Gedmatch calculators on Vahaduo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

...what I sad are based on historical but also modern day genetic reality of Romanians. For example there are some differences between both Northern and Southern Transdanubia and Alföld Hungarians genetically, but still opted to only one average for each, because why should I divide Hungary more when it's not that important. One average for each historic region is more than enough, no matter if it has some differences between the south and north, east and west of that region.

---

Your comparison between Hungary and Romania isn't reasonable. Romania has double the population and territorial area than Hungary, as well Romanian regional averages have a wider distance between themselves than those Hungarian with the exception of Hungarian Transylvania which is a Hungarian outlier with an expected inclination toward Moldavia and Romania.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ion Basescul

For a country of Romania's size and diversity, 10 averages is fair. Better cut the Ethiopian regions or some of the exotic populations from Southeast Asia and Africa, which is not meaningful to most users on this forum.

---

Well, in the end, 10 averages for Romania perhaps are fine. I don't understand what the Ethiopian case has anything to do with Romanian averages. It's unrelated as each country/nation is its own case, it's not like we have a limited number of total averages, and we shouldn't cut any Ethiopian regions because people worldwide are using K13 Vahaduo, as well as Ethiopia has a population of more than 100 million, that's discriminatory...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ion Basescul

There are differences and all of them exist for a reason.

Moldavia_North is mixed with Ukrainians, especially those from Bukovina.
Moldavia_South is intermediary between Moldavia_North and Wallachia.
Muntenia is mixed with Bulgarians.
Dobruja is a recent colony, populated by people from all over the country and then also some Turks and Tatars mixed in.
Oltenia had a Hungarian presence, which is also noticeable genetically.
Banat had a strong migration from Oltenia.
Crisana is noticeably mixed with Hungarians.
Maramures is like Moldavia_North, as in mixed with Ukrainians, but not as significantly.
And Transylvania is similar to Crisana, but also received significant migration from Wallachia and Moldavia in communist times.

I am not consolidating them, as it will compromise accuracy for no reason at all. For a country of Romania's size and diversity, 10 averages is fair. Better cut the Ethiopian regions or some of the exotic populations from Southeast Asia and Africa, which is not meaningful to most users on this forum.

---

Of course there won't be pure populations in any regions, since there was always mixing going on, all I'm saying for international purposes and to have more concise samples, it's better to not nit-pick to perfection all these differences within the regions, and rather use more broader regional averages. I even gave as an example about Hungary, where I could also easily nit-pick, but for an outsider how is it helpful to get North Alföd, South Transdanubia and so on, rather than the main historic region, as in Alföld or Transdanubia, which are more meaningful and easy to recognize?

Just checked how do these sub-regions compare to their broader region and you can see that both Crisana and Maramures are very close to Transylvania average, while the distances between Muntenia, Oltenia and Dobruja are even smaller with one another, and fit very well to the broader Wallachian average. Only slightly bigger differences I could notice between Banat and rest of Transylvania, and between both Moldavian regions, therefore maybe these could remain separately, but one broad Wallachia and Transylvania average for Romanians is enough.
Distance to: Romania_Maramures
2.79032256 Romania_Crisana
3.07353217 Romania_Transylvania

Distance to: Romania_Crisana
1.76031247 Romania_Transylvania
2.79032256 Romania_Maramures

Distance to: Romania_Muntenia
0.64575537 Romania_Wallachia
0.77511290 Romania_Dobruja
2.18970318 Romania_Oltenia

Distance to: Romania_Oltenia
1.55319027 Romania_Wallachia
1.77628826 Romania_Dobruja
2.18970318 Romania_Muntenia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

Your comparison between Hungary and Romania isn't reasonable. Romania has double the population and territorial area than Hungary, as well Romanian regional averages have a wider distance between themselves than those Hungarian with the exception of Hungarian Transylvania which is a Hungarian outlier with an expected inclination toward Moldavia and Romania.



