Dave Hinz wrote: > Far as I know, DNA is what convinced the Thomas Jefferson descendants to > accept the Sally Hemings link. I read a report that the DNA proof was bogus. But "believe half of what you read and none of what you hear" -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/Wes

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:11:27 +0000, Charani <SGBNOSPAM@mail2genes.invalid> wrote: > You've summed up perfectly there. This is exactly why there is no use > or purpose for DNA in genealogy as far as I'm concerned. I don't think that's what they were saying. It lets you rule in (or out) a genealogical link, but doesn't specify WHAT the link is. I'd say that physical evidence of a link, has use and purpose in genealogy. > OK, so two people may "know" they are related because of the DNA but > can they *prove* it with a paper trail? If the paper trail stops 5 or > 6 generations back, then they are going to have a tough time proving > to the vast majority of people in their respectives families that they > are related. And if the DNA does _not_ match, then they've saved a bunch of time. > People will believe what they can see (a paper trail) > but not believe what they can neither see nor understand (DNA). Far as I know, DNA is what convinced the Thomas Jefferson descendants to accept the Sally Hemings link.

kos@panix.com wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Charani wrote: > >> OK, so two people may "know" they are related because of the DNA but >> can they *prove* it with a paper trail? If the paper trail stops 5 or >> 6 generations back, then they are going to have a tough time proving >> to the vast majority of people in their respectives families that they >> are related. People will believe what they can see (a paper trail) >> but not believe what they can neither see nor understand (DNA). > > Well that's the thing. You can't ever "prove" that the paper trail > ends. It is always possible to find new evidence - it just depends on > one's perseverance (and maybe one's resources). Perhaps one can exhaust > the logical places for documentation (e.g. public records), but who > knows what other sources may surface such as memoirs, diaries, etc. (one > of my ancestors shows up in 19th century Belorussian police records). > > At the very least, a DNA match has the potential to show direction of > research. For example, I know my ancestors come from a certain town; my > closest DNA match comes from a different town quite a distance away. > The logical course would be to research this "new" town to see whose > family came from which town in search of the common ancestor. > >> Like you, I hoover up (love that phrase :)) ) all mentions of the >> family I'm doing a one name study of. All mentions get added to the >> database with notes as appropriate until such time as I can link them >> to the correct part of the family. > > My work is also essentially a one-name study, so I have many isolated > individuals who I can't connect to anyone else. I just wondered about > the views of the "pros" on this group with regard to Y-DNA results. not a pro but for a one-name studt just record it as it is without interpretation Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

Kerry Raymond wrote: > So it seems to me that DNA matches are much the same. There is a high > probability that they are related, so you hardly want to forget about them. > But you still have to plug away and collect the birth, marriage, death > information etc that leads to working out what that relationship might be. No, there's more to it than that. I can establish that John Edwin French is my cousin. I can also establish he and I both descend from John Enos French, 1845-1891. Now there are hundreds of males surnamed French who have the evidence of descent from one of a couple of dozen people surnamed French in colonial America. Say there are twenty. If a Y-DNA test establishes a match between John Edwin French and one of these others, it eliminates nineteen potential lines of descent from our search plan. -- Wes Groleau Pat's Polemics = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

Power-Post 2K wrote: > Considering that I'm Jewish and my paternal ancestry is from Belarus, Please write me. I have some information for you. -- Wes Groleau Don't get even -- get odd!

I think a DNA match of this nature is pretty much the same as the age old problem of what do you do when you find the right name in the right place at the right time. For example I know that all Rebetzkes in Australia are related, so I hoover up any data connected with that name. But that doesn't mean that when I encounter a Rebetzke in the records that I can correctly locate that person in my family tree. What I can do is stick them in my database and start collecting information on them until their place in the tree eventually reveals itself. So it seems to me that DNA matches are much the same. There is a high probability that they are related, so you hardly want to forget about them. But you still have to plug away and collect the birth, marriage, death information etc that leads to working out what that relationship might be. Kerry

