PDA

View Full Version : Family Finder Update-Ability to sort maternal and paternal matches



Tįltos
07-07-2016, 03:48 AM
If you have been able to test your parents at FTDNA you can now sort your matches into maternal or paternal. If only one parent tested; then they will be sorted via that side.

https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/user-guide/family-finder-myftdna/matches-page/

Afshar
07-07-2016, 06:49 AM
Nice, didn't care all the time that my dad was enlisted as a female, but now I need to change it after all.
btw: They don't accept lesbian parents.

geebee
07-08-2016, 05:39 AM
It's nice in theory, but so far all I get is "Calculating Family Matches". (And calculating and calculating and calculating ...)

geebee
07-08-2016, 06:13 AM
I can't imagine why they wouldn't accept same sex parents. FTDNA keeps insisting that if a certain person is my sister, I must also be her sister. I'm not. I'm her brother.:\

geebee
07-08-2016, 07:37 AM
I like new features, but what I don't like is idiocy. I've been trying to get the stupid matching to properly show my daughter as my sister's niece. The trouble is, their idiotic software doesn't always seem to "get" that if person A is an aunt to person B and person B is female, then person B is also niece to person A.

However, if I go into my sister's account and set her known relationship to my daughter as "aunt", then when I go into my daughter's account I have the chance to "confirm" that my sister is indeed my daughter's aunt. The trouble is, it's then setting my daughter's relationship to my sister as my sister's aunt, not my sister's niece. (And I didn't change any setting, just hit "confirm".)

EDIT: If I do try to change any setting, I then have to go through the confirmation process in my sister's account and run into the same problem. Apparently, they're either each other's aunt or each other's niece, not one is aunt and the other is niece.

I had the same problem with a brother and sister. They could either both be brothers or both be sisters. One could not be brother to a sister, and the other sister to a brother. It did eventually work, but I'll be darned if I know what made the difference. Both when it worked and when it didn't, I just hit "confirm" without making any changes.

geebee
07-08-2016, 07:42 AM
Sorry to wander off topic, but I don't see much point in new features when old features don't work properly.

geebee
07-08-2016, 07:50 AM
To return to the topic, I do like the idea of the change. I just wish I could actually use it. I have three brothers and sisters with accounts at FTDNA, all of which are based on 23andMe v3 files. My father also has an account based on a 23andMe v3 file, and we're all linked.

But in each of my sibling's accounts and mine, there is only endless calculating of family relationships. So I cannot use the feature. Even more frustratingly, my wife and daughter also have accounts (both based on 23andMe uploads). So my daughter has both parents linked to her. Yet she has the same problem -- endless "calculating family relationships". So at the moment, the various features are actually even less usable than before.

EDIT: I seem to have gotten it now. On the "confirming" end, it's necessary to make a change. Both the request and the drop down menu for the relationship start off saying "aunt" (or niece, depending on which way I'm going). It's a bit odd to me that if the request is to add someone as "aunt", that "aunt" would appear in the drop down as a possibility. "Niece" or "nephew", but not "aunt". Conversely, if someone requests to be added as a niece, the recipient of the request can't be niece to the niece. "Uncle" or "aunt", but not "niece".

But I guess this is what I get for trying to make any changes after 3 am!

firemonkey
07-08-2016, 10:35 AM
Couple of things I don't like: 1. When you do a search , and get for example 3 matches, it's impossible to get back to all your matches without refreshing the page. 2. When using search name or ancestral surname it is not possible to get geographical matches . You used to be able to do that with the old format.

C J Wyatt III
07-08-2016, 01:09 PM
It's nice in theory, but so far all I get is "Calculating Family Matches". (And calculating and calculating and calculating ...)

Same here, fifteen hours after trying to link my kit with my mother's, that is all I get.

My rule of thumb is that if an application takes excessive computing power, it is doomed to failure.

Jack

geebee
07-08-2016, 05:11 PM
Now I'm seeing some "paternal" matches. I guess it just needed some time.

But ... my daughter should be showing both paternal and maternal matches, since there are results for both of her parents and she is linked to both of us.

I suppose it could be a matter of just needing yet more time, but I've noticed something peculiar in how the relationships in her tree are presented. Normally, there is a horizontal line between an individual's parents, with a vertical line descending from that line to the individual.

