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. >

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....