GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-04 > 1239417433


From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Fwd: New Matches Found for your DNA Test Results
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:37:13 -0500
References: <1239397998.653529@unsubscribe.myfamily.com><8CB884B6AA0B9B0-B58-2525@WEBMAIL-DZ20.sysops.aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <8CB884B6AA0B9B0-B58-2525@WEBMAIL-DZ20.sysops.aol.com>


Unfortunately, Ancestry have adopted up the fractured English of other
testing firms. A match now means a "close" match, instead of a true match.
Each firm can define close the way they want. The firms correctly tend to be
inclusive (beyond the median). Anyone who has deep-tested a documented
genealogy is well aware that cousins 8-10 generations apart can easily
differ by 4 markers on 43 markers, each 2 from the ancestral. If you want to
extend it back to the advent of surnames, you might have to go to 6.
Unfortunately, if a person is in R1b, this will include a lot of people with
different surnames.

Most people realize that database matches are usually a waste of time (but
not always). It takes a lot of experience to know when they might be
useful. After 8 years, I finally ran across a case with potential.

Ancestry's DNA predecessor (composed largely of scientists with little
consumer marketing savvy) thought they were a waste of time. However,
databases are a great marketing gimmick and have, in the end, benefited a
few genealogists and many anthrogenealogists, whether academic or
hobbyists.

Bob Stafford

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:30 PM, <> wrote:

>
> just so I'm not reading this wrong.. got this email from ancestry - saying
> I had a DNA match! - but when I went on their dna site - closest is 28
> generations.. at a second glance, it looks like they are saying I am the
> close match! how cruel.. that's me what happened? computer glitch? has
> anyone had this experience?
>
> thanks
>
> roger c. memos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

This thread: