I would think that the difference between descendants through Mary would be greater than the differences between descendants of Mary's daughters... one generation's worth. On Nov 19, 2015 4:05 PM, "Wesley Johnston via" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > One of our family members has a situation with his father's parents. > Mary was married to Joe. They had several children, including several > daughters. > Joe died. And three years later, when his wife was an un-remarried widow > and several of his adult daughters were unmarried and single and living at > home, a son Sam was born and raised as Mary's son. This all happened about > 100 years ago, and no one now living has actual knowledge of who Sam's > parents really were. Sam's birth was never recorded, neither in civil nor > church records. > > Clearly Sam's son (who has DNA tested for all 3 types - y, mt, at) would > like to known who Sam's unknown father was. > But -- and this is the subject of this post -- he would also like to know > who Sam's mother was. Was it really Mary or was it one of her adult > daughters? > I have been rolling this around in my head -- with no breakthrough. > Several of the relatives (all of the generation of Sam's son or more > recent) have tested their atDNA (FTDNA Family Finder). > > Is there some way that we could figure out from how Sam's son matches his > cousins whether his father's mother was Mary or one of Mary's daughters? > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Sorry, Janis, I meant this question for you! Shouldn't be doing this stuff while I drive! On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Stephanie Ray <stephanieray52@gmail.com> wrote: > Maranne, what time frame are you talking about? Post-1940, > peoplefinders.com can help, as it groups together people living at the > same address (you can guess at the family relationships by their ages). > > Also, Facebook sometimes shows family and friends... > On Nov 19, 2015 2:24 PM, "Janis L Gilmore" <janis.gilmore@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I have had success in recruiting DNA candidates through *Ancestry*, by >> culling the tree pages for entries for the ancestor in question. I then >> send the owner of each pertinent tree an *Ancestry* message explaining >> my objective and asking if they are descendants. Many don’t reply. Many >> have the individual in their tree only as a collateral, with no blood >> relationship—but the balance of them are usually interested in testing. >> >> Particularly when/if I offer to pay for it. The latter is, of course, >> more doable with atDNA (my project) than with the more expensive Y-DNA. But >> when you really need that data, it’s worth it. >> >> Mysteriously, one of the lines for which I need more tests is one of the >> most prolific couples. Surely, out of 14 children, more than 2 descendants >> can be located on Ancestry or somewhere. The only two I’ve found had >> already been tested, which was nice. But where are the rest of them? :-| >> >> Janis Walker Gilmore >> Pawleys Island, SC, & Seattle, WA >> >> >> On Nov 19, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Stephanie Ray via < >> genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> Good stuff, Marianne- thanks! >> On Nov 19, 2015 9:18 AM, "Marianne Granoff via" < >> genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> I would also recommend looking on Facebook and even using Google for >> people with your surname. I have been successful in finding people >> with the surname I was researching and then sending them a short >> message about why I am looking for people with that surname to be DNA >> tested. You can offer to pay for part of a test as an >> incentive. Keep a list of those you have contacted. Sometimes they >> will get back to you months later. >> >> I have also kept up correspondence with some of the people I have >> found, and sent them email or messages when someone new joined the >> surname group or was tested. In one case, it took over five years >> for the person to be tested, but that was the person who broke >> through my roadblock because he was a perfect match to my second >> cousin (my closest male relative with that surname), and he had a lot >> of information about his family history. >> >> It only takes one person if it is the right person :-) >> >> Marianne Manley Granoff >> Albuquerque, NM >> >> At 06:46 AM 11/18/2015 -0800, you wrote: >> >> Does anyone have any recent successes in recruiting candidates for >> yDNA/Surname testing? There are 5 of us in a "group" within a surname but >> 3 of us have paper trails that fall short of the probable common ancestor. >> We need some New Englanders who probably feel no need to do DNA testing as >> they've been in the same area for generations and all KNOW how they're >> related. I'm assuming some good candidates are not genealogists or family >> historians, so cannot be reached through traditional genealogical >> >> channels. >> >> >> >> Of course, I'll try via Ancestry and Family Tree DNA to try to find >> candidates we don't have to "beg to spit" (nod to Blaine Bettinger) but >> would like to find a good representation of descendant lines. >> >> Thoughts or suggestions? >> >> >> Mary E Hall >> Santa Barbara, CA >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11025 - Release Date: 11/18/15 >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-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 >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >>

