> From: Kathy Johnston > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 3:21 PM > > OK. Here are my lame excuses to add to those already mentioned. > > There are several problems in producing a? GEDCOM: > > 1. My surname list is too big and I will need to retire from my job > before I have time to generate a decent GEDCOM. It will go on > forever. The surname list is automatically generated when you upload your GEDCOM. You do not need to enter it manually. You do have to enter the locations manually, but better to leave them out than not upload, at all. And the file won't "go on forever." It will only go back 11 generations, and it cannot contain more than 4095 people. Unless you have been extraordinarily thorough, you do not have all lines known back 11 generations, so your file is going to be much smaller than that. > 2. I don't want to publish something that has any potential mistakes > because those mistakes will get repeated over and over. It takes too > much time to verify it all. When you make an "abbreviated" GEDCOM for upload to FTDNA, you should *NOT* include any iffy connections. Only include the solid connections. > 3. The farther you go back in time, the more likely there are > questionable ancestors and multiple matching lines. Again, don't include any lines or connections that are not rock solid. If you have a lot of them, leaving them out should make your file that much smaller. > 4. I want people look at my surname list with geographical locations > next to each name and not just a tree. Well, in that case, while you won't have to enter the surnames, you will have to manually enter the locations. But it's only a big job the first time you do it. After that, minor additions take only minutes. > Some of the surnames on my > list are possible or probable but not proven. Maybe there is a > middle name that sounds like it came from an ancestor and I believe > I am on the right track because clearly the name, date and location > show that surname in the same place at the same time.? Getting over > those brick walls may mean showing information that is not yet > proven in the pedigree. Again, DO NOT include any unproven links in the file you upload. If you have a genetic match with someone of the right surname, you can discuss the "brick walls" in your line via email. > 5. Even if I go back 4 generations, am I likely to randomly match > any true 3rd cousins? NO!! because you need a database of over a > million to find that one in a million 3rd cousin. Even if you have > more than 300 3rd cousins alive today, there are over 300 million > people living in the U.S. Does FTDNA test that many people? No. Are > the 3rd and 4th cousin predictions accurate? Not at all because in > general you are picking up the more distant cousins right now that > are falling out of their expected cM range. Some of these segments > are probably over 2 standard deviations above their expected size so > your chance of finding the ancestor is low. What I am saying is that > what looks like a 3rd or 4th cousin is really a very distant cousin. > The database has not yet reached a critical sample size. So is it > really worth all the effort right now? You can get a match with a database of two (n=2), if that other person is your cousin. I have 19 pages of matches, a dozen of them now confirmed on paper, from 1st cousins to 7th cousin. Forgive me, but you are not being at all realistic about the odds of finding a relative. > 6. Family Finder (or Relative Finder) works best if you are trying > to test a hypothesis. ?For example, on the television show, at PBS, > "Finding Your Roots", Henry Louis Gates, Jr. used autosomal DNA to > see if an African American could have been descended from a slave > owner by testing a presumed 3rd cousin who had a good paper trail. > That is how this autosomal DNA should be used successfully, as a > tool to test a hypothesis. These tests are not nearly as good at > finding those random matches that everyone is talking about. Of course I've been more successful in making matches with known or suspected cousins, ones I've deliberately tested. But I've also had some matches I wouldn't have expected or found any other way because I don't remotely know all the people who've descended from my ancestors. > So that is why I am in no hurry; I admittedly do need to work on > getting a GEDCOM updated, but maybe for other reasons... It's your prerogative to not upload a GEDCOM, but I think you're underestimating it's value - to you and to your matchees - and overestimating the difficulty of uploading one. It only took me a few hours to create the "skeleton" database and accomplish the upload, including filling in the locations for 15 pages of surnames. Considering what I've spent on DNA testing, I want to get every bit of value out of it I can - and share as much of that value as I can. Diana

The locale info should be something that we are allowed to add so that it appears on our tree. I've thought of this many times. After looking at tree after tree after tree of people who supposedly share a relatively large segment with me yet seeing no recognizable surnames in their data is extremely frustrating. While my due diligence in research over the years is beyond question to me personally I always wonder about everyone else when I see that I share a big chunk with someone, but no recognizable names. Being able to easily see their locales (rather than having to mouse over every freaking name in their tree) would at least let us quickly see if the other person had ancestors in the same places as our own. Greg Matthews On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Amy Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > While I've had great success in getting cousin matches on FF DNA, I also > have enormous frustration at the % of my emails that get no response. > I usually write 3 times over a period of months before I give up. I have > gotten some folks to eventually respond, so persistence is key. I've also > had cousin matches who have languished in the data base for a very long > time genuinely thrilled to be contacted. GEDCOMS, while really nice to > have, may be full of errors anyway (just as a lot of Ancestry.com trees > are.) Direct-line surnames with locales, to me, would certainly be better > than nothing, but most people won't even do THAT. I'm guessing that the > root problems are that many folks aren't computer savvy, too busy, don't > know what a GEDCOM is, are adopted, their emails are not checked, or > they're just lazy. I'm not sure we (or the lab) can solve these issues. > It just goes with the territory of human nature. > > >

