Author Topic: New website: auto-clustering your matches  (Read 1478 times)

Offline MarkyP

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: New website: auto-clustering your matches
« Reply #36 on: Sunday 09 December 18 15:57 GMT (UK) »
I know they have minimum cMs set as 9 if you want, but you can also set cousin matches anywhere from 1st to 5th cousins. Unfortunately they are having problems with Ancestry at the moment so that isn't currently working, but I did do one with FTDNA which has helped me no end. This is what it looks like, as a visual aid, but you also get loads of the info represented in spreadsheets etc.

Jerome - Hampshire (including IOW)
Parsons - Surrey, Somerset and Devon

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Genetic Affairs

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: New website: auto-clustering your matches
« Reply #37 on: Sunday 09 December 18 16:04 GMT (UK) »
I try to keep groups of shared matches in a spreadsheet. Obviously, the clustering, visualisation, and time-saving offered by Genetic Affairs would be a bonus.

The drawback with Ancestry is that Shared Matches only show people with above 20 cMs (“4th cousins” or closer). If you look at someone with, say, 10 cMs it only shows those with 20 cMs or more. You cannot see shared matches between  “Distant cousins”.

Does anyone know if this new tool picks up the shared matches between these, say, 10-19 cMs or distant cousins?

Distant cousins also have shared matches, but in that case the share at least 20 cM while they could share less with you.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Gardenshed

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: New website: auto-clustering your matches
« Reply #38 on: Monday 10 December 18 06:35 GMT (UK) »
I know they have minimum cMs set as 9 if you want, but you can also set cousin matches anywhere from 1st to 5th cousins. Unfortunately they are having problems with Ancestry at the moment so that isn't currently working, but I did do one with FTDNA which has helped me no end. This is what it looks like, as a visual aid, but you also get loads of the info represented in spreadsheets etc.

Have you and whoever is calling themselves Genetic Affairs considered the privacy issues raised earlier in this thread? You are not just giving access to your own data but to that of other people. I have not yet heard back from either Ancestry or FTDNA but I have asked if handing over log ins to Genetic Affairs and thus access to information belonging to other people is consistent with the conditions of service. In the meantime you might like to have a look at those conditions yourself, including clause 6 of the FTDNA ones.

Offline hurworth

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,105
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: New website: auto-clustering your matches
« Reply #39 on: Monday 10 December 18 06:41 GMT (UK) »
To be frank, I'd trust Genetic Affairs to just run the matching and produce the table and not share the match list more than I would trust some of my matches to not go sharing a mutual match list somewhere they shouldn't.

Here's their privacy policy
https://www.geneticaffairs.com/privacy-policy.html

Offline Gardenshed

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: New website: auto-clustering your matches
« Reply #40 on: Monday 10 December 18 06:52 GMT (UK) »
This is a business model which is based on gaining access to information belonging to people who have not consented to that access.

Offline Gardenshed

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: New website: auto-clustering your matches
« Reply #41 on: Monday 10 December 18 06:57 GMT (UK) »
To be frank, I'd trust Genetic Affairs to just run the matching and produce the table and not share the match list more than I would trust some of my matches to not go sharing a mutual match list somewhere they shouldn't.

Here's their privacy policy
https://www.geneticaffairs.com/privacy-policy.html

It is up to you who you trust with your data. It is not (or at least should not be) up to you to decide who to trust with other people’s data.

Offline Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 46,174
    • View Profile
Re: New website: auto-clustering your matches
« Reply #42 on: Monday 10 December 18 07:41 GMT (UK) »
I've been using this method, manually, for the last few months. Of course I've not finished and, as new matches are added, it needs constant updating. I've not completed all the match groupings but, by doing it manually, I'm getting to find more about each match than I would if it was done for me.

Gadget
Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

Offline sugarfizzle

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
    • View Profile
Re: New website: auto-clustering your matches
« Reply #43 on: Monday 10 December 18 08:16 GMT (UK) »
Gardenshed

You say 'It is up to you who you trust with your data. It is not (or at least should not be) up to you to decide who to trust with other people’s data.'

What part of other people's data is being shared? I am still trying to get my head round this.

Nobody responded to my analogy with loading to Gedmatch and the ability to garner millions of email addresses, or my comment about sharing DNA access with others.

As long as you personally have not uploaded your DNA to Gedmatch, or shared your results with even one other person, or manage the results of even one other person, you are being consistent with the views expressed by you in this thread.

If you have done any of those things, then your viewpoint is that, your viewpoint. Others have different ones.

I am surprised that you did not raise any questions with Genetic Affairs.

You were rather rude about a first time poster -
'Have you and whoever is calling themselves Genetic Affairs considered the privacy issues raised earlier in this thread'.

I contacted him about the views being expressed in this thread so that he could explain things here, but nobody got back to him specifically.

He said at the end of his post
'Feel free to ask for more info, I don't have a lot of time but I do think it's important to explain as much as possible'.

Regards Margaret
STEER, mainly Surrey, Kent; PINNOCKS/HAINES, Gosport, Hants; BARKER, mainly Broadwater, Sussex; Gosport, Hampshire; LAVERSUCH, Micheldever, Hampshire; WESTALL, London, Reading, Berks; HYDE, Croydon, Surrey; BRIGDEN, Hadlow, Kent and London; TUTHILL/STEPHENS, London
WILKINSON, Leeds, Yorkshire and Liverpool; WILLIAMSON, Liverpool; BEARE, Yeovil, Somerset; ALLEN, Kent and London; GORST, Liverpool; HOYLE, mainly Leeds, Yorkshire

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.go

Offline davidft

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,523
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: New website: auto-clustering your matches
« Reply #44 on: Monday 10 December 18 11:29 GMT (UK) »
I have asked for this thread to be closed as unproductive now it has descended into people calling other forum members out.

To answer the question that others had not specifically asked Genetic Affairs questions, answering for myself my reasons are

1. I have detailed my concerns upthread and GA has already had the opportunity to answer them fully but did not.
2. I indicated upthread that I was not going to make use of GA so to continue asking questions about it could be seen as argumentative and disruptive.