On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for letting me know. This is really frustrating. I wish > they'd at least put up a warning that the upload feature isn't > working, so not to delete your existing GEDCOMs. Hrmpf. > > Diana Diana, I heard back from FTDNA's Ashley, but to my dismay she did not address the gedcom situation at all. She only told me the most distant ancestors aren't sticking because there is a character limit. This is weird, because these two kits are for my sons, so I had previously put in the SAME information in for my husband and myself, with no problem. I could get the most distant ancestors for my sons to stick only by entering just name and birth year - adding the death year caused it to disappear. Of course I asked her again what's going on with the gedcoms, but I guess I'll have to wait until next Sunday for the answer. It seems they only answer emails on Sundays - at least that's been my experience. Maybe you'll get an answer from FTDNA on the gedcom problem before me. Karen

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 > From: Karen Zander > Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 9:50 PM > > I heard back from FTDNA's Ashley, but to my dismay she did not > address the > gedcom situation at all. She only told me the most distant ancestors > aren't > sticking because there is a character limit. This is weird, because > these > two kits are for my sons, so I had previously put in the SAME > information > in for my husband and myself, with no problem. I could get the most > distant > ancestors for my sons to stick only by entering just name and birth > year - > adding the death year caused it to disappear. > > Of course I asked her again what's going on with the gedcoms, but I > guess > I'll have to wait until next Sunday for the answer. It seems they > only > answer emails on Sundays - at least that's been my experience. > Maybe > you'll get an answer from FTDNA on the gedcom problem before me. > > Karen > >

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