Karen If I understand your question correctly, you'd treat half-siblings like regular children when analyzing for atDNA. That's because the segments you are comparing only come down one path. Although all of the atDNA is a different mix, considering the different fathers, the IBD segment you should be comparing only comes from the mother OR a father, and not a mix. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Mar 13, 2012, at 1:39 AM, Karen Hodges <[email protected]> wrote: > With Family finder the results say what level cousin the match is expected > to be. What happens in the case of half siblings with what level the cousin > will show at? For example if a woman marriages twice and has a child with > each father. The grandchildren are 1st cousins and the great grandchildren > 2nd cousins and great great grandchildren 3rd cousins. But when it comes > to reading the DNA family finder result would it show the relationship as > this or would it be more distant as the DNA shared is half to begin with. > Would a half third cousin be shown as maybe a third to fifth cousin? > > Karen > > > ______________________________ > 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

On the average, a half-third cousin would share the same amount of DNA as a third cousin once removed (i.e., between a third and fourth cousin). The range displayed by FF should be bigger to account for the random element. Ann Turner On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Karen Hodges <[email protected]> wrote: > With Family finder the results say what level cousin the match is expected > to be. What happens in the case of half siblings with what level the cousin > will show at? For example if a woman marriages twice and has a child with > each father. The grandchildren are 1st cousins and the great grandchildren > 2nd cousins and great great grandchildren 3rd cousins. But when it comes > to reading the DNA family finder result would it show the relationship as > this or would it be more distant as the DNA shared is half to begin with. > Would a half third cousin be shown as maybe a third to fifth cousin? > > Karen >

Dear Karen, I suggest you study the file called "Distant relatives, non-endogamous" at http://kquilting.homeserver.com/23andme/ref.html. Note that 3rd cousins should share .781% of their autosomal DNA, or about 55 cMs. However, there is a wide range of possible amounts of shared DNA for 3rd cousins. You would expect 1/2 3rd cousins to share .391% of their DNA, or about 28 cMs. When you get below about a 2nd cousin once removed level of relationship the percentage of shared DNA varies relatively widely from 0 to as much as 150 or so cMs. I suggest you not focus so much on what Family Finder suggests the relationship might be, but rather on the precise number of cMs shared that are over 5 cMs. From my perspective the suggested relationships in FF beyond the 2nd cousin once removed level of relationship are simply wild guesses. I generally lump everyone who matches at less than 100 cMs into a broad group that ranges from 2nd cousin once removed to 15th cousins. You might want to review the summary of my Youngman project I posted at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2011-05/13043235 85. The testing was helpful in establishing a genealogical link between people who are 1/2 4th cousins to each other. However, I tested multiple people (14) in order to come to this conclusion. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen Hodges Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] matching cousins With Family finder the results say what level cousin the match is expected to be. What happens in the case of half siblings with what level the cousin will show at? For example if a woman marriages twice and has a child with each father. The grandchildren are 1st cousins and the great grandchildren 2nd cousins and great great grandchildren 3rd cousins. But when it comes to reading the DNA family finder result would it show the relationship as this or would it be more distant as the DNA shared is half to begin with. Would a half third cousin be shown as maybe a third to fifth cousin? Karen

Based on known matches at www.GEDmatch.com I am getting the matches that I expected. GEDmatch kit number P148528NK01

"SNiP of the Week" : Ancestry.com has spent $10-15 Million on DNA in fiscal 2012 + more: http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2012/03/snip-of-week-news-from-world-of-genetic.html   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Now that I'm having to figure out what level of cousin my FF matchees are, I've found myself needing a chart to make the determination quickly and easily. FWIW, I compiled this one for my own use and share it in case you may find useful as well: http://dgmweb.net/Resources/Misc/CousinsChart.html Diana

