Page Actions


Identical by descent

From ISOGG Wiki

I don't want make any assumptions, so a question for discussion before making any changes, and prior to my adding some GEDmatch data in the same section. In this article, under "False positive matches," is this sentence: "False positive matching rates of between 12% and 23% have been reported for Family Finder data, and up to 34% at Ancestry using their current algorithm."

All three source citations for that sentence are dated either 2014 or 2015. That pre-dates AncestryDNA's change to a minimum 8cM segment size and at least one additional change in their matching methodology. Rather than saying "using their current algorithm," would it be more appropriate to write: "using their algorithm prior to increasing the segment minimum to 8cM"?

Thanks, Ed Williams (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Please go ahead and make those changes. The Family Finder reports also pre-date the launch of FTDNA's updated algorithm. I'm not aware of anyone doing any similar analyses recently. It's easiest to do these comparisons at MyHeritage. I keep meaning to blog about the false matching problem there as it's really high (nearly 50% with one of my kits). DebbieKennett (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)