Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GEDmatch vs Ancestry results

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GEDmatch vs Ancestry results

    I took an Ancestry DNA test and it showed 1% Caucasus dna. I uploaded my dna file to GEDmatch and it shows 10-15% Caucasus/Persian dna depending on which calculator I use. I did not use any of the "Ancient" calculators, only the modern ones like Eurogenes K13-K9, MDLP World, and Dodecad World9. Why is there such a big difference?

  • #2
    Originally posted by znmf0820 View Post
    I took an Ancestry DNA test and it showed 1% Caucasus dna. I uploaded my dna file to GEDmatch and it shows 10-15% Caucasus/Persian dna depending on which calculator I use. I did not use any of the "Ancient" calculators, only the modern ones like Eurogenes K13-K9, MDLP World, and Dodecad World9. Why is there such a big difference?
    Ancestry uses "estimates" [their word not mine] to pigeon hole you in a region based on their suspect population samples. GEDmatch uses the exact science of the chromosome break down, not guess work.

    P.S. try Dodecad V3 and V7 while you're there.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JerryS. View Post
      Ancestry uses "estimates" [their word not mine] to pigeon hole you in a region based on their suspect population samples. GEDmatch uses the exact science of the chromosome break down, not guess work.

      P.S. try Dodecad V3 and V7 while you're there.
      Sorry but all ethnicity reports/admixture proportions are estimates, even Gedmatch's. That's why the percentages vary among the different gedmatch calculators too.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Germanica View Post
        Sorry but all ethnicity reports/admixture proportions are estimates, even Gedmatch's. That's why the percentages vary among the different gedmatch calculators too.
        there is a considerable difference between Ancestry saying 1% and GEDmatch saying 15%. discrepancies existing as in 13% or 17% is one thing. to list the same thing as barely showing up is another. also, Ancestry is slanted towards the American market comprised mostly of British Isles, Scandinavia, and Germany, so their data is slanted that way as well. they are trying to sell you a monthly subscription after all. GEDmatch isn't trying to sell you anything, no reason to lie, they don't care is your feelings are hurt by finding out about your true ethnicity.
        Last edited by JerryS.; 4 June 2017, 10:13 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by znmf0820 View Post
          I took an Ancestry DNA test and it showed 1% Caucasus dna. I uploaded my dna file to GEDmatch and it shows 10-15% Caucasus/Persian dna depending on which calculator I use. I did not use any of the "Ancient" calculators, only the modern ones like Eurogenes K13-K9, MDLP World, and Dodecad World9. Why is there such a big difference?
          Ancestry states "Thousands of years ago Ethnicity Estimate". that's their quote, not mine.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JerryS. View Post
            Ancestry states "Thousands of years ago Ethnicity Estimate". that's their quote, not mine.
            Yes, when you go to your AncestryDNA home page and look on the left side at the "Ethnicity Estimate" box, there's a small headline above it that says "Thousands of years ago."

            However, click on the green "VIEW YOUR GENETIC ANCESTRY" button and then click on the blue circle with a question mark inside it on the page you're sent to. A box pops up that begins "Your ethnicity estimate shows where your ancestors came from hundreds to thousands of years ago..." That's quite a different statement as to how you should regard the numbers they give you.

            It's a head scratcher why the prominent quote that everyone sees and that you quoted doesn't give the whole story. You have to click around to get an accurate idea of what your Ethnicity Estimate is actually telling you.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
              Yes, when you go to your AncestryDNA home page and look on the left side at the "Ethnicity Estimate" box, there's a small headline above it that says "Thousands of years ago."

              However, click on the green "VIEW YOUR GENETIC ANCESTRY" button and then click on the blue circle with a question mark inside it on the page you're sent to. A box pops up that begins "Your ethnicity estimate shows where your ancestors came from hundreds to thousands of years ago..." That's quite a different statement as to how you should regard the numbers they give you.

              It's a head scratcher why the prominent quote that everyone sees and that you quoted doesn't give the whole story. You have to click around to get an accurate idea of what your Ethnicity Estimate is actually telling you.
              1% is hardly evident, 10% is clearly there. one of these calculators is flawed. not the same as 30% vs. 40%.

              Comment


              • #8
                Ancestry also uses ranges but 1% is most likely in this case. Looking at your ranges, you might find that the highest percentage scored was indeed 15%, the lowest mostly likely 0% but on average you got 1%. Also was this for the general admixture piecharts at Gedmatch or the Oracles because they represent different things. And as I said elsewhere, if people don't also say what their ancestry is and perhaps show their full results from each test, then other people are going to struggle to give advice. But other free sites to try include DNALand and MyHeritage, they might support one test over another.
                Last edited by Boudicca1; 5 June 2017, 08:46 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JerryS. View Post
                  there is a considerable difference between Ancestry saying 1% and GEDmatch saying 15%. discrepancies existing as in 13% or 17% is one thing. to list the same thing as barely showing up is another.
                  That doesn't necessarily make Gedmatch more accurate though. Gedmatch's calculators themselves aren't even that consistent among each other, even from the same project. Eurogenes K36 says I'm 4.95% East Mediterranean and 3.29% West Med (8.24% in total), while Eurogenes K13 says 12.70% East Med and 17.05% West Med (29.75% in total). That's almost a 22% difference in total. And compare that with K12b which says 19.37% Mediterranean in total. Want me to keep going? Gedmatch is all over the place and is no more reliable or accurate than Ancestry or any other company. They're all just different estimates.