Jim - Certainly, the best way to distinguish maternal and paternal descendants when trying to identify common ancestors is to test relatives. That sensible practice and my determination to refrain from vigorous attempts to deduce ancestral commonalities with distant cousins were driven home to me by the following experience: My wife has compared ancestries with a predicted 3rd-6th cousin at 23andMe, in which a shared, durable 47cM segment was inherited also by two of our children and two grandsons With the advantage of reasonably comprehensive pedigrees on both sides, a common ancestral couple was identified - indicating a fifth cousin relationship and an impressive genealogic/genetic success story. Our mutual satisfaction, however, was short lived. The test of the mother of my wife's new-found cousin revealed that it was she, not the father, who had passed along the segment. Since the common ancestral couple we had deduced was on her father's side, we had obviously implicated the wrong pair as the one responsible for the shared segment. So, we've now been seeking commonality on her mother's side; but it's taking too long and is of questionable value, given more worthwhile things to do. ------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:31:18 -0500 From: Jim Bartlett <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Charles I load as many ancestors as FTDNA will take - 9 generations, I think. Once I got a paper trail to a Common Ancestor at the 6th cousin level. Actually it's almost always a match to the husband and wife - you don't know which one passed the atDNA down. I noted the size and location of the largest segment. Recently I got a paper trail to a Common Ancestor at the 8th cousin level who was ancestral to one of the ancestors at other 6th cousin level and the large segment overlapped! Wouldn't this be a type of phasing? As more folks take atDNA testing, I expect to find more of these. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime!

Thanks to the warning, I left my own gedcoms paternal and maternal alone. My son's FF came through in January 2012 and I hadn't yet posted a gedcom for him, and successfully did so just now. Hope that holds promise about the problem some of you are having. It took around 15 minutes to upload 4MB and then another 10 or so for me to select the person. It did upload, but although I carefully (and more than once) selected Hide all persons born within last 100 years it shows some of us. I carefully avoided Hide all living persons born in last 100 years. In most cases it must be because I have put in a . for death date (or else the word NO) but as an example, my mother-in-law was born 1902 yet it shows her son who should not show, dead or living. I did have a few of the long dead people show up as Hidden and will just take a look at the dates. Mary Lou

Charles I load as many ancestors as FTDNA will take - 9 generations, I think. Once I got a paper trail to a Common Ancestor at the 6th cousin level. Actually it's almost always a match to the husband and wife - you don't know which one passed the atDNA down. I noted the size and location of the largest segment. Recently I got a paper trail to a Common Ancestor at the 8th cousin level who was ancestral to one of the ancestors at other 6th cousin level and the large segment overlapped! Wouldn't this be a type of phasing? As more folks take atDNA testing, I expect to find more of these. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Feb 21, 2012, at 8:15 AM, "Charles Acree" <[email protected]> wrote: > If it should assist analysis of the apparent problem, considering other comments posted: My successfully-uploaded GEDCOM was 318KB and contained strictly vital data on my ancestors (detailed BMD dates & places). It's still on the FTDNA website, working fine. Only my parents were rendered private - properly, by default. The births of the six-generations included were uncomplicated by any double-dating because they all occurred after 1752. > > I've researched more extensive ancestry, but have excluded earlier generations because, while I've had wonderful success with 23andMe, I'm skeptical that identifying mutual ancestors among "matching" contacts beyond fourth cousins is realistic. It's not just the IBD vs. IBS quandary. Quite simply, all of us have far too many fifth cousins for any definite correlations. At that distant relationship, there's no way that you can be certain that the mutual ancestor you and a cousin have laboriously identified through genealogical comparison (though worthwhile endeavor in itself) is definitely the ancestor responsible for a matching DNA segment. Fortunately, I can refer curious contacts to my family-history website that extends to an arbitrary twelve-generation cutoff. > > Charles Acree

