This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: Gladys1219 Surnames: Witherspoon, Daniel Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.daniel/1112.1114.1116.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I noticed the Witherspoon surname. Are your Witherspoon's connected to your Daniel line? Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: kjwall05 Surnames: Wall, Peacock, Daniel, Witherspoon. Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.daniel/1112.1114.1116/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I am also seeking the same people. It is obvious we are related. I am related to the Walls in Cass County TX and tracing Walls, Peacocks, Daniels across Alabama into Ga. I did find 2nd Lt. Wright Wall of SC. Any help would be appreciated. Sincerely, Kevin Wall Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

Gosh, Marleen, I hadn't even thought about the upgrade issue. I was more thinking along the lines of everyone's eventual mortality and how to arrange some type of continuation. The same would apply to a person's whole genealogy research. Since I turned sixty this year, these thoughts have begun to crop up. I suppose I need to make sure my son knows how to access the DNA project. My reason for writing the list was really a question, not an answer, on how to pass on our work and keep the project updated too. It's certainly not fair to expect too much from a project admin. As for Anne Boone Call and D.G. Daniels I have no clues on even simple stuff like replacing their email address, or if there is anyone out there to replace them. Also, I totally disagree with you about requiring some arbitrary level of testing like 37 markers. The 12 marker test provides a start into DNA testing and we need as many people to participate as we can get. They can always upgrade later if needed. As we know, some folks are related to half the men in Ireland while others can't seem to find a match at all. You never know until you start testing. The key is to get folks started. My humble opinion, Clay --- On Sun, 9/13/09, Marleen Van Horne <msvnhrn@jps.net> wrote: > From: Marleen Van Horne <msvnhrn@jps.net> > Subject: Keeping our DNA pages updated > To: "Clay Daniels" <clay.daniels@sbcglobal.net> > Date: Sunday, September 13, 2009, 11:55 AM > Clay, > > This question of your's brings up a lot of issues. > > You may remember that I manage 6 yDNA projects at FTDNA, so > my opinions here are as both a project manager and a project > participant. > > In the first place, I flat out tell my project participants > that I accept the 37 marker test and prefer the 67 marker > test.  As you well know only those tests provide > sufficient information to prove genetic matches.  I > have had a couple of people who even after that only do the > 12 marker test, and because it matches one of the identified > genetic pedigrees think they have found their family.  > I quite frankly do not waste my time on those folks.  > They usually do not submit pedigrees to me and do not > contribute to the research of others or the project. > > Anyone with less that 37 markers I put in a group titled, > "Too Little Information."  That is hard nosed on my > part, but these people are not contributing to the project > and getting a free ride at other people's expense. > > OK, your basic question, is what to do with the test > results of project participants who have passed on.  > Frankly, unless you have a written agreement with the > individual prior to death, or an agreement with his family > after death, you have no authority to order any further > tests even if you are willing to pay for them. > > This question was recently addressed on the DNA-Genealogy > list.  Almost all of the project managers were of the > same opinion.  One person thought whatever was done was > OK as long as he wasn't paying.  The final conclusion > of the group was that a project manager has no authority to > order tests without the permission of the subscriber, no > matter who is paying. > > I went so far as to write to FTDNA about their ethics > policies for project managers.  I could not find it on > the website, but a copy was sent to me.  The guidelines > specifically say that a group administrator cannot > "Authorize an upgrade to a Project member’s markers," > without their consent. > > It seems to me that for people who have passed away, unless > you get permission of the family or have permission from the > individual prior to death, covering after death > circumstances, you just have to leave their test results > alone. > > My first project member passed away within eight months of > being tested.  At the time, 37 markers were the most > available.  While he was ill, FTDNA introduced the 67 > marker test.  I got permission from his widow and son > to upgrade his test results to 67 marker, and I paid for it > myself.  That is the only time I ever initiated an > upgrade for anyone. > > Marleen Van Horne >

Jim (James Madison) Daniel had a very good point when he asked about keeping up with deceased members and contributors. He povided me with this information. My original 12 marker DNA test was paid for by Anne Boone Call, shown on www.danieldna.50g.com as JetPilotUSAF100@cs.com. Crazy Anne is no longer with us. How do we deal with this legacy? I paid for the test for D.G. (Dickey Gene) Daniels, part of the Viking Joseph & Elizabeth Daniel clan of Lynchburg Tenn. Being a Celt, we were not matches, but Anne had made me very interested in the Jack Daniel family that lived so close to mine. Rev. D.G. Daniels has also passed away. We need to develop some method of upgrading our DNA project that accounts for what are really the normal events of life, ie: Death. Best Regards, Clay Daniels Ft. Worth, Texas

