Documenting a GUESS
Setup… A Match, with No Family Tree, is a 1C to a Known Match per ProTools. The Known Match is in my Tree with a specific line of descent from our MRCA; and a 1C estimate is very reliable. I want to put the new Match in my Tree and place them in my Common Ancestor spreadsheet – to “take care of” that Match by placing them almost certainly where they belong in my Tree.
As I’ve blogged before, there are only two options to place a 1C to a Known Match: 1. a grandchild of the Known Match’s paternal grandparents; or 2. a grandchild of the Known Match’s maternal grandparents. In other words, the new Match is a child of a sibling of the Known Match’s father or mother. A quick review of my Shared Match list with this new Match, clearly reveals the Match is on the same side (paternal or maternal) that I am on with the Known Match. In other words, I know the path from the Known Match back to our MRCA is through their father or mother. I can now see, through ProTools, the new Match is related to me that way, too.
So I know the path from the MRCA down to the new Match – it’s the same path that I have with the Known Match down to, and including, the grandparent of the Known Match. What I don’t know is the name of the son or daughter of that grandparent = the parent of the new Match.
Up until recently, I’ve just named that son or daughter “block” as GUESS or Unknown in my Tree and in the “cell” of my spreadsheet. I’m now up to a dozen or so of these and can see many more on the horizon. My index of people in my Tree is filling up with GUESS and Unknown people…
I see four options for a name:
1. Continue with GUESS or Unknown [I usually reserve GUESS for iffy guesses]. I don’t like this – it’s not helpful to me or others reviewing my Tree – someday it may be very confusing.
2. Child of [name the grandparent]; ex: “Child of Bob JONES”
3. Parent of [the new Match]; ex: “Parent of Horatio Mitchell”
4. Sibling of [name the Known Match’s parent]; ex: “Sibling of Martha SMITH”
The Tree “box” and spreadsheet “cell” would have these entries and appear very close to other, known, boxes and cells. They would also be more specific in the Tree index, instead of a generic “GUESS” or “Unknown”.
I think I like (4) Sibling of Known Match’s parent the best because it specifically precludes the Known Match’s parent. In fact, I just did one new Match who was 1C to two different Matches so the description was: [sibling of John and Mary SURNAME] to rule them both out [after checking with ProTools].
I am interested in feedback on this topic – i.e. how to efficiently document Matches which clearly fit in a specific Tree branch. I am experimenting with 1C1R and even some 2C which clearly cannot fit anywhere else. Keyword here is “efficiently” – there is a LOT to do, and I don’t want to have to write a paragraph about each one. This is primarily for my own research. If I leave them as alive, no one else will see them; and if I mark them as deceased, the only people who will care will be close relatives to the new Match, and they may provide some feedback to me. I hope so…
[22DH] Segment-ology: ProTools 26 – Documenting a GUESS by Jim Bartlett 20250302
segment-ology 
I for one have taken on your Common Ancestor spreadsheet. Yes, it’s a lot of work but totally worth it!! I started much later than you. I started seriously with triangulation from MyHeritage in 2020 (took 5 months of constant work and after doing all that work, I hit roadblocks very quickly). I moved to Ancestry instead as I had so many more matches there for my father’s side, and more trees to work with. I have over 1600 matches on my spreadsheet now (just on my father’s Colonial American side) and am currently working on my 4th Great Grandparents. ProTools has been a huge help. And I recommend your blog A LOT, but I find people have to be really serious about it to put the necessary work into it.
Since I’m a lurker and don’t tend to post comments, I want to say how thankful I am for your blog. I’ve read the entire thing three times now, and it was how I got started on my DNA journey.
As for this topic, I have started using Child of [name the parent or grandparent of] or Sibling of [name the sibling] – I had been trying to get down to every detail, even to their birth ear, but have finally come to the conclusion that it is not the most productive use of my time when I have so many more matches to go.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Crispy, Thanks for your encouraging feedback. I applaud you for your diligence and hard work. I too, made little headway at MyHeritage – I got the Triangulated groups (meshed very well with my TGs from other sites – as they should), but there is slim pickins in finding the Common Ancestors with Matches. That’s why I, too, have shifted to Ancestry/ProTools. And I’m on the same wavelength with you on the need to work through as many Matches with Common Ancestors as we can (certainly all with ThruLines, and at least a quick look into UnLinked Trees) – and I’m of the same thinking that getting the skeletons in place is a much higher priority than getting them all perfect. For me, the goal is not a large, pretty Tree, but placing as many Matches as possible and analyzing the result to see if they all interrelate as they should and the BrickWalls are breached with the closest of the remaining Matches. Thanks for your input. Jim
LikeLike
Pingback: Friday’s Family History Finds | Empty Branches on the Family Tree
I agree with you, Jim, “sibling of,” for the same reason you articulated.
