Louis Kessler’s Behold Blog     The Behold User Forum

Thank you eagle-eyed Tony for taking the time to let me know. Yes, you are correct. It should be BEF/TO before and FROM/BET/AFT that follow. I've now updated this blog post to reflect this. I checked my code in Behold, and it is implemented correctly. I just errored in this blog post.

Keith: I totally agree. But my wife is hopeful that Will Smith will save us.

Thanks, Debbie. I am now working with the help of your thoughts as well as those of Andrew Millard to try to statistically represent what Speed and Balding have simulated so as to better understand what their results represent. The constrained population is one thing (similar to a small version of Iceland over ...

Thank you Debbie for your analysis, but I'm still not convinced. You were correct on Facebook to say that the match filter would not affect results above 9 cM. So there must be some other reason why Speed and Balding give a greater than 20% chance that shared segments from 30 Mb to 40 Mb are from > 20 ...

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 ...

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 ...

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/

Joe, Sorry to take so long to respond. I hadn't seen Steven Fox's spreadsheet before. Couldn't find him or mention of his tool on Google. Finally, I discovered he was part of the Visual Phasing Facebook group. So I requested membership, and Blaine Bettinger, the group coordinator approved me. So finally I ...

Debbie: Well, I'm just looking at the results. And FamilyTreeDNA seems to have many fewer disprovals of IBD by parents at any given cM level than AncestryDNA does.

Very interesting, Debbie. So then it seems that FTDNA's criteria of at least one 9 cM segment is better (i.e. produces fewer false matches) than AncestryDNA's combination of phasing and inclusion of segments down to 6 cM. That may be indicative that AncestryDNA's phasing combined with its Timber may not be ...