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: IrishRoseME Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.daniel/2260/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Looking for the descendents of Otto Buster Daniel. He was born in Oklahoma between 1898-1900. There was a son Named Paul, born in 1948. Apparently they lived in Ukiah, CA in the !970's. Otto Died in Eureka , CA (Humboldt County). Paul is supposed to have had a sister. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: sfaye21 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.daniel/2259/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Researching Daniel Surname that has a connection to Bray, Anderson, Goree, King, Bolling, Carlisle in area of Sprott, Al which is located in Perry County. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

----- Original Message ----- From: <daniel-request@rootsweb.com> To: <daniel@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 3:00 PM Subject: DANIEL Digest, Vol 4, Issue 133 > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: DANIEL Digest, Vol 4, Issue 121 (Peter Daniel) > 2. Re: Garrett Daniel and Clara Smith, Middlesex Co., > VA-mid-1700s (gc-gateway@rootsweb.com) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 23:05:04 +0800 > From: "Peter Daniel" <daniel@brightontown.com.au> > Subject: Re: [DANIEL] DANIEL Digest, Vol 4, Issue 121 > To: <daniel@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <A2434C15078E45968F4A8BE251FD192C@MAINCOMPUTER> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <daniel-request@rootsweb.com> > To: <daniel@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:00 PM > Subject: DANIEL Digest, Vol 4, Issue 121 > > >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. William Daniel (Doris Swinson) >> >> Hi Doris, maybe we are both in the same boatl William's son was William Herbert and Williams Father was John Daniel > Warmest Kindest Regards > Peter Daniel > Perth Western Australia 6036 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Doris , My Father' wasone of William Herbert' s sons . Dad's brother Bill's wife's was Doris, and my Father's Mother's name was Minnie Sutton. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:33:42 -0000 > From: "gc-gateway@rootsweb.com" <gc-gateway@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [DANIEL] Garrett Daniel and Clara Smith, Middlesex Co., > VA-mid-1700s > To: <DANIEL-L@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <1251930823.422651@rootsweb.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; > > This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. > > Author: tunnelm1 > Surnames: > Classification: queries > > Message Board URL: > > http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.daniel/2238.3.1/mb.ashx > > Message Board Post: > > There does not appear to be any connection. Sorry. > > Important Note: > The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the DANIEL list administrator, send an email to > DANIEL-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the DANIEL mailing list, send an email to DANIEL@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DANIEL-request@rootsweb.com > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of DANIEL Digest, Vol 4, Issue 133 > ************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.13.77/2346 - Release Date: 09/04/09 17:51:00

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: bluethunder2007 Surnames: Classification: birth Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.daniel/2258/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I'm looking for me real dad My midel name is Daniel Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

Hello I am still looking for anyone related to the John H. Daniel born sometime between the late 1790's or early 1800's. John married a Cherokee Indian girl in northern Ga. their children were James, Ambrose, Ed, and Henry. Anyone related to or knows anyone related to them I would like to hear from you. James was know as Devil Jim.Thanks for any help. Sandy Clardy

----- Original Message ----- From: <daniel-request@rootsweb.com> To: <daniel@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:00 PM Subject: DANIEL Digest, Vol 4, Issue 121 > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. William Daniel (Doris Swinson) > > Hi Doris, maybe we are both in the same boatl William's son was William Herbert and Williams Father was John Daniel Warmest Kindest Regards Peter Daniel Perth Western Australia 6036 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: tunnelm1 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.daniel/2238.3.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: There does not appear to be any connection. Sorry. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: t42MountOlivet Surnames: DANIEL Classification: cemetery Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.daniel/2256/mb.ashx Message Board Post: DANIEL Sally W 1903-1990 I photographed this gravestone in the Mount Olivet Cemetery, Fort Worth, Tarrant Co., Texas. Feel free to use this picture for your personal records. This is one of the 206,332 cemetery photos free at http://teafor2.com If you know more about this person please reply here instead of contacting me because this is most likely not my family. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

