From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 17:54:34, Ruth Wilson    
   wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):   
   >Following on a bit from John's post, I haven't used FamilytreeDNA, only   
   >Ancestry. I can identify all but one of my 1st-3rd cousins on there   
   >(the unidentified one hasn't replied ... might try again), but I'd like   
   >to understand a bit more about the more distant ones.   
      
   I can identify most of those high in my Ancestry matches (though I think   
   I knew most of them before I did DNA).   
   >   
   >Now, I am no scientist, so please don't baffle me with technicalities!   
   >I have heard that under, say, 20cM, the DNA matches can be by chance   
   >rather than being a certain relative. Does that sound right? (I have   
   >still found a known 3rd cousin with a smaller than expected DNA match)   
      
   I _presume_ the various companies are only looking at DNA that I/we   
   share with other _humans_, rather than, say, gorillas, or even tulips.   
      
   Certainly, I don't expect many successes below 20cM on Ancestry - except   
   ones that have the "shared ancestor" marker, where I generally find them   
   to be much closer relatives than the cM number would imply. I think   
   their "Thrulines" thing is quite good.   
   >   
   >Now, I understand that we don't inherit DNA in equally shared amounts.   
   >I have lots of matches from Great grandfather G - is that because his   
   >DNA has been passed on in greater amounts, or because he had lots of   
   >descendants and they have taken DNA tests in large numbers? Does that   
      
   AFAIK, it could be either or both (-:   
   []   
   >I have a lot of matches with an identifiable group who emigrated from   
   >Argyll to Canada, although we can't pin down a line. Does the fact that   
   >I have matches with at least 6 of this line make a pretty strong   
   >likelihood of a shared descent? (they do share a family surname - Craig   
   >- that I had tentatively linked to eastern Scotland, but need more   
   >proof - or otherwise. Of course, a couple of female generations, or   
   >illegitimacy, and it could link into another of my Scottish lines!)   
      
   Have _they_ - the Canadians - identified a common ancestor? Do they have   
   matches with each other? (If they've found a common ancestor, might be   
   time to start looking at ships' manifests, though a name like Craig is   
   probably common enough to be difficult.)   
   >   
   >It seems John is a bit dubious about it, but is it worth uploading DNA   
      
   Well, I was a bit underwhelmed when FamilytreeDNA gave me a list of only   
   198 (far fewer than, say, Ancestry), which I thought must be only those   
   above quite a high threshold (they didn't actually state the match   
   levels, but they said for each that they were either 2C-4C or 3C-5C),   
   but then when looking through them, I recognised hardly any of the   
   surnames (none, I think, other than the cousin I already knew). Of   
   course, they may have found a whole new set of cousins I didn't know   
   about!   
      
   >results to other sites? Family Tree DNA does get good reviews.   
      
   I'd say there's no harm in uploading to any site that let you do so for   
   free; that includes FTDNA if they're free (I don't know if they are).   
   I'd start with GedMatch. I uploaded to MyHeritage (the Israeli company)   
   when they let you upload for free - they imposed a charge about a year   
   or two ago (though I think not much); they do seem to find and tell me   
   about quite promising matches (I recognise either the names or those of   
   the "common matches"), but as I'm not actually a member of MyHeritage, I   
   can't contact the matches. GedMatch (and FTDNA) do give the email   
   addresses. I didn't actually remember having uploaded to FTDNA, but a   
   cousin asked if I had, and when I checked my list of kit numbers, found   
   I must have; that's what triggered me to look at their site, and find   
   the 198 matches (and a geographical plot, which differed a bit - Baltic   
   and Magyar - from Ancestry's).   
      
   Though not DNA, I'd say it's definitely worth uploading some details to   
   LostCousins; that has the most rigorous of all checks - anyone they find   
   for you _will_ be a cousin (and I think you'll be able to work out the   
   link). The newsletter is good too. He lets free users contact matches a   
   few weekends a year (he'll let you see that you _have_ matches, and   
   their name, any time).   
   >   
   >Thanks   
   >   
   >Ruth   
      
   YW - hope it helped.   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   Norman Tebbitt has the irritating quality of being much nicer in person than   
   he is in print. - Clive Anderson, RT 1996/10/12-18   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)