I have read these posts with interest, for I share many of the same frustrations. I did note that Roberta Estes gave up on submitting a GEDCOM owing to file size limits. Of course, I do not know what software she uses, but I would have the same issue if I uploaded a GEDCOM of my whole file as the file contains thousands of people. I hope to show below, how to limit the file size and data of an ancestor tree file. For atDNA matching purposes, one is only interested in the direct ancestors of the person who tested. Here is what I do to create a smaller GEDCOM which contains only the ancestors of a testee. I use an older version of Family Tree Maker software, so what I am about to explain is specific to that line of software. Perhaps others can interpret how to do the same thing with their software. 1. Find the testee, and then under "View" display an Ancestor Tree (standard) with the maximum number of generations. 2. With the Ancestor Tree displayed, click on "File" and Select "Copy/Export Family File" then scroll down the save choices to select GEDCOM. 3. Name the file something that you can find in your directory and save it. Only the testee and the ancestor information will be saved. Don't worry if you have extensive notes, pictures, sources etc. They will all be stripped from your file by the FTDNA software as will anyone born after 1905 (if you choose). Also generations beyond the FTDNA cutoff will be eliminated as well. Just display and include all that you have so as not to miss something by mistake. 4. Login to your FTDNA page and select "My Account" Select GEDCOM and follow the instructions from there by browsing your directory to find and to upload your Ancestor GEDCOM. This whole process takes about 5 minutes, btw. You can delete an old GEDCOM and replace it with an updated GEDCOM at any time as you fill in more generations or missing details on your ancestors. As far as I know this method has few drawbacks. Maybe someone else can comment if it does. The real issue, however, is getting the message across to those to whom we have matches. I have been working with a 3C1R, who has, as yet, not been able to upload her GEDCOM. She has Family Tree Maker but cannot quite grasp the idea of finding herself and then displaying an Ancestor chart and then saving those data as a GEDCOM file. <Mega-Sigh> Walter Freeman On 5/13/2012 2:08 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote: > Yes, I see no point in including anything but direct line ancestors in > the GEDCOM uploaded to FTDNA if for no other reason than that > collaterals are not displayed by FTDNA. Also, there's no point in > including more than 12 generations (including the test subject) > because that's all FTDNA will display, no matter how many generations > are included in your file. > > If you *completely* fill your pedigree back to 11 generations, you > will have 4095 people in your file (4095 being the last ahnentafel > number - for your earliest matrilineal ancestor), which is as far at > FTDNA displays. This number jibes with the *cumulative* number given > here for 11 generations back: > http://dgmweb.net/Ancillary/OnE/NumberAncestors.html > > Diana > >