Hi all, I had to reconfigure my network and install and load a new lap top to troubleshoot an email problem I have been having. I have the problem solved on the lap top and I am going to try to revert to my original network and hardware configurations, so I will be off the network for awhile. I also have a lot of home work to do, so there is a good chance I won't be back on line until some time tomorrow. Regards, Kevin

Great questions, Jim. Several of those are questions that have not not come up yet. Some I will have to check with FTDNA on and get back to you. Others I can address on the Daniel DNA web site. On a side note, the owner of kit 13589 has been notified of your connection at the same time you were notified. Personally, I do not understand why some one would choose to not follow up on a 66/67 match of the same surname, if that is what is happening, but there you are. Best, Kevin On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 13:49 -0500, James Madison Daniel wrote: > Kevin & All > > I am kit 4116 and request my 67 marker results be posted. As I have stated/requested numerous times over the past year my markers not posted are identical to those shown for kit 13589. Maybe my request were not received for various reasons but none were returned, anyway that is water under the bridge now. > Not being a professional maybe I subscribe to the wrong lists, but I have used DNA results to base a lot of my work on including 12,25 & 67 marker results. Have about 5274 sourced members of 1725 family directly related to those DANIEL members submitting kits 13589, 14965, 21205 & 32867. I have only scratched the surface. > I would just like to see the result page kept current, a format or instructions on submission of Participating Lines information changes, i.e. changes after the death of the kit participant, or information updates from other members of the project. Should I or anyone else link the above lines into one family by proven sources i.e. land records etc how are the changes to be requested, published, participants > notified? Can I request and pay for marker updates on deceased participants? > Thanks to all who are involved in this DANIEL Project. I for one appreciate the work and results to date. > > Jim > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DANIEL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Kevin & All I am kit 4116 and request my 67 marker results be posted. As I have stated/requested numerous times over the past year my markers not posted are identical to those shown for kit 13589. Maybe my request were not received for various reasons but none were returned, anyway that is water under the bridge now. Not being a professional maybe I subscribe to the wrong lists, but I have used DNA results to base a lot of my work on including 12,25 & 67 marker results. Have about 5274 sourced members of 1725 family directly related to those DANIEL members submitting kits 13589, 14965, 21205 & 32867. I have only scratched the surface. I would just like to see the result page kept current, a format or instructions on submission of Participating Lines information changes, i.e. changes after the death of the kit participant, or information updates from other members of the project. Should I or anyone else link the above lines into one family by proven sources i.e. land records etc how are the changes to be requested, published, participants notified? Can I request and pay for marker updates on deceased participants? Thanks to all who are involved in this DANIEL Project. I for one appreciate the work and results to date. Jim

Thanks Marlene. Lots of food for thought in your email. We have 184 participants in the Daniel project, of which only 9 have not returned a kit and one of those is very recent, so may be considered to be active. We have only heard from 4 or five of the remaining 176 active participants, several of whom are are project managers themselves and have their own biases, which is fine as I obviously do too. I'd be interested in feedback from folks who are non-project manager participants as to what they would like to see on the project page and if they feel their needs are being met. Until very recently there has been no negative feedback sent to me about the web site, which has been extant for 7 years. I don't know how many participants subscribe to this list, though. I will also post a request to the Daniel-DNA list. Marlene, I have looked at the tools currently available to admins, but probably am not aware of tools that are in the works. So far, all of the reports I have found valuable have a cut and paste option that allows them to be added to other web pages. I have a masters degree in computer science, and working on a second masters in Library and Information Science, and have undertaken numerous web development projects, professionally, academically and commercially, so maintaining the Daniel and Hostetter sites, along with several personal and professional pages that I maintain is truly trivial for me. Diane Bradford