In this case, there's a horizontal line between my wife and me, but only directly from me to my daughter -- not from the horizontal line to my daughter. It's as if our daughter is being presented only as related to me, not to her mother.

Her mother does appear as one of her relatives in the match list, and she shows up as "mother", with a "relationship range" of "parent/child". Yet, as I said, none of Kathryn's 1264 matches is marked "maternal", including either Kathryn's mother or Kathryn's maternal uncle.

(They're present as matches, they just aren't marked as maternal.)

dp
07-08-2016, 05:12 PM
It's nice in theory, but so far all I get is "Calculating Family Matches". (And calculating and calculating and calculating ...)
GB,
I'm in the same boat. I even unlinked my mom and relinked her to see if that would change anything.
That said I doubt it'll be much more than matches in common.
Whoops I see you just posted while I was typing my note. Glad you are getting something.
dp :-)

dp
07-08-2016, 05:17 PM
You may need to tell it that she is your daughter's mother and not your spouse.
Try unlinking her and when you relink her as the mother, instead of as your wife.
Hopefully you won't get an instant divorce in the process.
dp :-)


Now I'm seeing some "paternal" matches. I guess it just needed some time.

But ... my daughter should be showing both paternal and maternal matches, since there are results for both of her parents and she is linked to both of us.

I suppose it could be a matter of just needing yet more time, but I've noticed something peculiar in how the relationships in her tree are presented. Normally, there is a horizontal line between an individual's parents, with a vertical line descending from that line to the individual.

In this case, there's a horizontal line between my wife and me, but only directly from me to my daughter -- not from the horizontal line to my daughter. It's as if our daughter is being presented only as related to me, not to her mother.

Her mother does appear as one of her relatives in the match list, and she shows up as "mother", with a "relationship range" of "parent/child". Yet, as I said, none of Kathryn's 1264 matches is marked "maternal", including either Kathryn's mother or Kathryn's maternal uncle.

(They're present as matches, they just aren't marked as maternal.)

geebee
07-08-2016, 05:27 PM
Here's what I'm talking about with my daughter's tree:

10268

Normally, the line to the individual should descend from the line between the parents, not from just one of the parents. Unless one is being treated as a step-parent or something, which is not the case here.

[As I mentioned in my earlier post, Kathryn's mother is in her match list as her mother. She actually has at least several hundred maternal matches, including a maternal half uncle, but none marked as such.]

dp
07-08-2016, 05:40 PM
I cant find a work around, that wouldn't cause you to have to potentially reidentify your daughter's maternal relatives.
sorry.
dp :-)

Here's what I'm talking about with my daughter's tree:

10268

Normally, the line to the individual should descend from the line between the parents, not from just one of the parents. Unless one is being treated as a step-parent or something, which is not the case here.

[As I mentioned in my earlier post, Kathryn's mother is in her match list as her mother. She actually has at least several hundred maternal matches, including a maternal half uncle, but none marked as such.]

geebee
07-08-2016, 05:57 PM
You may need to tell it that she is your daughter's mother and not your spouse.
Try unlinking her and when you relink her as the mother, instead of as your wife.
Hopefully you won't get an instant divorce in the process.
dp :-)

It seemed link a good idea, so I tried it. In fact, I went a step further and deleted Kathryn's entire tree. When I rebuilt it, it showed everything as it should be. Kathryn was linked by a vertical line between both of her parents. So I logged out and then back in.

It "fixed" itself back to the way that shows Kathryn as my child, but not her mother's! Her mother still shows as her mother in Kathryn's match list, and she's definitely linked. She just doesn't show in the tree the way you'd expect for a mother.

C J Wyatt III
07-08-2016, 06:01 PM
Same here, fifteen hours after trying to link my kit with my mother's, that is all I get.

My rule of thumb is that if an application takes excessive computing power, it is doomed to failure.

Jack

After another three hours or so, I finally got 236 kits on the maternal side out of a total of 1565. My father is deceased as well as his siblings who had no children, so the best I could do on the paternal side is to find a second cousin to test. I probably won't bother. In actuality, a lot of my matches get it from both sides.