  In the FTDNA system at least if one simply adds "Adopted" in the surnames listings .... it helps a LOT..    Again ... a suggestion to be added to a list that we could collectively craft here on this list and provide to FTDNA as a "How to" suggestion.    Alternatively .... we could send it out ourselves.     Such a "How to" would be very useful to many.    John   :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I agree Mike .... I am assisting several folks who are either adopted or have an adoption in their line that has been their biggest brick-wall.   And many of them eagerly (and with great excitement) paid their money, took the test and now are uncertain (or are at least struggling) as to what to do.  I can understand the enthusiasm that may have brought them into the game.   When I run into someone with significant matches to our group of kits I always try to include them as collaborators if they are willing.  Including adoptees ...  My theory is that eventually we will have enough pieces to the puzzle to at least be able to offer deep ancestral story lines even if we can't provide near-term names.    In the meantime I find that by working in collaboration with these folks who show interest I learn a lot and that helps build my understanding of how best to apply these tests in the real world.    It's not without its faults but it seems to be at least one successful and rewarding strategy. And, I think we shouldn't jump past the fact that w e are all still learning how to best apply these Family Finder tools.  There is no one singular cookbook way to do this.   And while I agree that GEDCOM's and / or Pedigrees are great ..... a simple (but comprehensive) surname list is a great and often sufficient  start.    My suggestions to struggling test participants are always step-wise ..... 1.  develop a complete surnames list and enter it into FTDNA (or other vendors) files as they allow.   Then ... as time permits   2.  Build your pedigree ..... stretching your genealogically imposed need to proof everything to its limits .... just don't declare it all to be fact and don't post it on-line as fact.  And .... in those spare moments of time .....  3.  Build out your family files as far as you can along as many lines as you can ... with particular emphasis on working out sibling lines of more ancestral family to include spouses and at least a generation or two downstream ... which allows you to pick up on other potentially matching surnames from present day testing.    Surnames that are NOT in your direct line but ones that IF (and when) TESTED will in all probability match your targeted surname group. Now, that said .... even in my own situation I have so many kits (both recruited cousins and collaborators) in the files ... over 50 at present ..... it's difficult at best to work matches AND do upgrades while trying to conduct normal day-to-day business at the same time.     So, as in most everything we do these days ... most of us are behind on more things than we would like to admit.     Now, when someone contacts me and engages in a polite conversation about our matches I can re-direct if necessary to help fill in those GEDCOM / Pedigree / surname gaps if they exist and if I can do anything to accomodate.    But, I find it almost as interesting that even with a LOT of test kits out there that the number of "incoming" contacts is much much fewer than I ever anticipated.   It's my "out-going" communications that generate most of my activity.   And I believe this is the case because MOST folks just simply don't know what to do ... where to go .... who to turn to and have the normal human emotion of not wanting to look badly in public / or public communications.     I've never been hindered by that burden.    I can look "stupid" most anywhere and be ok with it as long as I'm trying. So .... I think a one page outline of "best practices"  .... would be very useful.   It could be distributed as a "cheat-sheet" to folks who have been waiting to get a sense of what to do next.    And, we could provide it to our matches as a pro-active gesture that shares our experiences with them in a way that might just prod them to those so needed next steps.     This is complicated stuff .... the more we can help uncomplicate it for the masses the more productive our own efforts will be .... John     ______________________________ For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

OK. Here are my lame excuses to add to those already mentioned. There are several problems in producing a? GEDCOM: 1. My surname list is too big and I will need to retire from my job before I have time to generate a decent GEDCOM. It will go on forever. 2. I don't want to publish something that has any potential mistakes because those mistakes will get repeated over and over. It takes too much time to verify it all. 3. The farther you go back in time, the more likely there are questionable ancestors and multiple matching lines. 4. I want people look at my surname list with geographical locations next to each name and not just a tree. Some of the surnames on my list are possible or probable but not proven. Maybe there is a middle name that sounds like it came from an ancestor and I believe I am on the right track because clearly the name, date and location show that surname in the same place at the same time.? Getting over those brick walls may mean showing information that is not yet proven in the pedigree. 5. Even if I go back 4 generations, am I likely to randomly match any true 3rd cousins? NO!! because you need a database of over a million to find that one in a million 3rd cousin. Even if you have more than 300 3rd cousins alive today, there are over 300 million people living in the U.S. Does FTDNA test that many people? No. Are the 3rd and 4th cousin predictions accurate? Not at all because in general you are picking up the more distant cousins right now that are falling out of their expected cM range. Some of these segments are probably over 2 standard deviations above their expected size so your chance of finding the ancestor is low. What I am saying is that what looks like a 3rd or 4th cousin is really a very distant cousin. The database has not yet reached a critical sample size. So is it really worth all the effort right now? 6. Family Finder (or Relative Finder) works best if you are trying to test a hypothesis. ?For example, on the television show, at PBS, "Finding Your Roots", Henry Louis Gates, Jr. used autosomal DNA to see if an African American could have been descended from a slave owner by testing a presumed 3rd cousin who had a good paper trail. That is how this autosomal DNA should be used successfully, as a tool to test a hypothesis. These tests are not nearly as good at finding those random matches that everyone is talking about. So that is why I am in no hurry; I admittedly do need to work on getting a GEDCOM updated, but maybe for other reasons... Kathy J.