That said, with a tiny bit of elbow grease using obituaries and Facebook searches/pages/scans (not to mention asking the owners of those DNA kits or of their cousins), I find it’s very rare that I can’t determine the actual identity of the mystery “sibling of …”
LikeLike
ESJ – Thanks for your feedback. Like you, I’ve often chased down the identity of these links. But it takes time, and I’ve got a long “row to hoe” to review over 7,000 Matches and use ProTools to find a few thousand more Matches. I’m on Ahnentafel 88 now – almost half way through my 4xG grandparents. Once I validate all of the Matches in one family (like A88), I then cycle back through all of them looking for additional 1C and closer Matches to the ones I already have. These often have “less quality” Trees or even none at all. I’m shifting to my #4 to quickly get through the analysis with fewer rabbit holes. I hope to get through the 5XG level (6C = ThruLines max point) level this year. I can then do some data analysis: what percentage of the children at each generation appear to be in the DNA paths; my own version of a Shared cM Matrix; what percent of ThruLines Matches are valid, per generation; etc. I think it would be good to be aware of those kinds of stats. Someday, I’d like to get through the 8C generation and see if genetic genealogy is still expanding or starting to contract – also good stuff to know. I wish there were a few other “Segmentologists” out there willing to take on the Common Ancestor spreadsheet which is tedious to fill out, but provides a wealth of easy to manipulate data…. Jim
LikeLike
Jim, I go with “Parent of [Match]” because of the risk of more than one kinship to the tester. It may be that I can document the descent from an MRCA to the tester’s paternal uncle, but that the segment I share with the tester actually derives from the tester’s mother. I have run into this in highly endogamous communities (French-Canadian) and less endogamous (coal-mining regions in West Virginia, early Utah pioneers). Without a chromosome browser, one cannot be certain that the segment shared with the uncle (or first cousin, or whatever) actually is the same segment shared with the tester.
LikeLike
dependable5f32677feO – I can see and understand your point. There are situations (Endogamy for one), that make it difficult to pinpoint the line. I do not advocate forcing our foot into Cinderella’s slipper. We should use only use these [“crib” names] to the extent that we are sure they are accurate. I’m not trying to fool any one, just trying to leave a breadcrumb path when I’ve already gone down the rabbit hole – my best, accurate, notes that will help me in the future. As part of this process we need to be sure of how the “new Match” fits into a branch of our Tree. Sometimes we can only use the ProTools info and say the “new Match” is somewhere on the branch and revert to “unknown” links if that is all we know.
And I should be quick to point out that it is entirely possible to be related to the “new Match” in multiple ways – I try my best to document every way a Match is related. And, as you point out, the only way we can figure out the DNA link, is probably through Triangulated DNA segments. Thanks for your feedback. My parents were raised and married in Charleston, WV and most of my Ancestry is from Colonial Virginia – so I’ve learned to watch for multiple cousinships. I’m working on a method to highlight this in my spreadsheet. Jim
LikeLike
Hi Jim,
My choice is to go with #4. Most logical as it is the reason you were able to place them initially.
Ellen
LikeLike
Thanks for your feedback, Ellen. Your point is good – “if” we can place them, we should be able to document it. Jim
LikeLike
oh those operative words “if” and “should”!
ProTools has helped me tremendously in placing some problematic names. It is one of the best tools that has come down the pike.
Ellen
LikeLike
Ellen – ah, yes. I like your sense of humor. As with most things DNA, it’s not precise like a mathematical formula. Sometimes the “correct” data is clearcut, other times it’s fuzzy. The good news is that as a keep filling in my Common Ancestor spreadsheet, the interrelationships are locking in many of my Matches… and sometimes the ProTools DNA shows there is incorrect genealogy and/or an NPE. I’m starting to add Notes that say: probably NOT back to A88 [A88 being the Ahnentafel for the Ancestor I’m working on] – that Note will prompt me to find some other relationship for the Match. ProTools just keeps on giving… Jim
LikeLike
I agree w/ hojogenealogy. Option #4 is as precise as it can be until you know more, and also the least confusing for any current and future genealogists/cousins who work with your tree/data.
LikeLike
Thanks, Cathy – I just checked my Tree Index and I have 43 People listed as GUESS. For me that is not too bad, and I’ve already fixed several of them right from the index. I’m putting them in [brackets] just as an “alert” that it’s not a real name.Jim
LikeLike
As you explained, naming convention #4 makes clear that the known match’s parent is NOT the parent of the new match. If I understand correctly, the situation is as follows: Grandparent has a child Andrew, and some number of other children about whom nothing is known. Andrew is the parent of Andrew Jr, who is a known match. Now comes a new match who is 1C to Andrew Jr. We create a new box (i.e., profile) in the family tree, naming it “Sibling of Andrew,” whose child is the new match. Now the tree has a complete path of descent from the grandparent through “Sibling of Andrew,” to the new match who is 1C to Andrew Jr. If all is well, the shared matches list should show that Andrew, if he has tested, is uncle to the new match.
LikeLike
hojo – Exactly. We could extend that to a 1C1R or even a 2C, but we have to make sure the new Match groups, or Clusters, with some of the same Matches I share with Andrew Jr (through his father Andrew). There is a chance the Match could be a cousin to Andrew Jr through his mother, in which case the new Match would NOT match any of our Shared Matches with Andrew Jr. Through ProTools I’ve seen Matches who are a parent of a known Match – but the new Match is female, and the mother of Andrew Jr in our example. It doesn’t happen ofter, but we have to check each time. Jim
LikeLike