Gedmatch calculators on Vahaduo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

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.

---

Yes, and he also has Bavarian and Swabian averages which he posted only in K15. Very unfortunate. I asked him in PM today to send their K13 to Creoda who is making German averages and I hope he will.

Also western Polish average is really needed as I wrote few pages back. Western Poles drift towards Sorbs, Czechs and East Germans, it's a large country and they deserve an average. As we know Peterski is from there and surely has tons of kits. I know he tested his family and relatives for a start and they are all deeply local.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

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.

---

Well, they are proxy but that feels a little wrong to put "North" when it's supposed to be Kargopol only, which is still a specific place even if technically not too different from neighboring ones.
I didn't know Kargopol myself before I learned it from Gedmatch :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

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.

---

Correct. I understand why you are hesitant to revisit the Dodecad Hungarian :D

To be fair, Peterski did add Masurian K13 average to Vahaduo. He gave it to me and I sent it to Lucas. Please rename it to Polish_Masurian, that way it's more clear what it is. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

Also western Polish average is really needed as I wrote few pages back. Western Poles drift towards Sorbs, Czechs and East Germans, it's a large country and they deserve an average. As we know Peterski is from there and surely has tons of kits. I know he tested his family and relatives for a start and they are all deeply local.

---

Yet Davidski did add the bullshit called "Estonian_Polish". Not even 10,000 Poles live in Estonia today.
However, I think "Polish" and "South_Polish" are good ones, representative for a lot of Poles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Yet Davidski did add the bullshit called "Estonian_Polish". Not even 10,000 Poles live in Estonia today.
However, I think "Polish" and "South_Polish" are good ones, representative for a lot of Poles.

---

Estonian_Polish is unnecesssary I agree, western Polish is much more needded. But Masurian is pretty good too, nice proxy for NE Poles.
Kashubian average would be nice as well, they are sub-group of Lechites/Poles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

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.

---

As was stated before, first we should look at population size, country area & shape, the establishment of regions and interregional differences, and then genetic proximity of regions averages. It's useful to have more regional averages for Top 10 largest European nations because it gives a shape to the PCA as a whole. It is also good to have less regional averages for countries with lower (2) or intermediate (4) population size and other factors (like Hungary). Look at the current Vahaduo Custom PCA, how the Romanian averages follow up the pattern between the Bulgarian, Moldavian and Yugoslav averages, how they nicely shape the PCA. Are there 2-3 too many Romanian averages? As said before, probably, but imagine how it would look like if we only had 3 Romanian averages? That's not in the international or usefulness interest.

I didn't say that yet how Transylvanian Hungarians have an inclination from the Hungarian national average toward Moldavians and Romanians. Just look at the PCA, they are in-between Hungarian and Moldavian national averages, as well as Hungarian national average and northern Romanian regional averages.

You want to lower the number of Romanian averages to a minimum, while Ion wants to keep their number to a maximum. I'm proposing an intermediate solution. All happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

As was stated before, first we should look at population size, country area & shape, the establishment of regions and interregional differences, and then genetic proximity of regions averages. It's useful to have more regional averages for Top 10 largest European nations because it gives a shape to the PCA as a whole. It is also good to have less regional averages for countries with lower (2) or intermediate (4) population size and other factors (like Hungary). Look at the current Vahaduo Custom PCA, how the Romanian averages follow up the pattern between the Bulgarian, Moldavian and Yugoslav averages, how they nicely shape the PCA. Are there 2-3 too many Romanian averages? As said before, probably, but imagine how it would look like if we only had 3 Romanian averages? That's not in the international or usefulness interest.

I didn't say that yet how Transylvanian Hungarians have an inclination from the Hungarian national average toward Moldavians and Romanians. Just look at the PCA, they are in-between Hungarian and Moldavian national averages, as well as Hungarian national average and northern Romanian regional averages.

You want to lower the number of Romanian averages to a minimum, while Ion wants to keep their number to a maximum. I'm proposing an intermediate solution. All happy.

---

I am for more concise database, I find it more useful than seeing one after the other in the distance calculator regions that are basically telling me the same thing and are related with one another. The same type of significant reduction should be applied to Spain, Greece, Italy without doubt. It's just better optics and better usage of space. But this is just my personal suggestion.

Is it possible to create Siberian Russian average?