I agree Mike .... I am assisting several folks who are either adopted or have an adoption in their line that has been their biggest brick-wall.   And many of them eagerly (and with great excitement) paid their money, took the test and now are uncertain (or are at least struggling) as to what to do.  I can understand the enthusiasm that may have brought them into the game.   When I run into someone with significant matches to our group of kits I always try to include them as collaborators if they are willing.  Including adoptees ...  My theory is that eventually we will have enough pieces to the puzzle to at least be able to offer deep ancestral story lines even if we can't provide near-term names.    In the meantime I find that by working in collaboration with these folks who show interest I learn a lot and that helps build my understanding of how best to apply these tests in the real world.    It's not without its faults but it seems to be at least one successful and rewarding strategy. And, I think we shouldn't jump past the fact that w e are all still learning how to best apply these Family Finder tools.  There is no one singular cookbook way to do this.   And while I agree that GEDCOM's and / or Pedigrees are great ..... a simple (but comprehensive) surname list is a great and often sufficient  start.    My suggestions to struggling test participants are always step-wise ..... 1.  develop a complete surnames list and enter it into FTDNA (or other vendors) files as they allow.   Then ... as time permits   2.  Build your pedigree ..... stretching your genealogically imposed need to proof everything to its limits .... just don't declare it all to be fact and don't post it on-line as fact.  And .... in those spare moments of time .....  3.  Build out your family files as far as you can along as many lines as you can ... with particular emphasis on working out sibling lines of more ancestral family to include spouses and at least a generation or two downstream ... which allows you to pick up on other potentially matching surnames from present day testing.    Surnames that are NOT in your direct line but ones that IF (and when) TESTED will in all probability match your targeted surname group. Now, that said .... even in my own situation I have so many kits (both recruited cousins and collaborators) in the files ... over 50 at present ..... it's difficult at best to work matches AND do upgrades while trying to conduct normal day-to-day business at the same time.     So, as in most everything we do these days ... most of us are behind on more things than we would like to admit.     Now, when someone contacts me and engages in a polite conversation about our matches I can re-direct if necessary to help fill in those GEDCOM / Pedigree / surname gaps if they exist and if I can do anything to accomodate.    But, I find it almost as interesting that even with a LOT of test kits out there that the number of "incoming" contacts is much much fewer than I ever anticipated.   It's my "out-going" communications that generate most of my activity.   And I believe this is the case because MOST folks just simply don't know what to do ... where to go .... who to turn to and have the normal human emotion of not wanting to look badly in public / or public communications.     I've never been hindered by that burden.    I can look "stupid" most anywhere and be ok with it as look as I'm trying. So .... I think a one page outline of "best practices"  .... would be very useful.   It could be distributed as a "cheat-sheet" to folks who have been waited to get a sense of what to do next.    And, we could provide it to our matches as a pro-active gesture that shares our experiences with them in a way that might just prod them to those so needed next steps.     This is complicated stuff .... the more we can help uncomplicate it for the masses the more productive our own efforts will be ....    

Yes, I see no point in including anything but direct line ancestors in the GEDCOM uploaded to FTDNA if for no other reason than that collaterals are not displayed by FTDNA. Also, there's no point in including more than 12 generations (including the test subject) because that's all FTDNA will display, no matter how many generations are included in your file. If you *completely* fill your pedigree back to 11 generations, you will have 4095 people in your file (4095 being the last ahnentafel number - for your earliest matrilineal ancestor), which is as far at FTDNA displays. This number jibes with the *cumulative* number given here for 11 generations back: http://dgmweb.net/Ancillary/OnE/NumberAncestors.html Diana > From: Jim Bartlett > > Roberta, et al > > The GEDcom that's needed for atDNA matching is one with ancestors > only! I'm working on the 13th generation (I have two atMatches who > are 12th cousins), and only have about 1600 people in the Tree. I > know some folks really want to scour around the collateral lines > looking for leads, but the first order of business is to look for > the Common Ancestor.

The problem with off-site solutions is that they're not accessible via the FF Matches page. I keep a Pedigree Chart that makes it very easy for someone to scan my near pedigree: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/aDNA/DGM-ancestry-8gen.html But there's no place for me to supply a link to it via my FTDNA account. Maybe that's another thing we should ask for... Diana > From: Jim Bartlett > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 1:02 PM > > Amy > > I agree with you that persistence is essential. I'd add that > work/homework is also key. Make it as easy as possible for your > atMatches to find the Common Ancestor in your Tree; and be willing > to carefully scour anything they send you. I think the easiest/best > thing to share is an alphabetical list of surnames with info on the > Patriarch (or Matriarch) for each one. Very difficult (for me) is a > full tree (without a pedigree tool); or an Ahnentafel list, which > takes a lot of scrolling. Worse (but better than nothing) is a > surname list. Absolute worst is a web page of stories about each > person (ancestor or not) to wade thru - requiring multiple clicks > and jumping around to look for another ancestor. > > If one is serious about using the atDNA tool, do the work. Prepare > something that's easy to share and easy for your atMatch to quickly > scan for the one Common Ancestor among all your stuff (or several > ancestors, if you have deep Colonial roots). > > One other tip, contact every atMatch! >

Hi, If my great grandparents were first cousins, shouldn't I be getting at least some matches with people who were related to them on FTDNA? I know that there is family group by this name on FTDNA. Thank you. Jean

Yes, the explanation really needs to be on the page where you do the upload. If there's anything administrating a DNA project will teach you, it's that people DO NOT read instructions, especially if they're not right in front of them. Diana P.S. Running a mailing list will teach you that, too. ;-) > From: Karen Zander > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 11:56 AM > > They do have a page about what a gedcom is, but it's not easily > found. > http://www.familytreedna.com/about-gedcom.aspx > > I've found that most people don't bother to read any of the > information > provided by FTDNA. They have good FAQs, but at least among my > matches, they > don't even know they exist. Could it be that the same people who > don't know > what gedcoms are, don't know what FAQs are?