Ditto for pretty much everything Diane stated. File extension .ged, only ancestors, only BMD, never opened in text editor. I do have umlauted characters, but that's not the problem, since I have three other kits with basically the same gedcoms loaded successfully. Interesting is that a 12 generation gedcom did not load, whereas a 10 generation gedcom did for these two transfer kits, even though, supposedly, size is not the issue. Just about 6-8 weeks ago I updated gedcoms for two of my other kits (with about 14 generations). That went without a hitch. But, after doing that, I had that message on my personal pages about not having any genealogy information entered. I wrote to FTDNA, it was reported to IT, and a few weeks ago that message disappeared. Maybe something else broke when they fixed that. Maybe it's something else entirely, but I agree with Diane, FTDNA's IT department does have a certain "history". Karen On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]>wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:autosomal-dna- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Gregg Bonner > > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:05 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA > > No, the file extension is .ged. I was successful in uploading a copy > to my cousin's account, and these are very similar files he is my > first cousin. > > These are "clean" files: name and BMD (birth, marriage, death) date > and place only. No sources, no notes, nothing else. That's why the > file is only 120K. There are split dates, but they cannot purport to > accept GEDCOM format if they can't handle split dates. > > These were fresh exports, I did not fiddle with them. > > That's what I've suspected from the beginning. Their IT department > doesn't have a history of doing things right the first time. > > Look at the example of the earliest ancestor: if you enter too much > text in the textbox, nothing happens. No upload, no error message. > Nothing to clue you in as to what is wrong. It used to be that the > software just truncated your entry, but still uploaded it. Now it > leaves you wondering what's happening. > > I don't recommend anyone experiment with this because you may end up, > like me, unable to do an upload, at all. For now, I'm leaving my > other cousins' accounts alone, even though they still have separate > Y-DNA and mtDNA files. > > Diana > > > > >

> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:autosomal-dna- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Gregg Bonner > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA > > Is it possible that you are inadvertantly saving the file type as > .FTW (or similar) and not .GED? No, the file extension is .ged. I was successful in uploading a copy to my cousin's account, and these are very similar files he is my first cousin. > If you feel like troubleshooting, try uploading a "clean" gedcom, > which is to say only 3 people in the gedcom (a person, and his/her > parents). Include only orthodox dates and no places or notes or > sources or anything. These are "clean" files: name and BMD (birth, marriage, death) date and place only. No sources, no notes, nothing else. That's why the file is only 120K. There are split dates, but they cannot purport to accept GEDCOM format if they can't handle split dates. > Also, I think files could be corrupted by opening them in text > editors after their creation but prior to upload attempt. For > example, if you wanted to clear certain sensitive notes, that may > alter the way the carriage return and line feed are handled. These were fresh exports, I did not fiddle with them. > If you make the minimum possible gedcom in .ged format, and don't > edit it post-facto, and it STILL doesn't work, then your trouble- > shooting days are over. You then would know that it is a systemic > problem on FTDNA's end, and not something particular to gedcoms > created by you and others. That's what I've suspected from the beginning. Their IT department doesn't have a history of doing things right the first time. Look at the example of the earliest ancestor: if you enter too much text in the textbox, nothing happens. No upload, no error message. Nothing to clue you in as to what is wrong. It used to be that the software just truncated your entry, but still uploaded it. Now it leaves you wondering what's happening. > My guess is that it has to do with over-writing gedcoms. They are > trying to switch to combined. It would be academically interesting > to me to see the breakdown of those having trouble uploading broken > down into types of - brand new gedcom, no over-write; new combined > gedcom over-writing maternal only; new gedcom, post-maternal gedcom > deletion; gedcom over-writing remaining maternal post paternal > deletion etc. I had no trouble with my two uploads. One was upload > mixed gedcom no over-write, and one was mixed gedcom upload over- > writing maternal only. They say the new gedcom will over-write, but > I wonder if there is any effect of prior gedcom deletion with > respect to new gedcom upload success. I don't recommend anyone experiment with this because you may end up, like me, unable to do an upload, at all. For now, I'm leaving my other cousins' accounts alone, even though they still have separate Y-DNA and mtDNA files. Diana