actually has the lions share of work in maintaining the Participants page. Personally, I find the FTDNA generated pages rather dry, unattractive, not incredibly intuitive for the average participant, and not particularly well designed, to boot. I work for a large insurance company where privacy issues are taken very seriously. Based on my background, I recognize I may be more focused on privacy concerns than others are. In my opinion there is a place in the project for everyone, even the 12 and 25 marker folks. Not every one has the same goal or game plan. Some folks don't have the money to pay for higher marker kits, but want to be involved, and others don't want to pay for a higher marker test until they have at least one 12 marker match, and I am sure there are many other reasons why folks do what they do. I completely agree that posting these results is both misleading and wastes a lot of everyone's time, especially for common surnames which have an incredibly large number of unrelated families. I can see an argument for displaying the results as long as there is no direct link to the participant, but still question the value of doing so. I'd be interested in what value average participants see in this. I guess I can see value in following Marlene's example and posting only the results of 37 and higher marker tests, especially for projects for common surnames. My impression to date is that most folks just want to know who they are and are not related to. I applaud your effort to get useful information about earliest proved ancestors, but suggest there is value in having ancestor biographies even for 12 and 25 marker folks. As noted before, I think this is where the action is on any DNA web site. I encourage folks to do a factual biography of their earliest proved ancestor and basic information about their ancestor's children in order to allow as many folks as possible to make a connection. I am also against posting of pedigrees on web sites as there is too much potential for abuse. Again, thanks for your thought provoking input, Marlene. Best, Kevin On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 07:44 -0700, Marleen Van Horne wrote: > Kevin and other yDNA Project Managers, > > If you did not attend the FTDNA yDNA Conference in March, you are > probably not aware of the new tools being developed by FTDNA for > managing the Group Administrator Pages. > > When I started my project, I made the decision to use the project pages > provided by FTDNA, others made the decision to put their project > information on other servers. With the new dashboard tools, I think > most of what any project manager would need would be available through > FTDNA. It is also easier because the test results are automatically > added to the page, and all the administrator has to do is put them in > the right group. Once placed in the correct group, FTTNA's sort > algorithm puts them in order by test results. In this way those > individuals with the most similar test results appear together > > I really feel that a group administrator has some responsibility to > bring order to the information collected. This can be done without > violating the privacy of any of the project members. It can also be > done without pedigrees. I require ALL my project participants to > provide a brief line of descent pedigree. I also require a test of > either 37 or preferably 67 markers. Unfortunately, the 12 and 25 marker > tests do not provide enough information for genealogical matching. They > only provide haplogroup information. It is not practical for a project > manager or a project participant to research these low level matches, as > the common ancestor could be 40,000 years ago. I let my project > subscribers know this up front. In a couple of cases new subscribers > did not meet my requirements, while they are still in the project, I do > not include them in an identified group and I do not waste time > analyzing their test results. My project members know it is not worth > their time to pursue these matches. They also have not provided > pedigrees to me, so I figure they are cheating the other project members. > > I also do not encourage the publication of pedigrees on the website, > because at one time there was a possibility of a competing company > mining information from the FTDNA website. I do, however, put related > individuals together privately, IF THEY WISH. > > My projects are very small, as the surnames are extremely rare. I > realize that in large projects bringing structure to the information, > without violation a project members privacy is more difficult. I also > feel that without some type of organization the information is almost > useless. > > These comments should not be taken as criticism as to the way other > admins manage the information in their projects. This is just my > approach, and I realize other admins have different approaches. > > Marleen Van Horne > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DANIEL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, All I'm a participant who is not a DNA project administrator but rather an average (or just above novice), casual researcher who has found great value in reported DNA test results that are kept current and have some sort of bio page. Part of the value I receive is from just this sort of dialogue taking place now. When the lists are active, it is very stimulating