Dear Listmates,   I have done some research on this, which was mostly in the form of asking for a copy of people's intro email (for those whom I contacted first), and asking them their email response rates. Then with a little subjective correlation analysis, I came up with the following guidelines: 1. Make your introductory email VERY succinct. I know you or I might read a tome for each and every match, but most people won't. The worst thing you can do is give an email which immediately evokes the "too long; didn't read" response. I recommend something along the lines of the following for the introduction: "Dear $name_of_match, FTDNA tells me that $name_of_match and I share significant stretches of DNA. I'd like to exchange lists of ancestral surnames to see if we can find our common ancestor from whom these DNA stretches originated."   (I use the actual name of match instead of "you" because people may have several proxy samples they administrate under the same email address, and you may not match them all...so that may save a round of emails that would otherwise call for a disambiguation of who the match is to - but I digress....) 2. Include your list of ancestral surnames right there in the intro email. Do not make anyone click any link. Do not make them hunt down your public tree on ancestry. 3. Make your list of ancestral surnames alphabetical. They know what they are looking for. Make it easy to find. 4. Make your list of ancestral surnames short, to the point where it is realistic to believe that any shared DNA could have come from the surname on the list.   The reader should be able to look at the list and determine if he has any interest in the surnames on the list more or less instantly. I know people will say that they emailed their match, and by comparing surnames, they found their common ancestor who was born in 1530. Probably not. You probably just didn't find the more recent ancestor who was the real origin of that shared DNA. By making a mile-long list of surnames, you are probably making it  less likely that they will read them. So, for my part, I include (paste a copy of) an HTML table that gives just 32 surnames (in my cases, I tested my mom and my dad, so it is 32 ancestral surnames for each of them - I just give the 32 for which parent of mine they matched in the intro email). That number of ancestors from a parent takes me to 5th cousins, which I think is about the limit of the test's resolving power. The table is two columns, with the alpha surname list left, and on the right the migration path. The considerations for the rightward column are these: A. Adding the number of characters to the number of characters in the surname should not exceed 72. I don't want the text to wrap to the next line and mess up the register...for cases where their email client isn't set up to handle HTML tables well (similar to this rootsweb list). B. Since you won't have enough characters to describe the migration path completely, it should concentrate on where that surname was in the timeframe from about early 1700s to 1850s or so. Earlier than 1700, and the test isn't really picking that up as a match, and later than 1850 or so, then you are close enough cousin that your match should "scream out", and you'd probably know who the person was anyway. C. Pack as much information as you can in the 60-something character spaces you have for migration path. I think it is important to NOT put a patriarch's name. If you list George Surname, and that is one generation above their Fred Surname, and they don't know about George, then they could think, "well, mine's not George, so I'm not interested". A matching surname and the right place at the right time will get a response if anything will. 5. The only thing I add to the very brief intro (above), and the 32-row-long two-column table that follows is the plea for them to respond with their own list of ancestral surnames, articulating the rationale that they might not see a connection, but you could very well recognize their surname as an important collateral line to yours, and thus extend their ancestral line, even though they would not have noticed it.   