RAO and 67 Marker Match

[racin500]

I just looked at my RAO results and noticed I now have someone who matches my 67 markers with a GD=3. When I set my preferences to look at ALL matches in the system, nothing shows up for 67 markers. Is this a glitch in the system or is this what happens if someone "Blocks" their information?

Is a 67 with GD=3 worth persuing, assuming the surname is probably different?

Bob

[wmccown]

RAO and 67 Marker Match

Hi, I noticed similar non-reported matches at 25 and 37 markers. At those levels there is a definite pattern of Maguire related surnames (Maguire, McGuire, MacAuley, McManus, Dononhoe etc.. Then I upgraded to 67 markers and all of the 37 marker matches that had been tested to 67 markers survived. Then I joined the FTDNA Ulster Heritage Group, www.ulsterheritage.com, and about that time I decided to ask FTDNA about the otherewise unreported matches and pointed out that I would like to know if the sunames of those unreported matches were surnames that were also represented among the reported matches. They wouldn't give me the surnames but did tell be that they were among those already reported. The bottom line is that people get tested and then invoke "privacy" which means that their results will only be shown in their FTDNA Surname Group. Some of these very same people then join the type of group mentioned below. If your names tend to a certain ethnic group, see if there is an FTDNA dual surname/geological group that matches the primary ethnicity of your name and your matches. I picked up several 67 marker matches that way. Their privacy is still protected and you cannot contact them but at least the fact that these matches exist will show up when you visit matches on your personal page.

[wmccown]

RAO and 67 Marker Match

Hi Racin500, This is to correct the last sentence of my previous reply. The matches will show on the dual surname/geographical group site but not on your surname group site. For example there are Scottish, Irish and Ulster FTDNA groups and probably many others besides. You can find them under the Join icon on your FTDNA personal page. I have found some errors in that list as well as the lists in the site map on the FTDNA Home Page. For example, the FTDNA Home Page site map would have you believe that the Ulster Heritage Group is for mtDNA only, when in fact it is Y-DNA only.

[MMaddi]

Is a 67 with GD=3 worth persuing, assuming the surname is probably different?

Bob

That is definitely worth pursuing, although I don't know how you can do it without the name and e-mail being revealed to you by FTDNA on your "Y-DNA Matches" page. Have you tried searching in ysearch for anyone with a genetic distance of 3 or less from you, at 67 markers? If your unrevealed match has uploaded their results to ysearch, you'll find them.

The reason I say this is a match worth pursuing is that I have a 63/67 match. Taking into account that we definitely don't have a common ancestor in the last 3 generations, the FTDNA "time to most recent common ancestor" calculator estimates the common ancestor lived about 10 generations ago, at the 50% probability level. So your common ancestor with this match would probably be more recent than that.

[MMaddi]

That is definitely worth pursuing, although I don't know how you can do it without the name and e-mail being revealed to you by FTDNA on your "Y-DNA Matches" page. Have you tried searching in ysearch for anyone with a genetic distance of 3 or less from you, at 67 markers? If your unrevealed match has uploaded their results to ysearch, you'll find them.

Also, have you tried searching with your marker values in the SMGF database, at http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/search.jspx? Many FTDNA customers have also submitted samples to SMGF, which tests for free, although they don't send you your results. If you search in this database, select "Family Tree DNA" as the lab standard in the pulldown menu near the top. This will allow you to enter your FTDNA marker values without having to make any conversions.

SMGF does not test all 67 markers that FTDNA does. I think they test 43 markers in common. One advantage of finding a match in the SMGF database is that most people have submitted a family tree with their sample. If you find a close match, you can use Google to do some detective work on the internet and possibly come up with an e-mail address for the person you match.

[Stevo]

I have an exact 25-marker match with a man from England on my RAO page. It doesn't show up in YSearch or on my "Y-DNA Matches" page. I wrote FTDNA about it. They had me prepare a message which they forwarded to the man, asking him to contact me.

Eventually, my RAO match contacted me via email. I learned his name and where he was born, but that was about it. He is a very private person, which explains why he doesn't appear on my Y-DNA Matches page or in YSearch.

Unfortunately for me, he isn't interested in upgrading to more markers either.

Luckily for you, your matches are already at the 67 marker level. So, email FTDNA and see if they can connect you.

[Deirwha]

does anyone know how much private DNA

Does anyone know or have an est. how much private DNA results are out there? I can think of reasons why people would want to keep their results private, especially if they have strong paper trails on their family and need to be concerned about who might be contacting them why. On the other hand it sometimes feels like there may be the key piece of the puzzle out there and there is no means by which to access it.

[racin500]

Thanks

Thanks everyone. I try sending an email through Darren as Stevo suggested and see what happens.

[racin500]

RAO and 67 Marker Match

Just wanted to post an update.

FTDNA was able to track down my 64/67 match and we have emailed each other. Up until now, my DNA GREEN/E matches have been limited to 11/12 markers. The only close matches I've had were with another surname. I have 4 matches 24/25 and 1 match 25/25 with the name STREETER.

How supprised was I when my 64/67 match was a STREETER !!!

I can paper trace my GREEN line back to about 1700. Other published GREENE researchers go further back to a John GREENE b.~1620 in England. Also known as John "the immigrant" or John "of Newport RI". Unproven legend says he changed his name and immigrated to Rhode Island abt. 1636 to avoid some sort of persecution. To date, I am the only GREEN tested in this line. Should prove interesting if any cousins/branches test the same or not. This could help clarify whether there was a possible adoption or unwed birth/event in my line.

Thanks for the help.

[GhostX]

Just wanted to post an update.

FTDNA was able to track down my 64/67 match and we have emailed each other. Up until now, my DNA GREEN/E matches have been limited to 11/12 markers. The only close matches I've had were with another surname. I have 4 matches 24/25 and 1 match 25/25 with the name STREETER.

How supprised was I when my 64/67 match was a STREETER !!!

I can paper trace my GREEN line back to about 1700. Other published GREENE researchers go further back to a John GREENE b.~1620 in England. Also known as John "the immigrant" or John "of Newport RI". Unproven legend says he changed his name and immigrated to Rhode Island abt. 1636 to avoid some sort of persecution. To date, I am the only GREEN tested in this line. Should prove interesting if any cousins/branches test the same or not. This could help clarify whether there was a possible adoption or unwed birth/event in my line.

Thanks for the help.

It sounds very much to me like you have a non-paternal event in your lineage somewhere that caused a surname change (welcome to the club--I'm a member too!), and I'm guessing that Streeter was indeed the original surname for your Y-DNA lineage (not Greene). It could have been the other way around though. That's fantastic that you've found such good matches--congratulations!

[vinnie]

Does anyone know or have an est. how much private DNA results are out there? I can think of reasons why people would want to keep their results private, especially if they have strong paper trails on their family and need to be concerned about who might be contacting them why. On the other hand it sometimes feels like there may be the key piece of the puzzle out there and there is no means by which to access it.

What I wish FTDNA would do is to make all its records public while protecting privacy through the computer generated participant i.d.'s. Then each of us could decide who is a match or not. I've got so many 3 and 4 step "matches" that may or may not be, depending on values of particular markers, and "matches" even from other haplogroups. Why bother posting those?