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. > > >