In article <omftt3lisfqfcftbarqetq4ciu54thqsas@4ax.com>, Power-Post 2K <nonews@noname.com> writes: > The group has been quiet, so I figure I could post a more speculative > question. > > I've taken a Y-DNA test (as well as the mtDNA test), and I have about > 15 matches. One of these matches is a relatively close match (about 7 > generations away), and I'm hoping to find the exact connection soon. > > While a few of the other 14 matches have similar beginnings of > surnames, it's probable that the connection is further back in time. > Considering that I'm Jewish and my paternal ancestry is from Belarus, > I would think it's an almost insurmountable task to trace people prior > to the beginning of the 18th century. > > I was struck by a recent statement someone made, something to the > effect of if there is no documntation for the person, then they don't > belong on your tree. > > For those who have achieved simliar results through DNA testing, what > do you do? Incorporate the people into the tree, or do something else > with them? > > I'm interested to hear of others' solutions. > > Bob Kosovsky > New York City DNA testing is a tool, nothing more, nothing less, and can't - or shouldn't - be used in isolation or in place of the other tools available. The fact you can determine you and Joe Doaks share a common ancestor N-generations back doesn't identify that ancestor - it just gives you a time and place to look. It's still necessary to establish the paper trail to identify and place that ancestor. Swell Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:11:27 +0000, Charani <SGBNOSPAM@ mail2genes.invalid> wrote: >On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:08:13 +1000, Kerry Raymond wrote: > >> I think a DNA match of this nature is pretty much the same as the age old >> problem of what do you do when you find the right name in the right place >> at the right time. For example I know that all Rebetzkes in Australia are >> related, so I hoover up any data connected with that name. But that doesn't >> mean that when I encounter a Rebetzke in the records that I can correctly >> locate that person in my family tree. What I can do is stick them in my >> database and start collecting information on them until their place in the >> tree eventually reveals itself. >> >> So it seems to me that DNA matches are much the same. There is a high >> probability that they are related, so you hardly want to forget about them. >> But you still have to plug away and collect the birth, marriage, death >> information etc that leads to working out what that relationship might be. > >You've summed up perfectly there. This is exactly why there is no use >or purpose for DNA in genealogy as far as I'm concerned. > >OK, so two people may "know" they are related because of the DNA but >can they *prove* it with a paper trail? If the paper trail stops 5 or >6 generations back, then they are going to have a tough time proving >to the vast majority of people in their respectives families that they >are related. People will believe what they can see (a paper trail) >but not believe what they can neither see nor understand (DNA). Several people, including me, have the line of a 1655 immigrant proven beyond reasonable doubt to several families today. But only two of his three sons descendants are traceable. My own line is about two links short of the third son who could be my gggg grandfather. I can't get there from here except in theory that can't be proved or disproved. If I DNA match someone known to be from that line, and the MRCA is 6-8 generations away, I have the line except for 2 generations. And I have a good idea where to look for the links. I have also traced two other lines (for 5 generations) within two generations of my earliest proven ancestor. So, I view a match of DNA to any of these lines as all I need to limit my search. All I need to know is whether there is a link to an earlier proven genealogy and DNA is my only chance. Without that I am dead in the water because the paper trail does not exist and theories are not proof Where is the flaw in my logic? Hugh

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:08:13 +1000, Kerry Raymond wrote: > I think a DNA match of this nature is pretty much the same as the age old > problem of what do you do when you find the right name in the right place > at the right time. For example I know that all Rebetzkes in Australia are > related, so I hoover up any data connected with that name. But that doesn't > mean that when I encounter a Rebetzke in the records that I can correctly > locate that person in my family tree. What I can do is stick them in my > database and start collecting information on them until their place in the > tree eventually reveals itself. > > So it seems to me that DNA matches are much the same. There is a high > probability that they are related, so you hardly want to forget about them. > But you still have to plug away and collect the birth, marriage, death > information etc that leads to working out what that relationship might be. You've summed up perfectly there. This is exactly why there is no use or purpose for DNA in genealogy as far as I'm concerned. OK, so two people may "know" they are related because of the DNA but can they *prove* it with a paper trail? If the paper trail stops 5 or 6 generations back, then they are going to have a tough time proving to the vast majority of people in their respectives families that they are related. People will believe what they can see (a paper trail) but not believe what they can neither see nor understand (DNA). Like you, I hoover up (love that phrase :)) ) all mentions of the family I'm doing a one name study of. All mentions get added to the database with notes as appropriate until such time as I can link them to the correct part of the family.