Jack

dp
07-08-2016, 06:02 PM
Ok. you went to the extreme. Unfortunately it didn't work. I'm going to read over:
https://dna-explained.com/2016/07/07/family-tree-dna-introduces-phased-family-finder-matches/
and see if that helps.
dp :-)

I did find one tidbit:

If you use Internet Explorer 11 as your browser, the Family Finder match page won’t load, at all. Switch to using Chrome or Firefox while Family Tree DNA fixes this bug.
I doubt is apllicable but it may help another user.

Some users on Roberta's blog indicate they've waited over 8 hours....


It seemed link a good idea, so I tried it. In fact, I went a step further and deleted Kathryn's entire tree. When I rebuilt it, it showed everything as it should be. Kathryn was linked by a vertical line between both of her parents. So I logged out and then back in.

It "fixed" itself back to the way that shows Kathryn as my child, but not her mother's! Her mother still shows as her mother in Kathryn's match list, and she's definitely linked. She just doesn't show in the tree the way you'd expect for a mother.

geebee
07-08-2016, 06:23 PM
Okay, so I deleted everyone's tree. Then I added my daughter's parents back, beginning with her mother and then me. First I got:
10270

Everything looked cool, so I signed off.

When I signed back in, here's what I saw:
10271

Aaaaargh!

psaglav
07-08-2016, 07:23 PM
I'm linked to my father and to my maternal grandmother both, but I see 0 maternal and 0 paternal matches on my matches interface. :/

geebee
07-08-2016, 07:24 PM
David, thanks.

Unfortunately ...

(1) I'm already using Chrome.

(2) You seem to be right that although FTDNA shows me as Kathryn's father and Diane as Kathryn's mother, for match purposes they seem to have gotten it the other way around.

But now Kathryn is actually showing matches to her mother (instead of to me), but as paternal matches!

geebee
07-08-2016, 07:36 PM
So here you can see that Diane is clearly shown as Kathryn's mother. In addition, I (Gary) am clearly shown as her father.

10272

Only, you see the small male figure immediately below Diane's name, and that of her brother John's? This obviously indicates paternal matches.

And on the next page, you can see that this is the case.

10273

At the same time, none of Kathryn's matches through me appear as maternal matches. Of course, they shouldn't, but neither should matches through one's mother show as paternal.

Seems to me this is "not ready for prime time".

evon
07-08-2016, 07:54 PM
I'm linked to my father and to my maternal grandmother both, but I see 0 maternal and 0 paternal matches on my matches interface. :/

From my own matches it is clear that you need to upload/create the/a familytree for every profile and link them to eachother within the familytree, a bit silly really, but it is how they have made it for now..

geebee
07-08-2016, 09:25 PM
^^

Unfortunately, I've already done that. It doesn't seem to matter.

In addition, I just went in and deleted Kathryn's tree again. I then added myself as Kathryn's father (again), and Diane as Kathryn's mother (again). Only, this time I added myself first and Diane second.

This did make a change in who's being marked as paternal for Kathryn. Now it's me and my siblings, father, and other relatives. But that's all it's done. Neither her mother, her mother's brother, nor any other of her maternal relatives are marked as maternal.

They're there among her matches -- but the system seems unable to accept that Kathryn has two parents. The vertical line to Kathryn in her tree has simply shifted back to me, rather than descending from a horizontal line between her mother and me. It's as if either of us can be her father, but neither of us can be her mother.

Yet among her matches, I am clearly shown as Kathryn's father; and Diane is clearly shown as Kathryn's mother. In my profile, Kathryn is shown as my daughter; and in Diane's profile, Kathryn is also shown as her daughter. In my tree, Kathryn appears as my daughter; in her mother's tree, Kathryn appears as her daughter.

So I don't think this is the result of anything I've done or not done. But I don't know what the heck is the problem.

geebee
07-08-2016, 09:40 PM
Weird, something actually worked!

I tried deleting Kathryn's mother in her tree, then logging out. I then added a wife to myself, and gave her the same name as my wife -- Kathryn's mother. The tree got all excited and proclaimed a possible match, who was indeed ... Kathryn's mother, my wife.

So I linked the mother I'd "created" to Kathryn's actual mother, and voilą -- when I logged out and back in, the vertical line was still in-between Kathryn's two parents (rather than descending from either just me, or just her Kathryn's mom). And, she's now showing matches marked as paternal, and matches marked as maternal.

