> From: Kathy Johnston > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 3:21 PM > > OK. Here are my lame excuses to add to those already mentioned. > > There are several problems in producing a? GEDCOM: > > 1. My surname list is too big and I will need to retire from my job > before I have time to generate a decent GEDCOM. It will go on > forever. The surname list is automatically generated when you upload your GEDCOM. You do not need to enter it manually. You do have to enter the locations manually, but better to leave them out than not upload, at all. And the file won't "go on forever." It will only go back 11 generations, and it cannot contain more than 4095 people. Unless you have been extraordinarily thorough, you do not have all lines known back 11 generations, so your file is going to be much smaller than that. > 2. I don't want to publish something that has any potential mistakes > because those mistakes will get repeated over and over. It takes too > much time to verify it all. When you make an "abbreviated" GEDCOM for upload to FTDNA, you should *NOT* include any iffy connections. Only include the solid connections. > 3. The farther you go back in time, the more likely there are > questionable ancestors and multiple matching lines. Again, don't include any lines or connections that are not rock solid. If you have a lot of them, leaving them out should make your file that much smaller. > 4. I want people look at my surname list with geographical locations > next to each name and not just a tree. Well, in that case, while you won't have to enter the surnames, you will have to manually enter the locations. But it's only a big job the first time you do it. After that, minor additions take only minutes. > Some of the surnames on my > list are possible or probable but not proven. Maybe there is a > middle name that sounds like it came from an ancestor and I believe > I am on the right track because clearly the name, date and location > show that surname in the same place at the same time.? Getting over > those brick walls may mean showing information that is not yet > proven in the pedigree. Again, DO NOT include any unproven links in the file you upload. If you have a genetic match with someone of the right surname, you can discuss the "brick walls" in your line via email. > 5. Even if I go back 4 generations, am I likely to randomly match > any true 3rd cousins? NO!! because you need a database of over a > million to find that one in a million 3rd cousin. Even if you have > more than 300 3rd cousins alive today, there are over 300 million > people living in the U.S. Does FTDNA test that many people? No. Are > the 3rd and 4th cousin predictions accurate? Not at all because in > general you are picking up the more distant cousins right now that > are falling out of their expected cM range. Some of these segments > are probably over 2 standard deviations above their expected size so > your chance of finding the ancestor is low. What I am saying is that > what looks like a 3rd or 4th cousin is really a very distant cousin. > The database has not yet reached a critical sample size. So is it > really worth all the effort right now? You can get a match with a database of two (n=2), if that other person is your cousin. I have 19 pages of matches, a dozen of them now confirmed on paper, from 1st cousins to 7th cousin. Forgive me, but you are not being at all realistic about the odds of finding a relative. > 6. Family Finder (or Relative Finder) works best if you are trying > to test a hypothesis. ?For example, on the television show, at PBS, > "Finding Your Roots", Henry Louis Gates, Jr. used autosomal DNA to > see if an African American could have been descended from a slave > owner by testing a presumed 3rd cousin who had a good paper trail. > That is how this autosomal DNA should be used successfully, as a > tool to test a hypothesis. These tests are not nearly as good at > finding those random matches that everyone is talking about. Of course I've been more successful in making matches with known or suspected cousins, ones I've deliberately tested. But I've also had some matches I wouldn't have expected or found any other way because I don't remotely know all the people who've descended from my ancestors. > So that is why I am in no hurry; I admittedly do need to work on > getting a GEDCOM updated, but maybe for other reasons... It's your prerogative to not upload a GEDCOM, but I think you're underestimating it's value - to you and to your matchees - and overestimating the difficulty of uploading one. It only took me a few hours to create the "skeleton" database and accomplish the upload, including filling in the locations for 15 pages of surnames. Considering what I've spent on DNA testing, I want to get every bit of value out of it I can - and share as much of that value as I can. Diana

I concur with Diane's suggestions with one exception. I advocate including iffy ancestors in a list of ancestors for atDNA purposes. When we compare ancestors with our atDNA matches it's not like we are promoting our list as correct; we are providing a list of potential matches for our atMatches to review. Our atMatches are searching thru our long list of ancestors for the ONE that we have in common - they have no interest in any of the others. And if they match on an iffy ancestor of ours, then we REALLY have something to talk about. I had a HIGGINBOTHAM ancestor on my list which has been proved wrong by Y-DNA, but one of my atMatches also knew of that ancestor, and we exchanged info on that line. We've discovered that our ancestors were siblings, but the father is unknown. I now know what atDNA segment we share, and can help others who match me on that segment. I say throw in the kitchen sink; add all the possibilities you're working on and hope one of your atMatches has the same possibility in their Tree - you may learn something new; I did. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On May 13, 2012, at 4:51 PM, "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <[email protected]> wrote: > When you make an "abbreviated" GEDCOM for upload to FTDNA, you should > *NOT* include any iffy connections. Only include the solid > connections. >