"Power-Post 2K" <nonews@noname.com> wrote: > The group has been quiet, so I figure I could post a more speculative > question. > > I've taken a Y-DNA test (as well as the mtDNA test), and I have about > 15 matches. One of these matches is a relatively close match (about 7 > generations away), and I'm hoping to find the exact connection soon. > > While a few of the other 14 matches have similar beginnings of > surnames, it's probable that the connection is further back in time. > Considering that I'm Jewish and my paternal ancestry is from Belarus, > I would think it's an almost insurmountable task to trace people prior > to the beginning of the 18th century. > > I was struck by a recent statement someone made, something to the > effect of if there is no documntation for the person, then they don't > belong on your tree. I would consider that statement half-true. What is true is that no matter how they are related, you cannot know their exact placement into a family tree without additional facts (beyond DNA). Based on being unable to place them, then the statement "they don't belong in your tree" is accurate. However, they should still be tracked in your database so that when you do find the connection, their personal information is already present. > For those who have achieved simliar results through DNA testing, what > do you do? Incorporate the people into the tree, or do something else > with them? > > I'm interested to hear of others' solutions. > > Bob Kosovsky > New York City "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org>

So what is your best guess? That RootsWeb will remain free within Ancestry but will soon contain a lot of advertising? "Unsprung" <peterblood666@joimail.com>

Robert Melson wrote: > Please 'scuse the multi-post .. thought it the best way > to get this out to "my" groups. > > Interesting article here: > > http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2008/03/rootsweb-to-be.html > > See also: http://blogs.rootsweb.com/newsroom > > RootsWeb to be Moved to Ancestry.com. > > As a more-or-less skeptic, I wonder when the other shoe will drop > and RW will be either terminated or become a for-a-fee service, > despite Sullivan's claims to the contrary.. > > Suspicious Ol' Bob One change I've noticed is that my RootsWeb profile says I have "chosen to use Ancestry's connection service to remain anonymous. The connection service is a premium service from Ancestry, which requires basic membership with a minimal subscription fee." I.e, to contact somebody off board, I need a suscription costing $25+ per month. "J M'Gregor" <jmgrgr@netscape.net>

Dr. Brian Leverich wrote: > > > <snip> > > > RootsWeb to be Moved to Ancestry.com. > > > > > > As a more-or-less skeptic, I wonder when the other shoe will drop > > > and RW will be either terminated or become a for-a-fee service, > > > despite Sullivan's claims to the contrary.. > > > > > > Suspicious Ol' Bob > > > "Robert Melson" <melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net> > > It was some time ago so my memory may be fuzzy, but I seem to recall > > the originators of RootsWeb (when, due to economics were forced to > > use Ancestry as a host) included as part of the contract that > > RootsWeb would stay a free resource in perpetuity. > > > > Gary Templeman "GaryT" <gtemplemanPAINT@proaxis.com> > > Having signed the contract, I'm kinda aware of the details. ;) > > There was no requirement that RootsWeb stay free or persist in > perpetuity. > > On a practical level, though, we certainly expected that. The user- > provided RootsWeb content almost by definition has to stay free, > because the users can always take it elsewhere. And it's hard to > imagine Ancestry not supporting RootsWeb's functionality, because > RootsWeb is relatively inexpensive to operate and serves to grow the > customer base for Ancestry's commercial products. > > From my perspective, there's nothing particularly good or bad about > moving RootsWeb's content inside the Ancestry domain. It clears up > some statistical difficulties associated with tracking traffic at the > two sites, at the cost of vaguely blurring the line between the free > community site and the the commercial data provider. > > On the balance, that's a yawn. > > Again from my perspective, the thing that has surprized me is how > little effort Ancestry has put into improving RootsWeb over the last > seven years. Technology has changed a lot, these days there's a whole > variety of powerful new social networking tools and such, but most of > RootsWeb has been stagnant or (arguably) has deteriorated. > > Karen and I have been kinda sitting on the sidelines for some years > now, just operating Linkpendium to stay involved. We have lately > started gathering the resources to build a next-generation site for > genealogists that fully exploits current technology. too late Brian BTW how much did Ancestry pay you for RootsWeb? [ Not enough that I could retire the 1989 Ford Aerostar van that I still drive. The heater doesn't work and I've had to recover the seats with slipcovers from Costco, but it still runs good. - Mod ] Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG Hugh Watkins <hugh.watkins@gmail.com>