Thanks, Evon!

evon
07-08-2016, 10:20 PM
It is silly that you need to upload/create a family tree for every profile and connect them in every profile, it should be enough to do it one time and the tree should migrate to all the profiles you administrate...The way it is now is just takes forever...I wont do it for my other profiles, only myself :P

geebee
07-09-2016, 12:39 AM
The thing that was baffling me was that I'd thought I had done as you suggested: I created a tree for my daughter Kathryn in which I linked myself as her father and my wife Diane as her mother. The trouble was, I did it by using the drag and drop technique FTDNA tells you to use.

That didn't work. When I linked myself as Kathryn's father and Diane as Kathryn's mother, only the first of us to be linked was showing up as the "paternal" parent. Neither of us was showing up as the "maternal" parent -- Kathryn just didn't have one. It didn't matter who was identified as Kathryn's father and who was identified as her mother, just which of us was linked first.

The only thing that did work was to link just one of us and then "create" the other parent. At that point, the second parent could be linked to the newly created parent -- as some sort of special "discovery" of FTDNA. Once linked in that way, both parents showed up properly.

Kathryn now has both a father and a mother, thanks to the miracle of FTDNA!:beerchug:

geebee
07-09-2016, 01:10 AM
I do have to say, though, that I'm not completely sure of the rationale for excluding some matches shared with my father from being considered as paternal matches.

My "paternal" side includes 272 of my matches. But if I choose to see what matches I have "in common with" my father, the number rises to 382. That's a pretty significant difference.

Now, maybe there's some good reason not to include over a hundred matches I have in common with my father as being "paternal" matches, but it would at least be nice to have an easy way to know just who these 110 folks are -- I mean without having to manually "subtract" the people who on both lists.

Well, actually I guess there is something I can use to make it a little easier. I'm seeing that folks who are on the "in common" list but who are not "paternal" lack the "male" icon. In addition, of course, their "longest block" is also generally shorter.

Yet I'm looking at one individual who has a longest block of 9 cM and 20 total shared cM who is among my "paternal" matches, while an individual with a longest block of 9 cM and 42 total shared cM is not. The only thing I can think of is that while the longest block for both rounds to 9 cM, that exact number might be a little higher for the first individual than for the second.

But it's still probably more reasonable to include all matches that are "in common" between a parent and child, than not to do so. They might not really all be paternal matches, but aren't they more likely to be in this case, than not?

Surely they're more likely to be paternal matches than maternal ... especially when I add that my father and all of his ancestors for several generations were from Pennsylvania, while my mother's ancestors for several generations were from Mississippi, Ohio, and Spain. C'mon, how much overlap between my parents is there actually likely to be? (A little, for sure, but not the majority of the over 100 "in common with" matches that are not also listed as "paternal".)

EDIT: I think 23andMe is on to something in allowing a person with only one tested parent to select not only matches on that parent's side (in this case, paternal), but also matches on the "not that parent's side" (in this case, maternal).

I guess I can basically get at the same thing by looking for matches which are "not in common with" my father, but I thought the point was to make things easier for the user.

EDIT: The "not in common" approach, of course, does exclude all folks who might be related to me on both parents' sides -- such as all of my siblings, plus my daughter.

geebee
07-09-2016, 01:42 AM
Just for fun, I logged into my daughter's account and found that she now has 400 paternal matches, 465 maternal matches, and 1 match that says both.

If I look for matches she has "in common with" me, the number rises to 491. Of these, 399 are grouped as paternal, 7 are grouped as maternal matches, and 1 is both.

Looking instead for matches with are "in common with" her mother, the number is 597. 464 of these are labeled maternal matches, 8 are paternal, and 1 is both. Quite interestingly, one of the matches my daughter shares with her mother that's in the "paternal" category happens to be one of my sisters.

My sister shares a small segment with my wife "on chromosome 1 from position 72017 to 5115145 for a total of 9.91 cM." This is actually more-or-less in line with what 23andMe says. It reports that three of my siblings share a segment on chromosome 1 with my wife.

My brother Bernie, who was tested on the v4 chip, reportedly shares a segment with a genetic distance of 10.2 cM, from position 1-5000000. (Annoyingly, 23andMe "rounds".) The segment includes 835 SNPs. 23andMe reports the segment shared with Kim as being 10.4 cM in length, and likewise running from position 1-5000000 (but including 847 SNPs).

