritage has them matching on quite a few of my matches and triangulating :-\
I'm wondering if she did it correctly.
-
Strange, are you definitely checking the right chromosome
So she said - it's on C12. Off hand, I can't remember the segment but My Heritage has them matching on quite a few of my matches and triangulating :-\
I'm wondering if she did it correctly.
Did you check yourself? If you haven't got a Tier 1, if you pm the details I'll check for you.
-
I'm still playing with it but I've found that one of her 2nd cousins comes up but neither she or the other 2nd cousin comes up. There are only 4 others on the same segment group.
-
I'm still playing with it but I've found that one of her 2nd cousins comes up but neither she or the other 2nd cousin comes up. There are only 4 others on the same segment group.
I'm wondering if there are some bugs in the servers as some of my matches I know were there don't show up in the One to Many, but do still show in other tools ???.
-
I had some funnies earlier. At one stage it told me my Kit didn't exist. Then it gave me error messages. Finally I was able to get the results.
:-\
-
I had some funnies earlier. At one stage it told me my Kit didn't exist. Then it gave me error messages. Finally I was able to get the results.
:-\
Sods law we paid the $10 it all goes kaput ;D ;D ::).
-
Sods law we paid the $10 it all goes kaput ;D ;D ::).
I paid £7.93 ;D ;D ;D
-
Melba_Schmelba, If there are matches you are expecting to see on the one-to-many and they have disappeared then it is worth checking if they have been correctly migrated to genesis.
-
I think we're talking about the one to many matches that don't appear on the Tier 1 segment comparisons, Cracklyn.
New members are only put on the Genesis version and not on the old version.
Gadget
Add - I was referring to the Genesis version throughout and I believe melba was too.
-
Melba_Schmelba, If there are matches you are expecting to see on the one-to-many and they have disappeared then it is worth checking if they have been correctly migrated to genesis.
I think it must have just been a bug Craclyn as they have now returned :).
I think we're talking about the one to many matches that don't appear on the Tier 1 segment comparisons, Cracklyn.
New members are only put on the Genesis version and not on the old version.
Gadget
Add - I was referring to the Genesis version throughout and I believe melba was too.
Gadget, I was actually talking about the BETA One to Many - some of those matches didn't turn up there that did on all the others - I suppose one needs to take note of the BETA status in that it might be a bit buggy.
Re: the BETA One to Many - I finally realised what the Offset means (should be obvious I know ::)), it allows you to see the smaller centimorgan matches, but on the free One to Many Beta, you can only offset by 2000, and show maximum 1000 matches at once.
-
I've been varying the parameters on the BETA version to reduce some of the 'iffy' matches.
The real problem is that I have only one close match on there (124cMs). The matches then go down to 50-ish, then 30s and then a big drop. Very few have trees.
-
I've been varying the parameters on the BETA version to reduce some of the 'iffy' matches.
The real problem is that I have only one close match on there (124cMs). The matches then go down to 50-ish, then 30s and then a big drop. Very few have trees.
Yes, same. I suspect it's the same USA bias that you get with Ancestry, but magnified because there are so many less users.
-
I've been doing a few runs on the Q-match option in Tier 1. It might be useful for getting rid of the false matches (IBC) by adjusting the parameters.
There's a detailed guide in pdf. It's such a pity that so few of our matches on other sites don't upload to Gedmatch.
Still working it out at the moment.
Gadget