the_verminator@comcast.net wrote: > mels...@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson) wrote: > > > Please 'scuse the multi-post .. thought it the best way > > to get this out to "my" groups. > > > > Interesting article here: > > > > http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2008/03/rootsweb-to-be... > > > > See also: http://blogs.rootsweb.com/newsroom > > > > RootsWeb to be Moved to Ancestry.com. > > > > As a more-or-less skeptic, I wonder when the other shoe will drop > > and RW will be either terminated or become a for-a-fee service, > > despite Sullivan's claims to the contrary.. > > > > Suspicious Ol' Bob > > I believe what will happen is at some point all RootsWeb will be > frozen and no new input allowed and then it will be treated as any > other Ancestry on-line database (i.e. Read Only). > >>From that point on all RootsWeb functions (mailinglists, SSDI, > USGENWEB, etc.) would be done on Ancestry rather than RootsWeb. > > "the_verminator@comcast.net" <the_verminator@comcast.net> you guys make me laugh I have had time to sleep and think about this what is going on is a Web 2 site (all the new family trees, photos , sound bites on ancestry.com By making rootsweb.ancestry.com a subdomain the hits will be added to the ancestry score and enable TGN to chareg a higher price for advertising ============================================ the genealogy on line market is becoming saturated and new competitors have opened a price and quality war with ancestry when ready the freebie newfamilysearch will dominate they are busy keying in new census indexes right now for example and scanning all the film in the granite mountain I think ancestry will find its future profits in advertising and web shopping rather than subscriptions ========================= It well may become a freebie like google (mail web pages grousp) or AOL bring your own connection AOL is very much dominated by advertising too I joined aol.co.uk as a ISP but often was roaming and logged on from other systems I was an early adopter of TalkTalk and changed my ISP and telephony to them later aol.co.uk connections was sold to TalkTalk All UK ISP are basically using the local copper of the national telephone network - either rebadged or with their own server and glass fibre backbone (except the cable TV companies but that package is more expensive as a whole) When new familysearch is launched TGN may well be purely financed by advertising RootsWeb will continue to be a valuable site and so preserved more or less as is still running on Apache on Red Hat Linux Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG Hugh Watkins <hugh.watkins@gmail.com>

Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> writes: > > > Please 'scuse the multi-post .. thought it the best way > > to get this out to "my" groups. > > > > melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson) > > Thank you for changing your mind and not multiposting. > > Crossposting really is much better. See my reply to clifto, earlier in this thread. Fingers got ahead of brain and ... ;-( Shamefaced Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson)

"Dr. Brian Leverich" <leverich@linkpendium.com> writes: <snip> > Karen and I have been kinda sitting on the sidelines for some years > now, just operating Linkpendium to stay involved. We have lately > started gathering the resources to build a next-generation site for > genealogists that fully exploits current technology. Now _that_ is an announcement worth waiting for. While I'm vaguely disappointed in Linpendium - too many links lead too quickly to fee-based sites, IMO - I can respect the work that of necessity goes into the, ahhh, fielding of a next generation tool to replace RW. SysAdmin Ol' Bob > Stay tuned. ;) > > Cheers, B. > > > -- > Dr. Brian Leverich <leverich@linkpendium.com> > Moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L > Founder, RootsWeb.com and Linkpendium.com -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson)

Hugh Watkins <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> writes: > > > Please 'scuse the multi-post .. thought it the best way > > to get this out to "my" groups. > > > > Interesting article here: > > > > http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2008/03/rootsweb-to-be.html > > > > See also: http?//blogs.rootsweb.com/newsroom > > > > RootsWeb to be Moved to Ancestry.com. > > > > As a more-or-less skeptic, I wonder when the other shoe will drop > > and RW will be either terminated or become a for-a-fee service, > > despite Sullivan's claims to the contrary.. > > > > Suspicious Ol' Bob > > > silly old BOB > > my own > http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Ednkcen/index.html > > is now also > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/%7Ednkcen/index.html > and the old links all work by redirects > > Hugh W 'Scuse me, Hugh, but that's NOW. Have you thought about, say, 6 months or a year from now? I am not saying anything WILL happen, only wondering if it MIGHT, and I wouldn't be at all surprised. Unlike certain unnamed parties, I have no faith in the kindness and generosity of Ancestry OR their parent corporation, who're in this for the money and not because they're altruists. SOB -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson)