Thank you for finding out size is not the issue. My file is only 120K. I got a message back from Darrin at FTDNA, and he had me email him a copy of the file. Haven't heard back yet. Definitely, we need to keep pressing FTDNA on this. No wonder so few people have uploaded GEDCOMs to their accounts! Most people won't complain, so we need to. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:autosomal-dna- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen Zander > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:55 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA > > Back and forth with Ashley at FTDNA the past few days about the > gedcoms not > sticking. First she said it must be the size. I tried 12 > generations. > Didn't work. Then I tried 10 generations, and it did upload. > > Next I asked her if it's a question of generations or KB size. She > found > out that the size limit is 5MB! So the problem is definitely not > size. My > gedcoms are just over 300KB which is no where near 5 MB. So > obviously size > is not the issue. > > Next question is what IS causing the problem. Waiting for an answer. > > Samantha and anyone else having this problem, write to FTDNA support > and > report this! This probably won't be seriously looked at until more > people > with the same problem report it. > > Karen

Is it possible that you are inadvertantly saving the file type as .FTW (or similar) and not .GED?   If you feel like troubleshooting, try uploading a "clean" gedcom, which is to say only 3 people in the gedcom (a person, and his/her parents). Include only orthodox dates and no places or notes or sources or anything.   Also, I think files could be corrupted by opening them in text editors after their creation but prior to upload attempt. For example, if you wanted to clear certain sensitive notes, that may alter the way the carriage return and line feed are handled.   If you make the minimum possible gedcom in .ged format, and don't edit it post-facto, and it STILL doesn't work, then your trouble-shooting days are over. You then would know that it is a systemic problem on FTDNA's end, and not something particular to gedcoms created by you and others.   My guess is that it has to do with over-writing gedcoms. They are trying to switch to combined. It would be academically interesting to me to see the breakdown of those having trouble uploading broken down into types of - brand new gedcom, no over-write; new combined gedcom over-writing maternal only; new gedcom, post-maternal gedcom deletion; gedcom over-writing remaining maternal post paternal deletion etc. I had no trouble with my two uploads. One was upload mixed gedcom no over-write, and one was mixed gedcom upload over-writing maternal only. They say the new gedcom will over-write, but I wonder if there is any effect of prior gedcom deletion with respect to new gedcom upload success.   Gregg   --- On Fri, 2/24/12, Karen Zander <[email protected]> wrote: From: Karen Zander <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA To: [email protected] Date: Friday, February 24, 2012, 9:54 AM Back and forth with Ashley at FTDNA the past few days about the gedcoms not sticking. First she said it must be the size. I tried 12 generations. Didn't work. Then I tried 10 generations, and it did upload. Next I asked her if it's a question of generations or KB size. She found out that the size limit is 5MB!  So the problem is definitely not size. My gedcoms are just over 300KB which is no where near 5 MB. So obviously size is not the issue. Next question is what IS causing the problem. Waiting for an answer. Samantha and anyone else having this problem, write to FTDNA support and report this! This probably won't be seriously looked at until more people with the same problem report it. Karen On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]>wrote: > I had no problem doing the uploads several years back when they were > separate Y-DNA and mtDNA files.  And I had no trouble over the weekend > uploading a combined GEDCOM to one of my cousin's accounts, who hadn't > had one uploaded before.  The problem I'm having is trying to upload a > combined GEDCOM, to replace the two separate ones, on my own account. > How I wish I hadn't deleted the other two files before making the > attempt. > > It's a "clean" file (BMD only), GEDCOM v. 5.5, 120K.  I tried > generating the GEDCOM both with FamilyTreeMaker and with RootsMagic. > Both files were rejected at the same stage, and I tried numerous times > over a period of days, and... I just tried it again.  It's still being > rejected. > > No wonder so few people have GEDCOMs attached to their FF results! > I'll be most people try and simply give up. > > Still haven't heard from FTDNA... > > Diana > > ______________________________ 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