Well, in the end, 10 averages for Romania perhaps are fine. I don't understand what the Ethiopian case has anything to do with Romanian averages. It's unrelated as each country/nation is its own case, it's not like we have a limited number of total averages, and we shouldn't cut any Ethiopian regions because people worldwide are using K13 Vahaduo, as well as Ethiopia has a population of more than 100 million, that's discriminatory...

---

Larger population doesn't equal that there should be more regional averages, especially when within a region distances between sub-regions are very close to one another. It's just unnecessary. On another note Transylvanian Hungarians aren't closer to Romanians and Moldavians, but actually to Székelys, Csángós, Croatians and Hungarians.

Distance to: Hungarian_Transylvania
1.16619038 Székely
2.06661559 Csángó
3.74759923 Croat_West
4.67794827 Croat_South
4.93330518 Croat
4.94560411 Hungarian
4.96957745 Hungarian_Alföld
5.43561404 Serb_north
5.44066172 Romania_Moldavia_North
5.47866772 Hungarian_Transdanubia+Budapest
5.71539150 Serb_central
5.91459212 Serb
6.02299759 Bosniak
6.13950324 Romania_Maramures
6.49513664 Romania_Crisana
6.54796151 Croat_East
6.61689504 Moldova_Centre
6.64836822 Croat_North
6.85382375 Moldova_average
7.28390005 Romania_Moldavia_South
7.38275694 Slovenian
7.75199974 Romania_Transylvania
7.83529195 Hungarian_Northern
7.85563492 Moldova_North

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

I think for Spain 4-7 averages would be enough (NW, NE, SW, SE, Basque and Canarian + one general average).
Italy and Greece require more but they should be in resonable amount (10-15 for each maybe? others will know better)

---

I advocate for these Italian averages getting tossed, many of which are subregional averages that aren't necessary IMO (also, do we really need to divide a subregion like Emilia in two?):

Code:

---

IT_Insubria,32.58,12.51,24.96,7.90,18.79,2.07,0.05,0.27,0.12,0.14,0.21,0.22,0.12
IT_Orobia,33.02,11.21,25.86,6.82,19.58,2.31,0.24,0.13,0.25,0.21,0.05,0.23,0.03
IT_Emilia_ovest,30.28,10.80,24.92,8.49,21.36,2.54,0.31,0.45,0.00,0.32,0.40,0.03,0.04
IT_Emilia_est,28.39,11.31,23.83,8.27,22.84,4.00,0.19,0.30,0.09,0.21,0.32,0.14,0.03
IT_Sannio,18.49,7.95,23.25,13.57,29.86,4.99,0.39,0.03,0.22,0.55,0.15,0.33,0.16
IT_Puglia,18.81,9.37,21.86,14.54,28.77,4.95,0.28,0.05,0.17,0.26,0.44,0.35,0.09
IT_Lucania,20.54,8.01,20.72,14.50,28.73,5.50,0.37,0.08,0.09,0.03,0.46,0.59,0.33
IT_Calabria_citra,16.45,6.16,22.01,14.95,32.59,5.52,0.52,0.23,0.04,0.18,0.6,0.41,0.28
IT_Salento,19.24,6.97,22.95,14.88,30.37,4.23,0.00,0.27,0.03,0.52,0.29,0.16,0.06
IT_Calabria_ultra,16.11,5.87,21.72,14.90,32.65,6.51,0.24,0.34,0.00,0.04,0.17,1.16,0.21

---

Also, IT_Lucania sample is identical to IT_Basilicata (it's the same region but using an archaic name for it), and we don't need the Puglia sample since we already have one.

Romani should be deleted, Balkan_Gypsy is better. Moldova_Roma is also weak, only two samples. Ion Basescul's Romania_Muntenia_Roma is more solid

Code:

---

Romania_Muntenia_Roma,10.87,10.98,13.02,16.12,19.24,2.66,23.01,1.43,0.72,0.21,1.21,0.39,0.14

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

@Lucas, I've renamed the Russians, it's better when they start with the word Russian. Erzya_Mordovian instead of Erzya is more understandable. At least people can google Mordovia and see it on the map.