For some reason, FTDNA doesn't show my sister Luci as sharing this segment with my wife, but 23andMe does. It says the shared segment is 10.2 cM in length, runs from position 1-5000000, and includes 835 SNPs. At any rate, neither FTDNA nor 23andMe shows me as sharing the segment with my wife, and if we're related (which we must be, sooner or later in our trees), it isn't closely enough to give more than passing thought to.

Since my wife and father share no DNA, it would seem likely that this match is on my mother's side. (And there's a bit more overlap in ancestral locations between my wife's father and my mother.)

EDITED TO ADD: The segment on chromosome 1 is the only one that shows up at the 5 cM resolution, but at 1 cM thirteen more segments appear. These, of course, might not be real; and in fact, at 3 cM only four additional segments remain.

One of these is a 3.41 cM segment that includes the centromere of the X chromosome. Obviously, even if it's real this could be a very old segment indeed. It might be worth pointing out that I do share most of the X chromosome with both Bernie and Kim -- but not the region immediately surrounding the centromere. I also do not share the centromere of the X chromosome with Luci. I do share this region with my other two siblings, Curt and CJ.

So everything at least "fits" with the possibilities.

vettor
07-09-2016, 03:18 AM
I was told that people who tested only FMS in Ftdna will not show any paternal or maternal links..................can someone confirm this?

BTW, over 50% now only test for FMS

Tįltos
07-09-2016, 04:46 AM
I was told that people who tested only FMS in Ftdna will not show any paternal or maternal links..................can someone confirm this?

BTW, over 50% now only test for FMS

Not sure. I tested someone with only a 12 marker Y DNA test then went on to test the SNP pack for him as he matched my brother at 12 marker. He shares our last name. He has the same first name as my paternal grandfather's brother. (Though he is not him nor his son.) The FTDNA tree since even the time of the 12 marker test has been prompting me to link him as my paternal grandfather's brother.

I know this isn't FMS, but similar principle.

psaglav
07-09-2016, 08:14 AM
ugh, that's a lot of work!

one question though, I had my dad tested and not my mom. is it for people who have both of them tested? if so, mine wouldn't work anyway. Although, my maternal grandmother's autosomal data is there, so. hmm?

Afshar
07-09-2016, 12:17 PM
Still does not work for me

evon
07-09-2016, 12:26 PM
They are in the midst of a big update right now so you cant upload Gedcoms or change certain things until the update is over..

jdean
07-09-2016, 06:12 PM
It seems a bit overblown to call it an update since the feature was already there. As far as I can tell they just made it more obvious ?

evon
07-09-2016, 06:50 PM
It seems a bit overblown to call it an update since the feature was already there. As far as I can tell they just made it more obvious ?

From FTDNA's Facebook page:

Upgrades are on the way! From 5 PM CST Friday, July 8 to 12 PM CST Saturday, July 9, a few FTDNA features will be temporarily unavailable while we perform scheduled server maintenance. This includes uploading Gedcoms, Autosomal transfers, Genographic Project transfers and Genographic Next Generation upgrades to Family Finder. Other services and the shopping cart will be unaffected. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and thank you for your patience!

jdean
07-10-2016, 12:41 AM
From FTDNA's Facebook page:

Please explain how this is relevant to my original point ?

evon
07-10-2016, 11:12 AM
Please explain how this is relevant to my original point ?

Just forwarding their message..

dp
07-11-2016, 09:42 PM
Just for fun, I logged into my daughter's account and found that she now has 400 paternal matches, 465 maternal matches, and 1 match that says both.

If I look for matches she has "in common with" me, the number rises to 491. Of these, 399 are grouped as paternal, 7 are grouped as maternal matches, and 1 is both.

Looking instead for matches with are "in common with" her mother, the number is 597. 464 of these are labeled maternal matches, 8 are paternal, and 1 is both. Quite interestingly, one of the matches my daughter shares with her mother that's in the "paternal" category happens to be one of my sisters.

My sister shares a small segment with my wife "on chromosome 1 from position 72017 to 5115145 for a total of 9.91 cM." This is actually more-or-less in line with what 23andMe says. It reports that three of my siblings share a segment on chromosome 1 with my wife.