Back and forth with Ashley at FTDNA the past few days about the gedcoms not sticking. First she said it must be the size. I tried 12 generations. Didn't work. Then I tried 10 generations, and it did upload. Next I asked her if it's a question of generations or KB size. She found out that the size limit is 5MB! So the problem is definitely not size. My gedcoms are just over 300KB which is no where near 5 MB. So obviously size is not the issue. Next question is what IS causing the problem. Waiting for an answer. Samantha and anyone else having this problem, write to FTDNA support and report this! This probably won't be seriously looked at until more people with the same problem report it. Karen On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]>wrote: > I had no problem doing the uploads several years back when they were > separate Y-DNA and mtDNA files. And I had no trouble over the weekend > uploading a combined GEDCOM to one of my cousin's accounts, who hadn't > had one uploaded before. The problem I'm having is trying to upload a > combined GEDCOM, to replace the two separate ones, on my own account. > How I wish I hadn't deleted the other two files before making the > attempt. > > It's a "clean" file (BMD only), GEDCOM v. 5.5, 120K. I tried > generating the GEDCOM both with FamilyTreeMaker and with RootsMagic. > Both files were rejected at the same stage, and I tried numerous times > over a period of days, and... I just tried it again. It's still being > rejected. > > No wonder so few people have GEDCOMs attached to their FF results! > I'll be most people try and simply give up. > > Still haven't heard from FTDNA... > > Diana > >

I am one of those doing 23andMe transfers to 6 brand new ftDNA accounts. I have tried twice to upload GEDCOMs to each of them in preparation for when the results are ready. They seem to upload fine at the time, but when I go back to check, they have disappeared. I am holding off doing it again until there is a resolution. Samantha On 21 February 2012 16:46, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]> wrote: > I had no problem doing the uploads several years back when they were > separate Y-DNA and mtDNA files. And I had no trouble over the weekend > uploading a combined GEDCOM to one of my cousin's accounts, who hadn't > had one uploaded before. The problem I'm having is trying to upload a > combined GEDCOM, to replace the two separate ones, on my own account. > How I wish I hadn't deleted the other two files before making the > attempt. > > It's a "clean" file (BMD only), GEDCOM v. 5.5, 120K. I tried > generating the GEDCOM both with FamilyTreeMaker and with RootsMagic. > Both files were rejected at the same stage, and I tried numerous times > over a period of days, and... I just tried it again. It's still being > rejected. > > No wonder so few people have GEDCOMs attached to their FF results! > I'll be most people try and simply give up. > > Still haven't heard from FTDNA... > > Diana > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:autosomal-dna- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen Zander > > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 12:11 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA > > > > I have uploaded gedcoms over 200KB, (only ancestors, only BMD), with > > no > > problem in the past. If you, Diana, can't even get a 120KB gedcom to > > stick, > > then there has to be something wrong on the side of FTDNA. I had > > thought > > that maybe the size of my sons' gedcoms is keeping them from saving. > > I know > > that the display of gedcoms I have loaded in the past are cut off at > > 9th > > great grandparents. I would think it would do the same thing with a > > larger > > size gedcom, not just not load it at all. Or there should be an > > error > > message. The way it is, it appears to load, and if I wouldn't have > > checked, > > I might never have known that it didn't. > > > > Because my husband and I both have only European ancestors, > > including > > parents, the common ancestors we have found have all been very > > distant, > > 9th/10th cousins, before these American cousins' ancestors > > immigrated to > > America. For this reason, uploading a gedcom with less generations > > is not > > useful to my matches or me. That may be different for people with > > colonial > > ancestry. > > > > Karen > > > > ______________________________ > 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 >

