« Reply #49 on: Monday 20 July 20 12:16 BST (UK) »
On facebook maths problems - posters always moan about 'old' maths and 'new' maths, and the rules involved (Podemas - the rules of operations etc), and those who know maths of course say maths is maths ( or math, if you are american), and there only ever is one right answer, which ever way, and whenever, you learned maths! However, Ancestry seems to have its own wee version here!
Honestly, I remember back a few itterations ago of the DNA screens ,when on a screen that told you about a matches DNA in more detail, it told you more exactly the match figure (eg 19.5). and the dependability of the match (eg high/low/medium), and what that meant (eg nearly 100% likely to be a true match). Not all changes have been for the better! Especially when at one time it is under a border line (eg 20), but sometimes over it. Crazy.
How can a value measured to be under 8.0* be classed at other times as 8 or over 8!
* indcating 'recurring', that is as many 0's as you like!!
Ah well back to checking my 8's now. I an happy (relatively) with 7's, but decided to deal with 8's before tackling 6's, as there will be even more 6's..... Ahh
Jane
I keep a record of my matches on a spreadsheet when I know how they are related from back when Ancestry included decimal places.
I have a 4C1R (PV) who matches me at 20.1cM and is included in my 4th-6th cousins but now shows just as 20cM, whereas another 4C1R, MS matches me at exactly 20cM and is included in my distant cousins.
Therefore, the when Ancestry delete those who match 6-7cM any at 8cM should remain as they would actually match 8.1cM or more, whereas those who are 6-7cM would only match up to 7cM exactly.
Armitage, Atherton, Barton, Beck, Bradshaw, Brumfitt, Chetwin, Conalty, Connolly, Connor(s), Davidson, Hilton, Hoey, Johnson, Jones, Knight, Lester, McDonald, Molyneux, Morris, Pownall, Rushton, Spark, Stanley, Tunstall, Welsby, West, Wharton, Williams, Wilson, Windridge, Windstandley