My brother Bernie, who was tested on the v4 chip, reportedly shares a segment with a genetic distance of 10.2 cM, from position 1-5000000. (Annoyingly, 23andMe "rounds".) The segment includes 835 SNPs. 23andMe reports the segment shared with Kim as being 10.4 cM in length, and likewise running from position 1-5000000 (but including 847 SNPs).

For some reason, FTDNA doesn't show my sister Luci as sharing this segment with my wife, but 23andMe does. It says the shared segment is 10.2 cM in length, runs from position 1-5000000, and includes 835 SNPs. At any rate, neither FTDNA nor 23andMe shows me as sharing the segment with my wife, and if we're related (which we must be, sooner or later in our trees), it isn't closely enough to give more than passing thought to.

Since my wife and father share no DNA, it would seem likely that this match is on my mother's side. (And there's a bit more overlap in ancestral locations between my wife's father and my mother.)

EDITED TO ADD: The segment on chromosome 1 is the only one that shows up at the 5 cM resolution, but at 1 cM thirteen more segments appear. These, of course, might not be real; and in fact, at 3 cM only four additional segments remain.

One of these is a 3.41 cM segment that includes the centromere of the X chromosome. Obviously, even if it's real this could be a very old segment indeed. It might be worth pointing out that I do share most of the X chromosome with both Bernie and Kim -- but not the region immediately surrounding the centromere. I also do not share the centromere of the X chromosome with Luci. I do share this region with my other two siblings, Curt and CJ.

So everything at least "fits" with the possibilities.

Phasing looks at the specific segments that you and parent match a 3rd party. Matches in common doesn't. That's why the second >> the first. -dp
For example phase your daughter's kit at GEDmatch. Use same thresholds for her phased kits, and her actual kit, she'll have less matches on GEDmatch in the sum of the two phased kits (at the same thresholds, ie. G.D. level) as that of her unphased kit.
dp

dp
07-11-2016, 09:44 PM
ugh, that's a lot of work!

one question though, I had my dad tested and not my mom. is it for people who have both of them tested? if so, mine wouldn't work anyway. Although, my maternal grandmother's autosomal data is there, so. hmm?

it will work. I've only tested my mum, and dad's brother. I have matches both ways. One note it does not assume that just because a match is not through your mom that it has to be through your dad. That is due to false matches (zig-zags, etc.)
dp :-)

dp
07-11-2016, 09:45 PM
[withdrawn]

geebee
07-12-2016, 03:40 AM
Phasing looks at the specific segments that you and parent match a 3rd party. Matches in common doesn't. That's why the second >> the first. -dp
For example phase your daughter's kit at GEDmatch. Use same thresholds for her phased kits, and her actual kit, she'll have less matches on GEDmatch in the sum of the two phased kits (at the same thresholds, ie. G.D. level) as that of her unphased kit.
dp

Hmm. Here are the actual results for the experiment you proposed: matches based on her unphased file = 2000; sum of the matches for the phased files = 2394. (It was 1213 maternal, 1181 paternal.) I didn't alter any parameters.

EDIT: With a nice round number like 2000, I suppose I might be running up against a matching limit using the unphased file.

2nd EDIT: Definitely seems to be the case. Using my unphased file, I get exactly 2000 matches. With phased files, I get 1646 and 1134. That's a total of 2780. So you may be right, but it apparently is not provable by me.

geebee
07-12-2016, 04:18 AM
As I said in a previous post, my daughter has one match which is labeled as both maternal and paternal. I indeed was able to find the match among my matches. This individual matches me on chromosome 16, from position 84657975 to position 86992802, for 8.64 cM.

I was also able to find her among my daughter's mother's matches. The match with my wife is on chromosome 20, from position 882313 to position 7669396, for 16.33 cM.

Our daughter had both of these matches, but with one difference. The match on chromosome 16 that she and I both have is the same. But the match that she and her mother both have on chromosome 20 is significantly shorter for my daughter. It has the same start position of 882313, but ends much sooner -- at 4523350. It's 10.1 cM in length.

Initially, I wondered why the difference ... but it dawned on me that even though both of my parents haven't been tested, as my daughter's parents have, I still have one tested parent (my father). So it should be fairly easy to phase my file by comparing it to my father's -- though it won't be quite as accurate as if both parents have been tested.