clifto <clifto@gmail.com> writes: > > Robert Melson wrote: > > > Please 'scuse the multi-post .. thought it the best way > > to get this out to "my" groups. > > Just FYI, you did a cross-post, not a multi-post, and a cross-post > was a more appropriate thing to do. Multi-posting (posting several > individual articles to several individual newsgroups) is almost > never appropriate. Yeah. I realized I had misspoken only AFTER I'd hit the "post" button. Mea culpa, mea MAXIMA culpa (sound effect of cloth tearing, signifying my rending the hem of my garment). SOB -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson)

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:06:46 GMT, Power-Post 2K <nonews@noname.com> wrote: >The group has been quiet, so I figure I could post a more speculative >question. > >I've taken a Y-DNA test (as well as the mtDNA test), and I have about >15 matches. One of these matches is a relatively close match (about 7 >generations away), and I'm hoping to find the exact connection soon. > >While a few of the other 14 matches have similar beginnings of >surnames, it's probable that the connection is further back in time. >Considering that I'm Jewish and my paternal ancestry is from Belarus, >I would think it's an almost insurmountable task to trace people prior >to the beginning of the 18th century. > >I was struck by a recent statement someone made, something to the >effect of if there is no documntation for the person, then they don't >belong on your tree. > >For those who have achieved simliar results through DNA testing, what >do you do? Incorporate the people into the tree, or do something else >with them? > >I'm interested to hear of others' solutions. > >Bob Kosovsky >New York City Bob, For what it's worth, here's how my family hopes to incorporate Y-DNA results... We've tracted my most distant Y-DNA ancestor back to his arrival in Louisiana in the late 1700's. We have paper trail proof of descendancy from his two sons to present day descendants, and show identical Y-DNA matches. We have paper records indicating his marriage in Canada, at which time his name was spelled Hoffbauer.... and note that "he" spelled it Hoffpauer on records in Louisiana, which gradually became Hoffpauir over the next couple of generations in predominantly French Louisiana. So our suspicions are that his original family surname was Hoffbauer. With "our" Y-DNA records of his descendants, we are looking for individuals with the surname Hoffbauer, and hoping for a Y-DNA match, which would indicate that our family roots are actually linked to the Hoffbauer name, a name wiich still appears in Germany today, whereas there are no Hoffpauers or Hoffpauirs there, with the exception of my brother, born here but now living there, and his family. If we find any such links, they can only be added to the "family tree" if we can establish a common ancestor via the paper records. However, at least if we do get a Y-DNA match, it will tell us to definitely look at Hoffbauer records in Germany! -- Charlie Hoffpauir http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Charani wrote: > OK, so two people may "know" they are related because of the DNA but > can they *prove* it with a paper trail? If the paper trail stops 5 or > 6 generations back, then they are going to have a tough time proving > to the vast majority of people in their respectives families that they > are related. People will believe what they can see (a paper trail) > but not believe what they can neither see nor understand (DNA). Well that's the thing. You can't ever "prove" that the paper trail ends. It is always possible to find new evidence - it just depends on one's perseverance (and maybe one's resources). Perhaps one can exhaust the logical places for documentation (e.g. public records), but who knows what other sources may surface such as memoirs, diaries, etc. (one of my ancestors shows up in 19th century Belorussian police records). At the very least, a DNA match has the potential to show direction of research. For example, I know my ancestors come from a certain town; my closest DNA match comes from a different town quite a distance away. The logical course would be to research this "new" town to see whose family came from which town in search of the common ancestor. > Like you, I hoover up (love that phrase :)) ) all mentions of the > family I'm doing a one name study of. All mentions get added to the > database with notes as appropriate until such time as I can link them > to the correct part of the family. My work is also essentially a one-name study, so I have many isolated individuals who I can't connect to anyone else. I just wondered about the views of the "pros" on this group with regard to Y-DNA results. Bob Kosovsky New York City