I think it would help if they wrote adopted too so that at least matches know that is the reason no distance ancestor name is written. There seems to be so many unfilled in distant ancestors amongst my matches that they can't all be adopted. If people sign up to do the test it would really help if they filled in the forms to help themselves and others. Karen On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:28 AM, John F Smeltzer <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > In the FTDNA system at least if one simply adds "Adopted" in the surnames > listings .... it helps a LOT.. Again ... a suggestion to be added to a > list that we could collectively craft here on this list and provide to > FTDNA as a "How to" suggestion. Alternatively .... we could send it out > ourselves. Such a "How to" would be very useful to many. > > > > John > > > > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > I agree Mike .... I am assisting several folks who are either adopted or > have an adoption in their line that has been their biggest brick-wall. > And many of them eagerly (and with great excitement) paid their money, took > the test and now are uncertain (or are at least struggling) as to what to > do. I can understand the enthusiasm that may have brought them into the > game. When I run into someone with significant matches to our group of > kits I always try to include them as collaborators if they are > willing. Including adoptees ... My theory is that eventually we will have > enough pieces to the puzzle to at least be able to offer deep ancestral > story lines even if we can't provide near-term names. In the meantime I > find that by working in collaboration with these folks who show interest I > learn a lot and that helps build my understanding of how best to apply > these tests in the real world. It's not without its faults but it seems > to be at least one successful and rewarding strategy. > > And, I think we shouldn't jump past the fact that w e are all still > learning how to best apply these Family Finder tools. There is no one > singular cookbook way to do this. And while I agree that GEDCOM's and / > or Pedigrees are great ..... a simple (but comprehensive) surname list is a > great and often sufficient start. My suggestions to struggling test > participants are always step-wise ..... 1. develop a complete surnames > list and enter it into FTDNA (or other vendors) files as they allow. Then > ... as time permits 2. Build your pedigree ..... stretching your > genealogically imposed need to proof everything to its limits .... just > don't declare it all to be fact and don't post it on-line as fact. And > .... in those spare moments of time ..... 3. Build out your family files > as far as you can along as many lines as you can ... with particular > emphasis on working out sibling lines of more ancestral family to include > spouses and at least a generation or two downstream ... which allows you to > pick up on other potentially matching surnames from present day testing. > Surnames that are NOT in your direct line but ones that IF (and when) > TESTED will in all probability match your targeted surname group. > > Now, that said .... even in my own situation I have so many kits (both > recruited cousins and collaborators) in the files ... over 50 at present > ..... it's difficult at best to work matches AND do upgrades while trying > to conduct normal day-to-day business at the same time. So, as in most > everything we do these days ... most of us are behind on more things than > we would like to admit. Now, when someone contacts me and engages in a > polite conversation about our matches I can re-direct if necessary to help > fill in those GEDCOM / Pedigree / surname gaps if they exist and if I can > do anything to accomodate. But, I find it almost as interesting that > even with a LOT of test kits out there that the number of "incoming" > contacts is much much fewer than I ever anticipated. It's my "out-going" > communications that generate most of my activity. And I believe this is > the case because MOST folks just simply don't know what to do ... where to > go .... who to turn to and have the normal human emotion of not wanting to > look badly in public / or public communications. I've never been > hindered by that burden. I can look "stupid" most anywhere and be ok > with it as long as I'm trying. > > So .... I think a one page outline of "best practices" .... would be very > useful. It could be distributed as a "cheat-sheet" to folks who have been > waiting to get a sense of what to do next. And, we could provide it > to our matches as a pro-active gesture that shares our experiences with > them in a way that might just prod them to those so needed next steps. > > This is complicated stuff .... the more we can help uncomplicate it for > the masses the more productive our own efforts will be .... > > John > > > > > > ______________________________ > 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 > > > ______________________________ > 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 >