Of course, if they were willing to do the work, they could phase my father's file against four tested offspring. He actually has six offspring in all, and all of us have taken DNA tests. But alas, two of the siblings have 23andMe v4 results.

geebee
07-12-2016, 04:25 AM
I'm afraid their "search" function doesn't work very well for me, though. I initially could not find the person listed as both maternal and paternal in my daughter's file, in either her mother's file or mine. The person's name did not appear when using the box marked "Search name or ancestral surnames". (Someone did show up who has the last name as an ancestral surname, but not the person with that current surname.)

I was eventually able to find her by using the chromosome browser "filter by name" function.

wombatofthenorth
07-13-2016, 01:31 AM
I'm afraid sorting doesn't work well for my dad since it's hard to sort 1 of 0 matches. Some very serious (as well as unfortunately also apparently very obscure) bugs in Family Finder.

geebee
07-16-2016, 06:05 PM
You know, if FTDNA thought about it and was willing to do this, they could provide some maternal matches for any male -- regardless of whether his mother happened to be tested.

This is because an X match -- if it's real at all -- can only be maternal in the case of males. So providing the match were long enough to meet certain criteria, it could be put under the maternal tab.

In my case, only my father has been tested, so I have 0 matches in my maternal tab. I have 273 matches in my paternal tab, including some folks to whom I'm definitely maternally related as well. For example, a brother, two sisters, and a daughter. So I share pretty significant segments on the X chromosome with them.

However, I also share a 7.35 cM segment on the X chromosome with another of my paternal matches. Since this is another male, that should be pretty reliable. I also share two segments on autosomes with this guy, both of which my father shares with him as well. So clearly, I'm related to the guy through both parents -- though very likely, more distantly on my mother's side.

I also have good reason to believe that the segment of X chromosome in question came from my maternal grandfather, and therefore from his mother. So I can narrow the connection to a specific great grandmother's lineage (on my mother's side), which is pretty cool.

I could have found this out without the tabs, but I do think they make things easier.

geebee
07-16-2016, 06:14 PM
I do think it would be nice if they'd add two more tabs, though. These would be labeled "not paternal" and "not maternal". This would make it easier for those with just one parent tested to focus on matches that are at least not definitely paternal (or maternal, as the case may be).

It would have to be understood that some of these matches would be paternal (or maternal), even though they aren't identified as such. Alternatively, perhaps FTDNA could simply allow the choice of excluding people in one tab or the other, just to simplify searches. (It would have the same effect as including a "not paternal" or "not maternal" tab.)

Saetro
07-16-2016, 07:37 PM
You know, if FTDNA thought about it and was willing to do this, they could provide some maternal matches for any male -- regardless of whether his mother happened to be tested.

This is because an X match -- if it's real at all -- can only be maternal in the case of males. So providing the match were long enough to meet certain criteria, it could be put under the maternal tab.


Ay, there's the rub.
I have X matches, but most with relatively short lengths.
You can certainly use this filtering to your advantage via GEDmatch.
Under the Tier 1 tools, they have a predictive function that can use X matches to suggest where among your lines a match is likely to be.
And it has suggested some interesting possible lines of connection for me.
Is it mainstream enough to be added by FTDNA?
No.

AJL
07-16-2016, 09:48 PM
I do think it would be nice if they'd add two more tabs, though. These would be labeled "not paternal" and "not maternal".

Good idea, I have some family members with one parent tested. 23andme does do partial phasing with one parent.

Unfortunately, fully 1/3 of my matches are neither paternal nor maternal: scads of identical-by-population matches, I suspect.

geebee
07-16-2016, 10:10 PM
Unfortunately, fully 1/3 of my matches are neither paternal nor maternal: scads of identical-by-population matches, I suspect.

That's part of the value of multi-generation testing. Sometimes it helps you to see which matches are most likely just cobbled-together from "background" matches. In a sense they do reflect a certain relatedness, but not in a genealogically-meaningful timeframe.

I'm also hoping that the more use people can make of 23andMe and FTDNA's browsers, the more pressure there will be for Ancestry to finally implement one. Letting you know how much you share in how many segments is better than nothing, but far from being enough.

wombatofthenorth
07-19-2016, 12:08 AM
It seems like they fixed the last of the Geno transfer bugs.