DNA survey - please respond

[trebor]

The highlighting is just a convenient visual aid, specifying a particular colour seems rather unnecessary. If you're using an extra column to say how many 3GGPs I reckon you don't really need it at all.

I agree with that but I assume that Peter has a reason for requesting it.

 

[peter]

If you're using an extra column to say how many 3GGPs I reckon you don't really need it at all.

When I'm scanning dozens of spreadsheets trying to refine the algorithm it helps to be able to see at a glance how effectively the counties are sorted. It also acts as a double-check in case the 3GGP column hasn't been sorted.

By the way, I wasn't the one who came up with the idea of highlighting - Pauline was the first to use it, then Bob used two different shades, and we continued from there.

 

[Bob Spiers]

If you're using an extra column to say how many 3GGPs I reckon you don't really need it at all.

Agreed, but if pushed what about (extended) traffic lights Red through Green: RED,ORANGE, YELLOW, GREEN...or just choose a colour like BLUE and select shades from Navy to Pale blue...just a thought

 

[Pauline]

Pauline was the first to use it, then Bob used two different shades, and we continued from there.

Colours can look different, and the graduations stand out more or less, depending on which program is used to view the chart. In my latest version of the survey (#139 on page 7 of this thread) I used varying shades of yellow, with grey for the "trace" counties. I haven't copyrighted it.

 

[PaulC]

It's not that I question the benefit of highlighting, I just wonder if maybe some people are over thinking it a bit. This isn't meant to be a colouring exercise! Just pick out a few different shades to show whether you have many, some or few ancestors from a particular county, it doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

 

[canadianbeth]

Ancestry has received my sample; it took just under 2 weeks to get to Ireland from Canada. (The box was so small I was afraid Canada Post would lose it) They say it will now take 6-8 weeks and maybe longer due to high demand. I assume they mail me the results?

 

[peter]

Ancestry has received my sample; it took just under 2 weeks to get to Ireland from Canada. (The box was so small I was afraid Canada Post would lose it) They say it will now take 6-8 weeks and maybe longer due to high demand. I assume they mail me the results?

It'll probably take about 4 weeks. You'll get an email when the results are available, but now's the time to read the Masterclass and start following the advice.

 

[whollyjoe]

Here's my spreadsheet

 

[peter]

Here's my spreadsheet

Thanks - could you possibly upload it as a spreadsheet so that I (and perhaps others) can update the results as the algorithm is refined?

Interesting to see that Wiltshire once again comes near the top for no obvious reason. Does anyone genuinely have Wiltshire ancestry?

 

[Pauline]

Does anyone genuinely have Wiltshire ancestry?

Yes, and Wiltshire is showing quite correctly at the top of my list. However, Kent is equally important in my ancestry but is a few counties lower down the list.

 

[Andrew Lloyd]

Here is my revised list (with Welsh counties). Somerset and Wiltshire now at the top of the list (but no known ancestors), although previously only half way down the list.

Also included my wife's results (she does have ancestors in Wiltshire and most of the surrounding counties)

 

[PhilGee]

.....
Does anyone genuinely have Wiltshire ancestry?

Yes, my paternal side is heavily Wiltshire - for my grandmother, nearly 100% (though Somerset border), and grandfather, about 40%. Somerset figures heavily in my maternal side. They are my top two.

Phil

 

[PhoebeW]

Interesting to see that Wiltshire once again comes near the top for no obvious reason. Does anyone genuinely have Wiltshire ancestry?

I don't have Wiltshire relatives but I had a look at my matches showing Wiltshire ancestry. Some of them are descendants of Wiltshire born people moving to the South Wales valleys, but most of the closest matches are American. I'm still wondering whether this apparent bias could be about emigration. I know that I have lots of matches (from a total of over 37,000) because of the emigration of relatives to north America and Australia in the 1800s. Wiltshire seems to have had some particulary effective emigration campaigns.

 

[peter]

I'm still wondering whether this apparent bias could be about emigration. I know that I have lots of matches (from a total of over 37,000) because of the emigration of relatives to north America and Australia in the 1800s. Wiltshire seems to have had some particulary effective emigration campaigns.

Thanks for the tip - I am making some enquiries.

 

[IanL]

Does anyone genuinely have Wiltshire ancestry?

I do. Wiltshire appears in my spreadsheet just about where I would expect it to be. It's Kent, Lancashire & Yorkshire that I find baffling as my paternal ancestors seem exclusively to come from the southwest & East Anglia.

 

[whollyjoe]

Sorry, yes, my results as a spreadsheet:

 

[peter]

Sorry, yes, my results as a spreadsheet:

Thanks - I notice Staffordshire and Surrey are shaded, but there are no 3G grandparents shown against them?

 

[whollyjoe]

Thanks - I notice Staffordshire and Surrey are shaded, but there are no 3G grandparents shown against them?

Yes my mistakes. Staffordshire was shaded gray because I have direct ancestors born there, but do not go as far back as 3G grandparents so they should probably be ignored.
Surrey wss not meant to be shaded - maybe I copied that from the original spreadsheet?

 

[GrahamC]

I'm a late-comer. Haven't read all the posts yet. Here's my spreadsheet though. The highlighted counties are the ones where I know I have ancestors.

 

[peter]

The highlighted counties are the ones where I know I have ancestors.

Thanks - are you able to quantify this by adding an extra column with the number of 3G grandparents who are believed to have ancestors from each county?