Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - squawki11

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 20
1
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: Ancestry New Segment Lengths
« on: Sunday 23 August 20 11:02 BST (UK)  »
I'm prepared to be informed otherwise but my thinking is that the "larger" figure is before the Timber algorithm trims the match and the "smaller" is after Timber has been applied.

2
You don't say which company produced the matches. Each has a slightly different way of measuring the size of a match. FTDNA can include many small segments, whereas Ancestry attempts to phase the data and trim the size of the match. 23andme includes X in the overall total. If your shared (Ancestry?) matches are all c.60+cM, you might well be able to find their relationship to yourself by developing your tree widely and deeply, including siblings and as far back as you can go. Clustering using Collins Leeds method can produce good representation but tree info is still vital. The overall size of the match is more important than the number of segments imo.

3
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: Has anyone else taken an FTDNA test?
« on: Wednesday 27 May 20 10:22 BST (UK)  »
It very much depends upon your objectives. For Y testing, you can't do much better than ftdna, but don't expect matches. Y has limited use for genealogy as yet. It's getting closer but outside of immediate male members of your family you may still have few if any matches. Again, if you wish Mt DNA, ftdna is also the place to go but there's even less chance of matching outside of close matrilineal family. I may be wrong but despite many suggested Mt matches, not a single one is verifiable on paper in my own experience. As for at DNA, I have some reservations due to the inclusion of small segments less than 6-7cM. That 80cM match might when examined with their chromebrowser have only the one segment of 10cM, the rest broken up bits and pieces of down to 1cM. That same match could well be ignored by Ancestry...

4
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: Auto Clustering
« on: Thursday 16 April 20 16:36 BST (UK)  »
A suggestion - for Clustering use DNAGedcom or Shared Clustering. MH Clusters are a waste of time imo due to their restrictive input. Either of the above will give you a better start with looking at clusters. They are not a magic bullet. Shared Clustering has extensive help files on GitHub from where Jonathan Brecher's program can be downloaded. Both DNAGedcom and SC have Facebook groups. DNA Gedcom can use match/icw info from most sources whereas SC is restricted to Ancestry. As ever the more extensive your tree the more useful you will find clustering. As you work through/contact your shared matches it would be a good idea to invite those unlinked to link, please!

5
I agree that tree info is crucial and the more extensive the better. From my limited experience DNA matches/cousins tend to be found along unexplored branches. However, it does not require an extensive tree to be uploaded to Ancestry. That uploaded tree may have relatively few people, perhaps less than 100. It just has to be sufficient to trigger common ancestors and thru lines. Your big tree can be kept off line. It helps if matches remember to link their tree to their DNA results. Otherwise they won't see common ancestors. The match's tree can also be small (linked); it must have at least one identifiable person, preferably with dates and places. Public and/or unlinked trees with only private people are practically unusable.
Please note the above on!y refers to Ancestry. It does help if there are other trees for cross reference and extensive records, all of which are Ancestry features.
Apologies to all grandmothers....

6
Buckinghamshire / Re: Sarah Walker of Booker or West Wycombe dob c.1826/27
« on: Friday 03 April 20 10:47 BST (UK)  »
Thanks again, Steve. Those details are very much in line with what I've found. There are matches stemming from Joseph and Tamar as common ancestors and they or their relatives look likely to be coonected to my current Walker/Brooks/Martin quest (one of many...)!

7
Buckinghamshire / Re: Sarah Walker of Booker or West Wycombe dob c.1826/27
« on: Thursday 02 April 20 19:09 BST (UK)  »
Steve, Your Martins might be significant. I, too, have many from that area and I believe there may still be some living in Wycombe. If you have any connections to Joseph & Tamar, before or after, please let me know. Thanks for your interest.

8
Buckinghamshire / Re: Sarah Walker of Booker or West Wycombe dob c.1826/27
« on: Tuesday 31 March 20 20:50 BST (UK)  »
No luck with familysearch nor with Bledlow OPR. The only Walkers I have within Bucks are Sarah c.1827 Wycombe & Hannah c.1814 Wooburn. Bit of needle in haystack, I fear. DNA matches 20-45, so at least 3rd cousins & beyond. A very definite cluster of matches but no obvious way as yet to connect to common ancestors who may be Joseph Martin & Tamar Scott/Ann Bowers or related. Thank you for your interest.

9
Buckinghamshire / Re: Sarah Walker of Booker or West Wycombe dob c.1826/27
« on: Tuesday 31 March 20 19:14 BST (UK)  »
Thank you, Carole. As yet 1841 census hasn't produced a definite result for either William or Sarah although I'm still looking. As for why the 1846 marriage: the 1851 census has a William Martin & Sarah with William's sister Patience and as a starting point I wondered if William & Patience were children of William Martin and Phoebe Young who appear to have died 1842/1843. 1841 has Patience with parents but not William. It's quite possible I'm making too many assumptions but rather than reinvent the wheel I sought advice and it may be that buying the marriage certificate is the way to go but how many does one buy before the "correct" one is found? As for familysearch or Bledlow OPR for birth/baptism record for Sarah, that's another avenue for me to explore, now!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 20