and there is so much to learn. I am a Finance and HR professional so I live with the same sorts of privacy concerns Kevin references but I don't share that level of concern as it relates to posting the kit results. I always think more information is better with the personal option of opting out. I realize not everyone shares this view and sometimes it seems necessary to protect people from themselves - using information incorrectly, making wrong conclusions, just wanting the gee whiz factor - but it seems to me that doing so penalizes everyone and defeats the purpose of the project pages in the first place. For me, having the relatively current project pages and bio pages - along with the gentle encouragement of Pam, Kevin, and several others :-) - is why I ended up getting the test done. The notifications offered directly to participants by ftDNA are just not compelling or sufficient to warrant spending the money.  I also actively recruit participants, for several lines, and have shared costs when there was a possible match to upgrade a test. In each of those instances, the availability and quality of the project pages in terms of # of participants, currency of information, and ease of use ended up being a major factor in their decision making. I echo Pam and Clay - please find a middle ground and don't let it become just a majority vote. Helping even ONE person seems like it would be worth it. Best regards, Jan ________________________________ From: Kevin <kevin@kevindaniel.com> To: Marleen Van Horne <msvnhrn@jps.net> Cc: DANIEL@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 10:25:57 AM Subject: Re: [DANIEL] updating Daniel DNA res Thanks Marlene. Lots of food for thought in your email. We have 184 participants in the Daniel project, of which only 9 have not returned a kit and one of those is very recent, so may be considered to be active. We have only heard from 4 or five of the remaining 176 active participants, several of whom are are project managers themselves and have their own biases, which is fine as I obviously do too. I'd be interested in feedback from folks who are non-project manager participants as to what they would like to see on the project page and if they feel their needs are being met. Until very recently there has been no negative feedback sent to me about the web site, which has been extant for 7 years. I don't know how many participants subscribe to this list, though. I will also post a request to the Daniel-DNA list. Marlene, I have looked at the tools currently available to admins, but probably am not aware of tools that are in the works. So far, all of the reports I have found valuable have a cut and paste option that allows them to be added to other web pages. I have a masters degree in computer science, and working on a second masters in Library and Information Science, and have undertaken numerous web development projects, professionally, academically and commercially, so maintaining the Daniel and Hostetter sites, along with several personal and professional pages that I maintain is truly trivial for me. Diane Bradford actually has the lions share of work in maintaining the Participants page. Personally, I find the FTDNA generated pages rather dry, unattractive, not incredibly intuitive for the average participant, and not particularly well designed, to boot. I work for a large insurance company where privacy issues are taken very seriously. Based on my background, I recognize I may be more focused on privacy concerns than others are. In my opinion there is a place in the project for everyone, even the 12 and 25 marker folks. Not every one has the same goal or game plan. Some folks don't have the money to pay for higher marker kits, but want to be involved, and others don't want to pay for a higher marker test until they have at least one 12 marker match, and I am sure there are many other reasons why folks do what they do. I completely agree that posting these results is both misleading and wastes a lot of everyone's time, especially for common surnames which have an incredibly large number of unrelated families. I can see an argument for displaying the results as long as there is no direct link to the participant, but still question the value of doing so. I'd be interested in what value average participants see in this. I guess I can see value in following Marlene's example and posting only the results of 37 and higher marker tests, especially for projects for common surnames. My impression to date is that most folks just want to know who they are and are not related to. I applaud your effort to get useful information about earliest proved ancestors, but suggest there is value in having ancestor biographies even for 12 and 25 marker folks. As noted before, I think this is where the action is on any DNA web site. I encourage folks to do a factual biography of their earliest proved ancestor and basic information about their ancestor's children in order to allow as many folks as possible to make a connection. I am also against posting of pedigrees on web sites as there is too much potential for abuse. Again, thanks for your thought provoking input, Marlene. Best, Kevin On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 07:44 -0700, Marleen Van Horne wrote: > Kevin and other yDNA Project Managers, > > If you did not attend the FTDNA yDNA Conference in March, you are > probably not aware of the new tools being developed by FTDNA for > managing the Group Administrator Pages. > > When I started my project, I made the decision to use the project pages > provided by FTDNA, others made the decision to put their project > information on other servers.  