Code:

---

Russian_Kargopol,24.92,48.36,7.52,5.54,1.50,0.04,2.49,0.23,6.67,1.70,0.23,0.53,0.26
Russian_Kostroma,26.19,48.54,6.21,5.35,3.19,0.39,1.05,0.69,6.37,1.16,0.52,0.19,0.16
Russian_Pinega,24.72,51.94,5.05,2.82,0.39,0.58,1.58,0.24,9.96,1.96,0.27,0.31,0.23
Russian_Smolensk,28.16,48.47,8.74,5.82,3.83,1.69,1.38,0.17,0.85,0.43,0.38,0.06,0.01
Russian_Southwest,25.91,47.21,8.25,6.80,6.26,0.55,1.00,0.22,2.14,0.81,0.43,0.19,0.23
Erzya_Mordovian,21.08,50.52,6.40,7.60,2.62,0.32,1.78,0.49,7.11,1.50,0.00,0.25,0.33

---

---

Couldn't you make averages for Russia like west, central, north etc? From these SW Russian is okay, other are based on one city which is pretty dumb. I know you have hundreds of east Slavic results.
I also dislike Ukrainian_Lviv average for example, broader west Ukrainian average would be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

Couldn't you make averages for Russia like west, central, north etc? From these SW Russian is okay, other are based on one city which is pretty dumb. I know you have hundreds of east Slavic results.
I also dislike Ukrainian_Lviv average for example, broader west Ukrainian average would be better.

---

Honestly I don't feel like doing that. That'd take a lot of effort. On Dodecad we have a few good Russian references, I mostly use D K12b for Russians, it's also easier to have a database in only one format. I started with Dodecad back in 2018, by now many kits might be deleted, so I only have their K12b results.
Lukasz can add a few more (he added some academic stuff to Dodecad). I'd add Ryazan, Tver and Pskov personally.
Cities are not a problem, they can be understood as proxies. Smolensk = one of the Westernmost Russian oblasts. Lviv = proxy for Western Ukraine/Galicia. Kostroma, Kargopol = proxy for Northern Russian. Etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Honestly I don't feel like doing that. That'd take a lot of effort. On Dodecad we have a few good Russian references, I mostly use D K12b for Russians, it's also easier to have a database in only one format. I started with Dodecad back in 2018, by now many kits might be deleted, so I only have their K12b results.
Lukasz can add a few more (he added some academic stuff to Dodecad). I'd add Ryazan, Tver and Pskov personally.
Cities are not a problem, they can be understood as proxies. Smolensk = one of the Westernmost Russian oblasts. Lviv = proxy for Western Ukraine/Galicia. Kostroma, Kargopol = proxy for Northern Russian. Etc.

---

If they are proxies, maybe averages could be simply renamed to regions they represent? Most people don't know where Pinega or Kargopol are. Yeah they can google it, but you get my point. IMO averages should be as easy to understand as possible.

Peterski has Ukrainian_Kiev and Belarusian_Minsk, pretty solid academic data set. Both are capitals and iconic places/oblasts. I've only seen K15 which I don't use much. But he won't add shit to an LM project. I've been begging him to give me that data for months and to no avail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Honestly I don't feel like doing that. That'd take a lot of effort. On Dodecad we have a few good Russian references, I mostly use D K12b for Russians, it's also easier to have a database in only one format. I started with Dodecad back in 2018, by now many kits might be deleted, so I only have their K12b results.
Lukasz can add a few more (he added some academic stuff to Dodecad). I'd add Ryazan, Tver and Pskov personally.
Cities are not a problem, they can be understood as proxies. Smolensk = one of the Westernmost Russian oblasts. Lviv = proxy for Western Ukraine/Galicia. Kostroma, Kargopol = proxy for Northern Russian. Etc.

---

I can confirm, it's quite a pain in the ass to manually run all kits once again on a different calculator and then add them in a sheet in order, then calculate them, and when you have hundreds, such a task totally takes way too many hours to even estimate, days more like. It's why it takes so long for me to advance with my K15 averages for Hungarians, especially that most often don't have super much time for this.