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.

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 > >

There are other reasons not yet mentioned for avoiding GEDCOMs. GEDCOM needs to go the way of the dodo. GEDCOMs are inadequate for names from other cultures, that is, ones which did not have fixed surnames and ones which require a good deal more space than the standard American name to identify a person. The GEDCOMs get very messy. I would need separate GEDCOMs for my parents who were from 2 different parts of the world. Their ancestral paths didn't cross. Therefore, it is necessary to concentrate heavily on the geography. Most people who contact me about American families are not far enough back in their research for us to tell where we might have a match. If they can zero in on a location (US county) or other factor that provides clues, I give them advice to try to bridge the gap and/or explain why even though the surname's the same, the people aren't apt to be related. An ancestor box chart generated with genealogy software works much better than a GEDCOM for display purposes. The boxes can expand to fit the number of words in a name and the amount of space each person on the chart needs. A few years after Y testing through FTDNA, my brother still does not have a close match, most likely due to lack of fixed surname(s) on the Y-line. Lack of fixed surnames seems to inhibit testing, although it should not. Ironically with my own testing on 23andMe, it is the closer matches who fail to respond. --Ida Skarson McCormick, [email protected]

> From: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:40 AM > > There are other reasons not yet mentioned for avoiding > GEDCOMs. GEDCOM needs to go the way of the dodo. GEDCOM has been the standard format for exchange of genealogical data for decades, and it will remain the standard. You aren't going to get an entire industry to change to another standard when this one is so thoroughly entrenched. What we can expect is that the standard will occasionally be revised and improved, which it is. > GEDCOMs are inadequate for names from other cultures, > that is, ones which did not have fixed surnames and > ones which require a good deal more space than the > standard American name to identify a person. The GEDCOMs > get very messy. I think it's unrealistic to expect one standard to apply to every possible naming system, not to mention every language. What would a Chinese version of RootsMagic look like, and how would you merge Chinese and European pedigrees? Yes, there is a European bias here. It's unlikely there would ever be a single file format that would be universally, as in globally, applicable. That's no reason for the millions of people using GEDCOM for data exchange to abandon it. > I would need separate GEDCOMs for my parents who > were from 2 different parts of the world. Their > ancestral paths didn't cross. Therefore, it is > necessary to concentrate heavily on the geography. Yes, if the cultural and language differences (especially the alphabet) are that great, you will need to use two different kinds of software to manage the two different databases. I keep my maternal and paternal ancestry in two different databases as it is, just to keep the file size down. > Most people who contact me about American families are > not far enough back in their research for us to tell > where we might have a match. Yes, I'm in the same boat. I suspect most of us are. > If they can zero in on a location (US county) or > other factor that provides clues, I give them > advice to try to bridge the gap and/or explain why > even though the surname's the same, the people > aren't apt to be related. Again, yes, we all face that problem, especially with common surnames. > An ancestor box chart generated with genealogy > software works much better than a GEDCOM for > display purposes. The boxes can expand to fit the > number of words in a name and the amount of space > each person on the chart needs. GEDCOM is only a data exchange format. It has nothing to do with how the data are displayed. How the data are displayed depends on the software that the GEDCOM is *imported into*. If your complaint is how the GEDCOMs are displayed by FTDNA, complain to FTDNA. It's their software doing the display. > A few years after Y testing through FTDNA, my brother > still does not have a close match, most likely due to > lack of fixed surname(s) on the Y-line. Whether or not you have a Y-DNA match has *nothing* to do with anyone's surname. That's the whole point of being Y-DNA tested. If you have a common biological ancestor on your patrilineal line, you will show up as a Y-DNA match *regardless* of your surname or lack of one. > Lack of fixed surnames seems to inhibit testing, > although it should not. I don't see how the lack of a fixed surname would inhibit someone from testing. In fact, it should encourage them because Y-DNA will tell them what their surname cannot. It's the main purpose behind my regional Danish Demes project. I think the only Europeans later than Danes to adopt surnames were the Norwegians. Both cultures had to finally be forced to adopt them, by mandate of law, late in the 19th century. If we Danes are going to connect beyond the 19th Century, it will have to be via DNA. Diana