With the new dashboard tools, I think > most of what any project manager would need would be available through > FTDNA.  It is also easier because the test results are automatically > added to the page, and all the administrator has to do is put them in > the right group.  Once placed in the correct group, FTTNA's sort > algorithm puts them in order by test results.  In this way those > individuals with the most similar test results appear together > > I really feel that a group administrator has some responsibility to > bring order to the information collected.  This can be done without > violating the privacy of any of the project members.  It can also be > done without pedigrees.  I require ALL my project participants to > provide a brief line of descent pedigree.  I also require a test of > either 37 or preferably 67 markers.  Unfortunately, the 12 and 25 marker > tests do not provide enough information for genealogical matching.  They > only provide haplogroup information.  It is not practical for a project > manager or a project participant to research these low level matches, as > the common ancestor could be 40,000 years ago.  I let my project > subscribers know this up front.  In a couple of cases new subscribers > did not meet my requirements, while they are still in the project, I do > not include them in an identified group and I do not waste time > analyzing their test results.  My project members know it is not worth > their time to pursue these matches. They also have not provided > pedigrees to me, so I figure they are cheating the other project members. > > I also do not encourage the publication of pedigrees on the website, > because at one time there was a possibility of a competing company > mining information from the FTDNA website.  I do, however, put related > individuals together privately, IF THEY WISH. > > My projects are very small, as the surnames are extremely rare.  I > realize that in large projects bringing structure to the information, > without violation a project members privacy is more difficult.  I also > feel that without some type of organization the information is almost > useless. > > These comments should not be taken as criticism as to the way other > admins manage the information in their projects.  This is just my > approach, and I realize other admins have different approaches. > > Marleen Van Horne > > > >  > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DANIEL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DANIEL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Danged lap top. I'll finish my thoughts later. Kevin On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 08:01 -0500, Kevin wrote: > Sorry about pulling the trigger on this email before it was finished. I > bought a new lap top and the touch pad is very quirky. Have to run a cat > to the vet but will pick this up later. I will finish my thought on the > cutoff line however. > > Best, > > Kevin > > On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 07:47 -0500, Kevin wrote: > > Thanks for your input, Clay > > A couple of observations. The grouping and color coding of haplogroups > > looks slick and useful on the surface, but can actually be very > > misleading and possibly counterproductive, especially on common surnames > > like Daniel and White, where many unrelated lines took the same surname > > and lived in the same areas for many generations. Many of these groups > > are likely related but in a time frame that is not genealogically > > meaningful. With both projects, there are many folks who only have 12 or > > 25 marker tests which does not necessarily indicate a relationship > > within a genealogical meaningful time frame but are grouped together. > > The emphasis on pages like the White page is too skewed towards the markers, > > in my opinion given > the large number of folks who don't include any information about their > earliest known ancestor, include only the minimal information about > their earliest ancestor (which due to the sparsity of information > often does not indicate if this is a proved or fancied connection), and > the number of folks who stop at the 12 marker test even though the > results often show potential matches to others in their haplogroup. > The same can be said for any presentation of DNA marker results. I don't > really find the canned reports provided by FTDNA to be that useful and > are maybe more aimed at maintaining customer satisfaction than providing > genealogical useful information. This information is available to each > participant on their personal FTDNA page. The great majority of FT > > > Many folks assume connections that will not prove out after higher > > marker tests but stop testing when they see such a match. So why is this > > useful? I think this is more of a gee whiz factor for some folks to see > > this, but it is really not useful from a genealogical perspective, which > > is the purpose of the project. It also leads folks to try to interpret > > results in the same way that folks once and still try to make > > connections based on proximity and other factors. I cannot