Louis Kessler’s Behold Blog The Behold User Forum
Blog Comments
182.
Revisiting Speed and Balding - Blog comment by debbiek - 8 Nov 2017
Louis
It makes no difference whether one is studying diseases or detecting DNA relatives. It's still necessary to identify related people in the database.
The reason the testing companies filter small segments under 6 cMs or 7 cMs is not to exclude small segments from distant generations but for the very ...
183.
Revisiting Speed and Balding - Blog comment by lkessler - 8 Nov 2017
Doug, (Professor Speed, Dr. Speed?)
Thank you for your thorough response to my post. If I understand your explanation correctly, you are doing everything exactly the way it should be done. The one thing you don't mention is anything about filtering for only people who would show up in a person's DNA match ...
184.
Revisiting Speed and Balding - Blog comment by lkessler - 8 Nov 2017
Jim,
Thank you very much for your assessment. I too think that most of my segment matches (the ones that are valid) between 5 and 20 cM must be between 6 and 12 generations back since I have yet to identify any of them. But that's what endogamy with just a 5 generation genealogy does.
I'm looking very ...
185.
Revisiting Speed and Balding - Blog comment by dougspeed - 7 Nov 2017
Hi Louis, as my username probably gives away, I'm the first author of Speed and Balding (not to be confused with that terrible work from Speed and Baldwin infodoc rightly dismisses ;) ). I don't follow the ISOOG blog, but a colleague alerted me to your blog post
Firstly, I'm incredibly flattered if it's true ...
186.
Revisiting Speed and Balding - Blog comment by jimbartlett - 6 Nov 2017
Louis, Thank you for this analysis and post - a tremendous service to the genetic genealogy community! We need someone like you with the math skills to help us understand and properly use the Speed and Balding paper. I had reluctantly accepted the way others had interpreted their widely seen Chart. But it just ...
187.
Revisiting Speed and Balding - Blog comment by infodoc - 5 Nov 2017
Louis,
On an intuitive level, your analysis and conclusions have a ring of truth that I have found lacking in Speed and Baldwin. You present a much more encouraging picture for genetic genealogists!
188.
2016 and Looking Forward - Blog comment by acproctor - 18 Oct 2017
Thanks for replying Louis. There is a draft document almost ready for public comment, but not quite. As each of those documents reaches a coherent level then they'll be released for comment, and those titles will be turned into hyperlinks.
189.
2016 and Looking Forward - Blog comment by lkessler - 16 Oct 2017
Hi Tony. I saw that something was done. But I don't see where the Extended Legacy Format document can be looked at. It is listed, but there is no link to it on the drafts page: http://tech.fhiso.org/drafts/
190.
2016 and Looking Forward - Blog comment by acproctor - 13 Oct 2017
I know it's a good while since this post, Louis, but do you think it's worth another look. Admittedly, FHISO has undergone several changes -- including a major team change and the scaling down of the original organisational structure -- but they've since published a new strategy and draft standards for public ...
Revisiting Speed and Balding - Blog comment by debbiek - 8 Nov 2017