My response rate is inexplicably low, but it seems still better than most. I have a 25% response rate that is almost immediate, and that improves to about 40% with a 2nd email (after a month or two, I send out a "I think maybe your spam filter got my first email" message). There has not been enough time for me to do a 3rd yet, and eventually I will send out a weekly email to non-bouncing addresses for 10 to 15 consecutive weeks (and then write those off and remove them from the email list). I suspect that my total response rate will approach 50%. Gregg Bonner P.S. To see the surname tables I describe in their intended HTML format, see the 2nd and 3rd table at this URL: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gbonner/DNA/FF/email.html P.P.S. To see this tabular information in this message, in a way that will most likely lose format, and get mangled beyond all readability, see below (in my emails, the surnames are shaded according to genetic closeness - to see what I mean, click the link above): [to dad's matches] D. W. Bonner (FTDNA# 209176)   shade code = 1st cousin 2nd cousin 3rd cousin 4th cousin 5th cousin   [--?--]   Chatham, NC late 1700s - 1830s   Aiken   SC; GA; AL   Armstrong   Augusta, VA 1710s; Mecklenburg, NC 1760s; Bedford Co., TN 1840s   Bonner   Pr Geo, VA 1700s; Troup, GA 1830s; Chambers, AL 1850s; OK   Brigance   PA, Sumner Co., TN 1810s; Bedford Co.,TN   Brown   Meriwether, GA   Buchanan   Augusta, VA 1730s-1770s; Sumner, TN 1810s; White, IL 1840s   Bussey   Calvert, MD 1730s; SC 1790s; Bedford, TN 1800s   Carlisle   IRE 1700s; SC late 1700s; AL 1800s   Chappell   VA 1700s; Troup, GA 1800s   Connelly   Chester, SC 1790s; Troup, GA 1830s; Randolph, AL 1890s   Cottle   NC 1800s; Monroe, GA 1830s; Chambers, AL 1860s   Formby   VA; Troup, GA   Gant   Bute, NC 1750s; Abbeville, SC 1800s; Bedford, TN 1850s   Grant   Abbeville, SC 1790s; Randolph Co., AL 1840s   Hamble   Bedford, TN early 1800s   Jones #1   Troup, GA 1830s; Chambers, AL 1840s; OK 1930s   Jones #2   Guilford, NC 1770s; Sumner, TN 1800s   Jones #3   GA; AL; (AR)   Lemaster   SC 1700s; AL 1800s   Lentz   Fairfield, SC 1750s; Rowan, NC 1780s; Bedford, TN 1850s   Mayfield   Warren/Bute, NC 1760s; Granville Co., NC 1780s   Moore   VA 1700s; Troup, GA 1800s   Neeley   NC; Bedford, TN   Pickle   Orange, NC 1780s; Bedford, TN 1850s; Marshall, TN 1900s   Rutledge   Georgia or Alabama 1800s   Shearin   Bute, NC; Bedford, TN   Sikes   Halifax, VA 1760s; Lunenburg; GA 1790s; Bedford/Rutherford, TN   Springer   SC 1700s; Bedford, TN 1800s   Stephenson   Amherst, VA 1700s; Bedford, TN 1800s   Williams #1   NC 1780s; Sumner, TN 1810s; Bedford, TN 1850s; OK 1930s   Willingham   Lunenburg, VA 1700s; Columbia, GA 1810s; Randolph, AL 1860s === [to mom's (Happy Mother's Day, Mom!) matches] Ann Simpson (FTDNA# 227381)   shade code = 1st cousin 2nd cousin 3rd cousin 4th cousin 5th cousin   [--?--]   probably DE   Apperson   VA 1600s-1700s; Davidson, TN 1800s   Barrett   (Baltimore?) MD 1760s; Ohio Co., KY 1810s-1860s   Buck   Schleswig-Holstein   Classen   Schleswig-Holstein   Coleman   Cumberland/Buckingham, VA 1750s; Davidson, TN; Logan, KY   Dutch   Franklin Co., PA 1790s-1810s; Preble Co., OH 1830s   Fleagle   Bucks, PA 1740s, Frederick, MD 1770s; Preble, OH 1850s   Gentry   VA?; KY?; Gibson, IN   Haack   Schleswig-Holstein 1600s-1890s; IA; OK   Harder   Schleswig-Holstein   Harris   Rutherford, TN   Hartwig   Schleswig-Holstein   Jones #4   Rutherford/Davidson Cos., TN 1810s-1860s; St. Louis 1830s   Jones #5   Ohio, KY   Keith   Hardin Co., KY 1820s; Ohio Co., KY 1860s   Knowles   Sussex, DE 1750s; Greene, GA 1810s; Gibson, IN 1850s   Kraage   Schleswig-Holstein   Maassen   Schleswig-Holstein   Mills   Frederick Co, VA 1740s; Guilford, NC 1770s; Jay Co., IN   Phelps   Rutherford/Davidson Cos., TN 1810s-1860s; St. Louis 1830s   Ramey   France 1600s; Westmoreland, VA 1700s; Frederick, VA 1800s   Reed   Greene, GA 1800s; Gibson, IN   Schlosser   GER; PA; OH?   Smitz   Adams Co.(?), PA 1800s; Lancaster, PA; Preble Co., OH 1860s   Smotherman   ENG; VA; Rutherford, TN; OK   Spore   Frederick, VA; Gibson, IN; OK   Swallow   Kent Co., DE 1740s; Stokes, NC 1780s; Montgomery, OH   Waack   Schleswig-Holstein   West   MD; Rutherford, TN?   Wheeler   Sussex, DE 1730s; Kent, DE; NC 1790s   Williams #2   Brunswick Co., VA 1790s, Rutherford Co., TN 1840s   The right-hand side evolves to improve as I find better ways to cram information into 60-something character spaces.   So much for being succinct....

