Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New admin questions: Grouping

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

  • New admin questions: Grouping

    Hi, just signed up for admin, and have a question about grouping.

    My current grouping (I have matched the groups with "set" in the title, after joining the project a week or so ago) is at
    http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ion=ycolorized

    If I have a bunch of red R1b1a2
    who are closely tied (Y37 g.d. < 2) to a green R1b1a2a1a1b3c
    can I assume that the the whole set (Set 10) should be listed as R1b1a2a1a1b3c. I have no trees to go by, but it seems an obvious assumption.

    I have a green R1b1 Y37 match tied to a red R1B1a2. What does this mean? They are not related because they are in different clades? The green test is old and did not seek higher order SNP's? The red test is only indicative, and they are really R1b1?

    I have several large (30-40) sets of people I can't group by eye (and then run through Y25/Y37 g.d. tests), and don't have time to run the 100 or so through a Y25 then Y37 comparison to establish relationships that probably don't exist.
    Is there anyway of speeding up this process?

    Would appreciate tips on how to improve my grouping skills.

  • #2
    Grouping

    My policy for subgrouping is to put all those who "match" together in the same subgroup. They will each have received an email from FTDNA notifying them of each other. This works fairly well, but there are rare cases where A has a match with B, and B has a match with C, but A doesn't have a match with C. In such cases I have to make a difficult decision. But, most of those cases are eventually resolved when customers upgrade. Bill www.longdna.com

    Comment


    • #3
      FF Group

      I applied to start a new group and I see there is now an option to start a FF Surname group. Can a group incorporate both? I.e., be a yDNA surname group with FF members (with other surnames) as well? I would like participation from both types. Thanks for your thoughts.

      Comment


      • #4
        That is generally my policy too, to group all those matches together in one group. Even if only one of the participants is SNP tested or Deep Clade tested, the rest are close matches and regardless of a paper trail or not, they are matches and I put them together until proven other wise.

        Once proven to be unrelated, it is as easy as removing that participant from that group.

        I go by the "until proven other wise" theory lol. The participants most often can not prove a paper trail kinship, or can not disprove the kinship, so I group them together until proven other wise.
        Convincing the participants to all upgrade to the 67 marker level also helps build a better Group.

        Paper trail or no paper trail, I try to convice all my participants to upgrade to the 67 marker level. Some listen to me, others do not which is their loss really.

        Comment


        • #5
          How I do Grouping

          I use the Genetic Distance tool on the Gap page to see who the member's matches are and what group they are in. I then slot that member in the group with the most matches.

          Unfortunately, I have to go to another Gap page, like "Y DNA Results " where the group can be set, It would be very helpful if FTDNA would allow setting of the group on the GD page.

          I be interested in hearing how others do their grouping.

          Comment

          Working...
          X