On 5/14/2012 4:40 AM, [email protected] wrote: > I would need separate GEDCOMs for my parents who were from 2 different > parts of the world. Their ancestral paths didn't cross. Therefore, it is > necessary to concentrate heavily on the geography. > > > --Ida Skarson McCormick, [email protected] > > In the begining, FTDNA required separate GEDCOMs for the maternal and the paternal line. This is no longer the case. In fact, it is much easier for all, if one just uploads an Ancestor tree GEDCOM so that both maternal and paternal lines are displayed. Like you, Ida, my maternal and paternal ancestral lines did not cross and could not be more different in origin, but that is no reason not to upload both in a single GEDCOM. After all, we have no idea as a rule when someone with an autosomal match will recognize something in one of the lines as there is no distinction in the match as to whether it is in the maternal or paternal side of one's genome. Such a distinction, called phasing by some, would indeed be wonderful as it would immediately halve most of the possibilities for a match by eliminating one line or the other (except of course when cousins marry cousins). But for most of us, that is not the case. By erecting yet another barrier or excuse towards creating and uploading your ancestral GEDCOM, you are not getting your money's worth out of your atDNA test. These tests are fishing expeditions for the most part and do not work without at least some disclosure on the Internet so that others can inspect your data and ancestors. You take the test and hope that you can connect with someone who knows more than you do. Walter

I loaded my GEDcom at FTDNA today and the software asked me which name went with the DNA - so I highlighted my name (number 1 on the list) and it correctly loaded my 12 generations. I the used the same GEDcom for my father's account, and this time highlighted his name, and the software selected the correct 12 generations that go with him. Amazing! I had been dreading spending the whole evening deleting half my GEDcom for his upload - what a treat for that to be done for me by one click. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On May 14, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Walter J Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/14/2012 4:40 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> I would need separate GEDCOMs for my parents who were from 2 different >> parts of the world. Their ancestral paths didn't cross. Therefore, it is >> necessary to concentrate heavily on the geography. >> >> >> --Ida Skarson McCormick, [email protected] >> >> In the begining, FTDNA required separate GEDCOMs for the maternal and the paternal line. This is no longer the case. In fact, it is much easier for all, if one just uploads an Ancestor tree GEDCOM so that both maternal and paternal lines are displayed. > Like you, Ida, my maternal and paternal ancestral lines did not cross > and could not be more different in origin, but that is no reason not to > upload both in a single GEDCOM. >

You still have to manually edit your surname list if you want locations and dates to appear beside the names. I don't understand why they won't let you upload a csv file for those. I've had to manually edit the same 5 pages of names for me, my father and an uncle. Very boring. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Jim Bartlett <[email protected]>wrote: > I loaded my GEDcom at FTDNA today and the software asked me which name > went with the DNA - so I highlighted my name (number 1 on the list) and it > correctly loaded my 12 generations. I the used the same GEDcom for my > father's account, and this time highlighted his name, and the software > selected the correct 12 generations that go with him. Amazing! I had been > dreading spending the whole evening deleting half my GEDcom for his upload > - what a treat for that to be done for me by one click. > > Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! > > On May 14, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Walter J Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 5/14/2012 4:40 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> I would need separate GEDCOMs for my parents who were from 2 different > >> parts of the world. Their ancestral paths didn't cross. Therefore, it is > >> necessary to concentrate heavily on the geography. > >> > >> > >> --Ida Skarson McCormick, [email protected] > >> > >> In the begining, FTDNA required separate GEDCOMs for the maternal and > the paternal line. This is no longer the case. In fact, it is much easier > for all, if one just uploads an Ancestor tree GEDCOM so that both maternal > and paternal lines are displayed. > > Like you, Ida, my maternal and paternal ancestral lines did not cross > > and could not be more different in origin, but that is no reason not to > > upload both in a single GEDCOM. > > > > > > ______________________________ > 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 >