count the > > number of times that folks have contacted me trying make connections > > based on what they perceive as meaningful similarities between their > > results and the results of other participants. In the overwhelming > > majority of cases this type of analysis is best left to the > > professionals at FTDNA, which each participant has paid for by > > purchasing a their kit. > > > > On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 01:52 -0700, Clay Daniels wrote: > > > Pam has a number of good points and I think we need to consider them: > > > > > > Let me first digress to my personal experience. I became the admin for the White DNA project several years ago when they had some twenty some odd members. I stole Kevin's scheme and for a few years I had a little Notepad file that I kept track of the participants and was displayed on the website with the little "Contact" tag that listed the email address. Later I helped form the Hale DNA project and kept the same basic scheme. By now the White project has over 220 results, while the Hale project is just at about sixty. A while back, I was taken by the collar and led to restructure the huge White project. We now go by Haplogroup, with color coding. The Africans get the appropriate green color. White is a very common surname. Some Poles chose it at Ellis Island as they did not know how to spell their real name in English. The point of all this is that it is a matter of scale. Please feel free to look at these two sites: > > > > > > www.familytreedna.com/public/white > > > www.familytreedna.com/public/hale > > > > > > Kevin, we certainly appreciate all your efforts over these years and do not want to replace you. I have two suggestions: > > > > > > 1. Convert to the free website at FTDNA. No point in you keep paying for web hosting. Adjust your scheme to fit their layout. > > > > > > 2. Let us help you. Keep Diane Bradford to update the family history page which can probably go under the "Background" section. Let Pam help with the haplogroup assignment. > > > > > > (The real tricky bunch is the Vikings, or I1 haplogroup. FTDNA's prediction routine is a bit flakey here. If they don't do an SNP test, known relatives are often left out in the cold as "Unassigned") > > > > > > Respectfully, and with great respect for your contributions, > > > > > > Clay Daniels > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DANIEL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DANIEL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sorry about pulling the trigger on this email before it was finished. I bought a new lap top and the touch pad is very quirky. Have to run a cat to the vet but will pick this up later. I will finish my thought on the cutoff line however. Best, Kevin On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 07:47 -0500, Kevin wrote: > Thanks for your input, Clay > A couple of observations. The grouping and color coding of haplogroups > looks slick and useful on the surface, but can actually be very > misleading and possibly counterproductive, especially on common surnames > like Daniel and White, where many unrelated lines took the same surname > and lived in the same areas for many generations. Many of these groups > are likely related but in a time frame that is not genealogically > meaningful. With both projects, there are many folks who only have 12 or > 25 marker tests which does not necessarily indicate a relationship > within a genealogical meaningful time frame but are grouped together. > The emphasis on pages like the White page is too skewed towards the markers, > in my opinion given the large number of folks who don't include any information about their earliest known ancestor, include only the minimal information about their earliest ancestor (which due to the sparsity of information often does not indicate if this is a proved or fancied connection), and the number of folks who stop at the 12 marker test even though the results often show potential matches to others in their haplogroup. The same can be said for any presentation of DNA marker results. I don't really find the canned reports provided by FTDNA to be that useful and are maybe more aimed at maintaining customer satisfaction than providing genealogical useful information. This information is available to each participant on their personal FTDNA page. The great majority of FT > Many folks assume connections that will not prove out after higher > marker tests but stop testing when they see such a match. So why is this > useful? I think this is more of a gee whiz factor for some folks to see > this, but it is really not useful from a genealogical perspective, which > is the purpose of the project. It also leads folks to try to interpret > results in the same way that folks once and still try to make > connections based on proximity and other factors. I cannot count the > number of times that folks have contacted me trying make connections > based on what they perceive as meaningful similarities between their > results and the results of other participants. In the overwhelming > majority of cases this type of analysis is best left to the > professionals at FTDNA, which each participant has paid for by > purchasing a their kit. > > On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 01:52 -0700, Clay Daniels wrote: > > Pam has a number of good points and I think we need to