If it should assist analysis of the apparent problem, considering other comments posted: My successfully-uploaded GEDCOM was 318KB and contained strictly vital data on my ancestors (detailed BMD dates & places). It's still on the FTDNA website, working fine. Only my parents were rendered private - properly, by default. The births of the six-generations included were uncomplicated by any double-dating because they all occurred after 1752. I've researched more extensive ancestry, but have excluded earlier generations because, while I've had wonderful success with 23andMe, I'm skeptical that identifying mutual ancestors among "matching" contacts beyond fourth cousins is realistic. It's not just the IBD vs. IBS quandary. Quite simply, all of us have far too many fifth cousins for any definite correlations. At that distant relationship, there's no way that you can be certain that the mutual ancestor you and a cousin have laboriously identified through genealogical comparison (though worthwhile endeavor in itself) is definitely the ancestor responsible for a matching DNA segment. Fortunately, I can refer curious contacts to my family-history website that extends to an arbitrary twelve-generation cutoff. Charles Acree From: "Charles Acree" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I had no trouble at all uploading a full, combined, six-generation GEDCOM to FTDNA on Friday, Feb. 17 - in anticipation of receiving Family Finder results soon, as the result of transmitting my 23andMe raw data earlier, as several people have done. However, this was the first time that I had uploaded any GEDCOM to FTDNA, having no need to replace previously-sent separate maternal and paternal GEDCOMs, which FTDNA said, in a note during the procedure, that it would eventually be eliminating in favor of combined versions. So, there may be some problem when one has to replace previously-sent GEDCOMs. Charles Acree

I had no problem doing the uploads several years back when they were separate Y-DNA and mtDNA files. And I had no trouble over the weekend uploading a combined GEDCOM to one of my cousin's accounts, who hadn't had one uploaded before. The problem I'm having is trying to upload a combined GEDCOM, to replace the two separate ones, on my own account. How I wish I hadn't deleted the other two files before making the attempt. It's a "clean" file (BMD only), GEDCOM v. 5.5, 120K. I tried generating the GEDCOM both with FamilyTreeMaker and with RootsMagic. Both files were rejected at the same stage, and I tried numerous times over a period of days, and... I just tried it again. It's still being rejected. No wonder so few people have GEDCOMs attached to their FF results! I'll be most people try and simply give up. Still haven't heard from FTDNA... Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:autosomal-dna- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen Zander > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 12:11 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA > > I have uploaded gedcoms over 200KB, (only ancestors, only BMD), with > no > problem in the past. If you, Diana, can't even get a 120KB gedcom to > stick, > then there has to be something wrong on the side of FTDNA. I had > thought > that maybe the size of my sons' gedcoms is keeping them from saving. > I know > that the display of gedcoms I have loaded in the past are cut off at > 9th > great grandparents. I would think it would do the same thing with a > larger > size gedcom, not just not load it at all. Or there should be an > error > message. The way it is, it appears to load, and if I wouldn't have > checked, > I might never have known that it didn't. > > Because my husband and I both have only European ancestors, > including > parents, the common ancestors we have found have all been very > distant, > 9th/10th cousins, before these American cousins' ancestors > immigrated to > America. For this reason, uploading a gedcom with less generations > is not > useful to my matches or me. That may be different for people with > colonial > ancestry. > > Karen