                  also, Ancestry is slanted towards the American market comprised mostly of British Isles, Scandinavia, and Germany, so their data is slanted that way as well.
                  Also not true. Their database of testers might be primarily American, but the population samples they use to determine the ethnicity report is a completely different database. Here is their reference panel:

                  link removed]

                  The group with the highest number of samples is Europe East, followed by Asia East. "British Isles" is only third if you add Great Britain and Ireland together, then Scandinavia is fourth, but Europe West (Germany) ranked 7th, below European Jewish and Italy/Greece.

                  they are trying to sell you a monthly subscription after all.
                  The monthly subscription has nothing to do with the DNA section.

                  If what you're saying is that Ancestry slant the DNA results to match American backgrounds and that encourages people to buy a subscription to research said background - well, that is utter nonsense - not only because I've proved your claims that the DNA results are slanted to begin with are wrong, but also because your assumption that Americans are primarily British/Irish, Scandinavian, and German are also somewhat off base. It's true British and Germans have the highest immigration numbers over history, but the third highest came from Italy. Scandinavia, even if you add them all together, had much lower numbers and only rank about 7th: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...=0&single=true

                  And that's not even including the numbers of immigrants from Latin America to the USA. Combined, they definitely out number even the Germans: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...49&single=true
                  Some Latin Americans have German ancestry too, but many more have Iberian and Native American.

                  The point is, there is no such thing as the typical American background, because it's a melting pot. As such, it would be impossible to slant the DNA results towards the "typical American" background.

                  GEDmatch isn't trying to sell you anything, no reason to lie, they don't care is your feelings are hurt by finding out about your true ethnicity.
                  Ancestry's ethnicity report isn't lying. The only misinformation here is coming from you.
                  Last edited by Darren; 5 June 2017, 10:04 PM. Reason: Please no links to outside company websites

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Germanica View Post
                    That doesn't necessarily make Gedmatch more accurate though. Gedmatch's calculators themselves aren't even that consistent among each other, even from the same project. Eurogenes K36 says I'm 4.95% East Mediterranean and 3.29% West Med (8.24% in total), while Eurogenes K13 says 12.70% East Med and 17.05% West Med (29.75% in total). That's almost a 22% difference in total. And compare that with K12b which says 19.37% Mediterranean in total. Want me to keep going? Gedmatch is all over the place and is no more reliable or accurate than Ancestry or any other company. They're all just different estimates.



                    Also not true. Their database of testers might be primarily American, but the population samples they use to determine the ethnicity report is a completely different database. Here is their reference panel:

                    link removed]

                    The group with the highest number of samples is Europe East, followed by Asia East. "British Isles" is only third if you add Great Britain and Ireland together, then Scandinavia is fourth, but Europe West (Germany) ranked 7th, below European Jewish and Italy/Greece.



                    The monthly subscription has nothing to do with the DNA section.

                    If what you're saying is that Ancestry slant the DNA results to match American backgrounds and that encourages people to buy a subscription to research said background - well, that is utter nonsense - not only because I've proved your claims that the DNA results are slanted to begin with are wrong, but also because your assumption that Americans are primarily British/Irish, Scandinavian, and German are also somewhat off base. It's true British and Germans have the highest immigration numbers over history, but the third highest came from Italy. Scandinavia, even if you add them all together, had much lower numbers and only rank about 7th: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...=0&single=true

                    And that's not even including the numbers of immigrants from Latin America to the USA. Combined, they definitely out number even the Germans: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...49&single=true
                    Some Latin Americans have German ancestry too, but many more have Iberian and Native American.

                    The point is, there is no such thing as the typical American background, because it's a melting pot. As such, it would be impossible to slant the DNA results towards the "typical American" background.



                    Ancestry's ethnicity report isn't lying. The only misinformation here is coming from you.
                    I guess your excuse is better than mine. would you be able to explain why FTDNA my origins 1.0 and 2.0 are so different from each other? some posters say its accurate for what they know about their history while a whole lot of others say its way off base. how can that be when both calculating models are from the same company? how could somebody have 20% Scandinavian on 1.0 but none on 2.0? et cetera....

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JerryS. View Post
                      I guess your excuse is better than mine. would you be able to explain why FTDNA my origins 1.0 and 2.0 are so different from each other? some posters say its accurate for what they know about their history while a whole lot of others say its way off base. how can that be when both calculating models are from the same company? how could somebody have 20% Scandinavian on 1.0 but none on 2.0? et cetera....
                      Because they are all just estimates. Because companies update their ethnicity report as they gain more samples groups or refine their analysis - they all do it, including the projects and calculators from Gedmatch. Because there is no DNA which is totally unique to one area of Europe so you're always going to have DNA that could be placed in more than one region, and therefore depending on the sample groups and analysis, could be placed in one region from estimate and another region from another estimate. You are looking for accuracy from an imprecise science.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X