consider them: > > > > Let me first digress to my personal experience. I became the admin for the White DNA project several years ago when they had some twenty some odd members. I stole Kevin's scheme and for a few years I had a little Notepad file that I kept track of the participants and was displayed on the website with the little "Contact" tag that listed the email address. Later I helped form the Hale DNA project and kept the same basic scheme. By now the White project has over 220 results, while the Hale project is just at about sixty. A while back, I was taken by the collar and led to restructure the huge White project. We now go by Haplogroup, with color coding. The Africans get the appropriate green color. White is a very common surname. Some Poles chose it at Ellis Island as they did not know how to spell their real name in English. The point of all this is that it is a matter of scale. Please feel free to look at these two sites: > > > > www.familytreedna.com/public/white > > www.familytreedna.com/public/hale > > > > Kevin, we certainly appreciate all your efforts over these years and do not want to replace you. I have two suggestions: > > > > 1. Convert to the free website at FTDNA. No point in you keep paying for web hosting. Adjust your scheme to fit their layout. > > > > 2. Let us help you. Keep Diane Bradford to update the family history page which can probably go under the "Background" section. Let Pam help with the haplogroup assignment. > > > > (The real tricky bunch is the Vikings, or I1 haplogroup. FTDNA's prediction routine is a bit flakey here. If they don't do an SNP test, known relatives are often left out in the cold as "Unassigned") > > > > Respectfully, and with great respect for your contributions, > > > > Clay Daniels > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DANIEL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks for your input, Clay A couple of observations. The grouping and color coding of haplogroups looks slick and useful on the surface, but can actually be very misleading and possibly counterproductive, especially on common surnames like Daniel and White, where many unrelated lines took the same surname and lived in the same areas for many generations. Many of these groups are likely related but in a time frame that is not genealogically meaningful. With both projects, there are many folks who only have 12 or 25 marker tests which does not necessarily indicate a relationship within a genealogical meaningful time frame but are grouped together. The emphasis on pages like the White Many folks assume connections that will not prove out after higher marker tests but stop testing when they see such a match. So why is this useful? I think this is more of a gee whiz factor for some folks to see this, but it is really not useful from a genealogical perspective, which is the purpose of the project. It also leads folks to try to interpret results in the same way that folks once and still try to make connections based on proximity and other factors. I cannot count the number of times that folks have contacted me trying make connections based on what they perceive as meaningful similarities between their results and the results of other participants. In the overwhelming majority of cases this type of analysis is best left to the professionals at FTDNA, which each participant has paid for by purchasing a their kit. On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 01:52 -0700, Clay Daniels wrote: > Pam has a number of good points and I think we need to consider them: > > Let me first digress to my personal experience. I became the admin for the White DNA project several years ago when they had some twenty some odd members. I stole Kevin's scheme and for a few years I had a little Notepad file that I kept track of the participants and was displayed on the website with the little "Contact" tag that listed the email address. Later I helped form the Hale DNA project and kept the same basic scheme. By now the White project has over 220 results, while the Hale project is just at about sixty. A while back, I was taken by the collar and led to restructure the huge White project. We now go by Haplogroup, with color coding. The Africans get the appropriate green color. White is a very common surname. Some Poles chose it at Ellis Island as they did not know how to spell their real name in English. The point of all this is that it is a matter of scale. Please feel free to look at these two sites: > > www.familytreedna.com/public/white > www.familytreedna.com/public/hale > > Kevin, we certainly appreciate all your efforts over these years and do not want to replace you. I have two suggestions: > > 1. Convert to the free website at FTDNA. No point in you keep paying for web hosting. Adjust your scheme to fit their layout. > > 2. Let us help you. Keep Diane Bradford to update the family history page which can probably go under the "Background" section. Let Pam help with the haplogroup assignment. > > (The real tricky bunch is the Vikings, or I1 haplogroup. FTDNA's prediction routine is a bit flakey here. If they don't do an SNP test, known relatives are often left out in the cold as "Unassigned") > > Respectfully, and with great respect for your contributions, > > Clay Daniels > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DANIEL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message