If your file is 220K, then size isn't the issue because mine is only 120K. But if and when I ever get it uploaded, double-dating is going to become an issue for me, too, along with improper reading of extended characters, which I already know is a problem. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:autosomal-dna- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Gregg Bonner > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 8:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA > > I uploaded a GEDCOM of 220 Kb yesterday in support of my mom's > Family Finder test results coming out. > > It looked okay to me, except for one thing - any instances of > double-dating in the birth date field caused the privatizing filter > to not understand the date given, and the person was privatized, > even though they were born hundreds of years ago. The name displayed > in these cases was "Hidden", and the birth date given for them was > something like "date input error". > > I did not take any special precautions or measures at all. I simply > brought my mom's page up in Family Tree Maker, then clicked on the > pedigree button, then selected the number of generations to equal 9 > (because that's the maximum FTDNA will show at once in > visualization, and because that should be enough for FF). Then I > exported the persons shown to a GEDCOM that was named after my mom's > FTDNA kit# to the desktop. Then, at FTDNA, I went to their upload > page, browsed to find the file, uploaded, and selected the root > individual (my mom). It worked as far as *I* can tell, with the > exception noted above. > > And just to be sure, by double dating, I mean the term as defined by > about.com thus: > > Definition: A system of double dating used in England and British > North America from 1582-1752 for dates falling between January 1 and > March 25. This was common practice because the new Gregorian > calendar, which went into effect in 1582, but was not officially > adopted by the British and the American colonies until 1752, > recognized January 1 as the first day of the year, while the old > Julian calendar recognized March 25 as the first day. Thus, dates > between those two days prior to the calendar change in 1752 were > often written with both year numbers (i.e. 5 January 1712/13). > > Cheers, > > Gregg > > >From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [email protected] > > >Maybe that's what's preventing my GEDCOM from uploading:  it's too > >big.  I did enlarge it to more generations because I'm finding > >connections beyond five generations back.  I just checked the size > of > >my GEDCOM.  It's 120K.  Has anyone had any success uploading a > GEDCOM > >of this size? > > > >Diana > > > > ______________________________ > 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 AUTOSOMAL-DNA- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

I just had the same experience. That is, I uploaded a GEDCOM for one of my cousins, for the first time, and the upload went fine. The one I can't upload is the one where I had previously had separate Y-DNA and mtDNA GEDCOMs, and I deleted them, before trying to upload a combined GEDCOM. It simply won't run to completion kicks me back to the Home Page when I click my name as the test subject. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:autosomal-dna- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Charles Acree > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 8:05 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA > > I had no trouble at all uploading a full, combined, six-generation > GEDCOM to FTDNA on Friday, Feb. 17 - in anticipation of receiving > Family Finder results soon, as the result of transmitting my 23andMe > raw data earlier, as several people have done. However, this was > the first time that I had uploaded any GEDCOM to FTDNA, having no > need to replace previously-sent separate maternal and paternal > GEDCOMs, which FTDNA said, in a note during the procedure, that it > would eventually be eliminating in favor of combined versions. So, > there may be some problem when one has to replace previously-sent > GEDCOMs. >

I have uploaded gedcoms over 200KB, (only ancestors, only BMD), with no problem in the past. If you, Diana, can't even get a 120KB gedcom to stick, then there has to be something wrong on the side of FTDNA. I had thought that maybe the size of my sons' gedcoms is keeping them from saving. I know that the display of gedcoms I have loaded in the past are cut off at 9th great grandparents. I would think it would do the same thing with a larger size gedcom, not just not load it at all. Or there should be an error message. The way it is, it appears to load, and if I wouldn't have checked, I might never have known that it didn't. Because my husband and I both have only European ancestors, including parents, the common ancestors we have found have all been very distant, 9th/10th cousins, before these American cousins' ancestors immigrated to America. For this reason, uploading a gedcom with less generations is not useful to my matches or me. That may be different for people with colonial ancestry. Karen On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]>wrote: > Yes, I'd run into that, too. I'd forgotten. > > It used to be that, if you'd entered too much text in the earliest > ancestor field, it just got truncated. Now, it won't upload, but > without giving you any kind of error message to let you know what's > wrong. Terrible web design, and very inconsiderate of users. > > Maybe that's what's preventing my GEDCOM from uploading: it's too > big. I did enlarge it to more generations because I'm finding > connections beyond five generations back. I just checked the size of > my GEDCOM. It's 120K. Has anyone had any success uploading a GEDCOM > of this size? > > Diana > >