Roberta, et al The GEDcom that's needed for atDNA matching is one with ancestors only! I'm working on the 13th generation (I have two atMatches who are 12th cousins), and only have about 1600 people in the Tree. I know some folks really want to scour around the collateral lines looking for leads, but the first order of business is to look for the Common Ancestor. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On May 13, 2012, at 10:53 AM, "Roberta Estes" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Diana, > > My problem is that I can't upload my gedcom. There is a size limit and mine > is over the limit. The effort that it would take to reduce the size simply > isn't worth it. So one of your campaigns might be to get that size limit > removed. > > Roberta

Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On May 13, 2012, at 10:52 AM, "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <[email protected]> wrote: > LOL!!! You would have enjoyed the Milgram Experiment. ;-) > > >> From: Greg Matthews >> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:01 AM >> >> After they do that I hope they develop a button that each of us can >> purchase for a nominal price ($5 sounds good) that, when pressed, >> sends a >> minimal, yet increasing in magnitude, electric shock to any >> individual who >> doesn't respond to emails about matches. I gave up emailing matches >> at >> 23andme and I've just about done that with FF. I have 5 kits with >> FTDNA >> and get maybe 1 reply out of 15. I honestly do not see the point of >> testing if you aren't going to talk to people about your matches. >> >> As valuable as the GEDCOMs can be I would find it of more value to >> get >> people to respond to me, especially on brand new matches. >> >> Greg Matthews > > > > > ______________________________ > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Amy I agree with you that persistence is essential. I'd add that work/homework is also key. Make it as easy as possible for your atMatches to find the Common Ancestor in your Tree; and be willing to carefully scour anything they send you. I think the easiest/best thing to share is an alphabetical list of surnames with info on the Patriarch (or Matriarch) for each one. Very difficult (for me) is a full tree (without a pedigree tool); or an Ahnentafel list, which takes a lot of scrolling. Worse (but better than nothing) is a surname list. Absolute worst is a web page of stories about each person (ancestor or not) to wade thru - requiring multiple clicks and jumping around to look for another ancestor. If one is serious about using the atDNA tool, do the work. Prepare something that's easy to share and easy for your atMatch to quickly scan for the one Common Ancestor among all your stuff (or several ancestors, if you have deep Colonial roots). One other tip, contact every atMatch! Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On May 13, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Amy Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > While I've had great success in getting cousin matches on FF DNA, I also have enormous frustration at the % of my emails that get no response. > I usually write 3 times over a period of months before I give up. I have gotten some folks to eventually respond, so persistence is key. I've also had cousin matches who have languished in the data base for a very long time genuinely thrilled to be contacted. GEDCOMS, while really nice to have, may be full of errors anyway (just as a lot of Ancestry.com trees are.) Direct-line surnames with locales, to me, would certainly be better than nothing, but most people won't even do THAT. I'm guessing that the root problems are that many folks aren't computer savvy, too busy, don't know what a GEDCOM is, are adopted, their emails are not checked, or they're just lazy. I'm not sure we (or the lab) can solve these issues. It just goes with the territory of human nature. >

I certainly do think it would be easier to start over and make a skeleton one than to try to modify the existing one. Roberta -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Diana Gale Matthiesen Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 11:35 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] FF clients not uploading GEDCOMs Well, you could do what I did... I made a new version of my genealogy database, expressly for use in creating a GEDCOM to upload to FTDNA. It contains only the bare genealogical information: name, birth date and place, and death date and place. No sources, no media, no siblings, nothing else, just the pedigree (ancestral lines). It only goes back 11 generations (12 if you count the test subject) because that's all FTDNA will display, no matter how many generations you include in the file. The GEDCOM is only 106K in size. Yes, it was a nuisance to create, but IMO, it was worth the effort because I think it's *that* important to have a GEDCOM uploaded to your FTDNA account. And yes, when I add a new near ancestor (within 11 generations), I have to update both genealogy files (my regular one and the abbreviated FTDNA one), then re-export a new GEDCOM to re-upload to FTDNA. But doing so only takes minutes; and, again, I think it's well worth the effort. Diana

Yo, subscribers! Please trim your backquotes: http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html#backquotes Especially trim them if you are subscribed in Digest mode, in which case, please also change the Subject of your message: http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html#digest Diana AUTOSOMAL-DNA ListAdmin

