A DNA Case Study: You Can Do the DNA Part 4

[@JCK-gi2gm]

I've found numbers 1, 2, and 4 but not #3 and #5. Have they been posted but not numbered, or....?

[@melbanton]

Number 5 was a separate webinar that happened this week. I can't find number 3 either though.

[@mandlerparr1]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/eH-khp94nrx8kLc

[@kmr84100]

#5 Webinar - kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIK2YZeQqtmdrNk

[@cdub31613]

#3 still hasn’t been posted

[@donnaroberts8791]

#3 kzbin.info/www/bejne/eH-khp94nrx8kLcsi=bz_FgfWPuJgBZOo4

[@sie4431]

I like adding ancestor names to notes of my matches so when I look at a group I can spot common names (one day!). If I was working on this case I'd do Jackson/Harding=Jones/Long and so on, each with a new line. If I can exclude a certain branch then no need to include those so when I see someone with ancestors called Jackson and Jones I can investigate a link This will be a lot easier when Ancestry add how much DNA your shared matches have in common with each other later in 2024 and sideview at grandparents level whenever they figure that out

[@UlandaWinclass]

Winclass

[@harrymyhero]

I wish you would not call it cheating. The end result that is wanted is the goal. Not how you got there, when it is given by Ancestry, as it should be for what we pay for a year of service.

[@shantel4960]

🥳