While I've had great success in getting cousin matches on FF DNA, I also have enormous frustration at the % of my emails that get no response. I usually write 3 times over a period of months before I give up. I have gotten some folks to eventually respond, so persistence is key. I've also had cousin matches who have languished in the data base for a very long time genuinely thrilled to be contacted. GEDCOMS, while really nice to have, may be full of errors anyway (just as a lot of Ancestry.com trees are.) Direct-line surnames with locales, to me, would certainly be better than nothing, but most people won't even do THAT. I'm guessing that the root problems are that many folks aren't computer savvy, too busy, don't know what a GEDCOM is, are adopted, their emails are not checked, or they're just lazy. I'm not sure we (or the lab) can solve these issues. It just goes with the territory of human nature. On May 13, 2012, at 10:53 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. FF clients not uploading GEDCOMs (Diana Gale Matthiesen) > 2. Re: FF clients not uploading GEDCOMs (Larry Vick) > 3. Re: FF clients not uploading GEDCOMs (Greg Matthews) > 4. Re: FF clients not uploading GEDCOMs (Mike Colton) > 5. Re: FF clients not uploading GEDCOMs (Mike Colton) > 6. Re: FF clients not uploading GEDCOMs (Diana Gale Matthiesen) > 7. Re: FF clients not uploading GEDCOMs (Roberta Estes) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 09:48:39 -0400 > From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <[email protected]> > Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] FF clients not uploading GEDCOMs > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I just sent the message below to the FTDNA HelpDesk. Perhaps if > enough of us press FTDNA to "remind" FF clients to upload a GEDCOM, > they might install the feature. Also... > > I'm going on a campaign to individually email all my FF matchees who > haven't uploaded GEDCOMs to please do so. Perhaps if these people get > enough requests, they will get off their butts and do it. > > Diana > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:37 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: not uploading GEDCOMs >> >> Every time I work on my FamilyFinder Matches, I become exasperated >> at how many test subjects have not uploaded GEDCOMs to their >> accounts. What is the point of being tested if you don't share your >> ancestry?!!! >> >> Where the match is 4th cousin or closer, I have been emailing my >> matchees asking them to please upload a GEDCOM, but this is a lot of >> work, and I feel I can only do it once. I have a better solution... >> >> Please set up the FTDNA software to send an email reminder ONCE A >> MONTH to everyone who has been FF tested and not uploaded a GEDCOM. >> (The same goes for people who have not entered surnames or earliest >> ancestors.) >> >> We are spending a great deal of money on DNA testing, and it's hard >> to maintain enthusiasm for recommending it when you have to tell >> prospective clients there's a high probability your genetic matches >> won't do you any good because they're not sharing their ancestry. >> >> And there is a related issue... >> >> I had an ENORMOUS amount of trouble getting my (perfectly standard) >> GEDCOM file to upload. A less persistent person might have given >> up, but I did not. Part of the problem is that the server doesn't >> tell you that the file didn't upload, much less why it didn't. The >> page just bounces back to the client's home page, and some >> inexperienced users are not even going to realize their file didn't >> upload. PLEASE, at least return an ERROR MESSAGE, so the client >> realizes their GEDCOM didn't upload. >> >> Diana > >

Well, you could do what I did... I made a new version of my genealogy database, expressly for use in creating a GEDCOM to upload to FTDNA. It contains only the bare genealogical information: name, birth date and place, and death date and place. No sources, no media, no siblings, nothing else, just the pedigree (ancestral lines). It only goes back 11 generations (12 if you count the test subject) because that's all FTDNA will display, no matter how many generations you include in the file. The GEDCOM is only 106K in size. Yes, it was a nuisance to create, but IMO, it was worth the effort because I think it's *that* important to have a GEDCOM uploaded to your FTDNA account. And yes, when I add a new near ancestor (within 11 generations), I have to update both genealogy files (my regular one and the abbreviated FTDNA one), then re-export a new GEDCOM to re-upload to FTDNA. But doing so only takes minutes; and, again, I think it's well worth the effort. Diana > From: Roberta Estes > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:54 AM > > Hi Diana, > > My problem is that I can't upload my gedcom. There is a size limit > and mine > is over the limit. The effort that it would take to reduce the size > simply > isn't worth it. So one of your campaigns might be to get that size > limit > removed. > > Roberta

If someone is adopted, they could at least upload a GEDCOM with a single individual in it named, "Adopted SMITH" - or whatever the surname is. This would save time and trouble for them and their matchees. I have 19 pages of matches, so anything that would save time is helpful. Diana > From: Mike Colton > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:27 AM > > Also may not be able to crate one due to adoption > or a full one due to that. >

If so, then FTDNA needs to add a paragraph explaining what a GEDCOM is and how to create one. Diana > From: Mike Colton > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:26 AM > > Many people don't even know what a GEDCOM is or how to create one.