Maranne, what time frame are you talking about? Post-1940, peoplefinders.com can help, as it groups together people living at the same address (you can guess at the family relationships by their ages). Also, Facebook sometimes shows family and friends... On Nov 19, 2015 2:24 PM, "Janis L Gilmore" <janis.gilmore@gmail.com> wrote: > I have had success in recruiting DNA candidates through *Ancestry*, by > culling the tree pages for entries for the ancestor in question. I then > send the owner of each pertinent tree an *Ancestry* message explaining > my objective and asking if they are descendants. Many don’t reply. Many > have the individual in their tree only as a collateral, with no blood > relationship—but the balance of them are usually interested in testing. > > Particularly when/if I offer to pay for it. The latter is, of course, more > doable with atDNA (my project) than with the more expensive Y-DNA. But when > you really need that data, it’s worth it. > > Mysteriously, one of the lines for which I need more tests is one of the > most prolific couples. Surely, out of 14 children, more than 2 descendants > can be located on Ancestry or somewhere. The only two I’ve found had > already been tested, which was nice. But where are the rest of them? :-| > > Janis Walker Gilmore > Pawleys Island, SC, & Seattle, WA > > > On Nov 19, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Stephanie Ray via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > Good stuff, Marianne- thanks! > On Nov 19, 2015 9:18 AM, "Marianne Granoff via" < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > I would also recommend looking on Facebook and even using Google for > people with your surname. I have been successful in finding people > with the surname I was researching and then sending them a short > message about why I am looking for people with that surname to be DNA > tested. You can offer to pay for part of a test as an > incentive. Keep a list of those you have contacted. Sometimes they > will get back to you months later. > > I have also kept up correspondence with some of the people I have > found, and sent them email or messages when someone new joined the > surname group or was tested. In one case, it took over five years > for the person to be tested, but that was the person who broke > through my roadblock because he was a perfect match to my second > cousin (my closest male relative with that surname), and he had a lot > of information about his family history. > > It only takes one person if it is the right person :-) > > Marianne Manley Granoff > Albuquerque, NM > > At 06:46 AM 11/18/2015 -0800, you wrote: > > Does anyone have any recent successes in recruiting candidates for > yDNA/Surname testing? There are 5 of us in a "group" within a surname but > 3 of us have paper trails that fall short of the probable common ancestor. > We need some New Englanders who probably feel no need to do DNA testing as > they've been in the same area for generations and all KNOW how they're > related. I'm assuming some good candidates are not genealogists or family > historians, so cannot be reached through traditional genealogical > > channels. > > > > Of course, I'll try via Ancestry and Family Tree DNA to try to find > candidates we don't have to "beg to spit" (nod to Blaine Bettinger) but > would like to find a good representation of descendant lines. > > Thoughts or suggestions? > > > Mary E Hall > Santa Barbara, CA > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11025 - Release Date: 11/18/15 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-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 > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

I have had success in recruiting DNA candidates through Ancestry, by culling the tree pages for entries for the ancestor in question. I then send the owner of each pertinent tree an Ancestry message explaining my objective and asking if they are descendants. Many don’t reply. Many have the individual in their tree only as a collateral, with no blood relationship—but the balance of them are usually interested in testing. Particularly when/if I offer to pay for it. The latter is, of course, more doable with atDNA (my project) than with the more expensive Y-DNA. But when you really need that data, it’s worth it. Mysteriously, one of the lines for which I need more tests is one of the most prolific couples. Surely, out of 14 children, more than 2 descendants can be located on Ancestry or somewhere. The only two I’ve found had already been tested, which was nice. But where are the rest of them? :-| Janis Walker Gilmore Pawleys Island, SC, & Seattle, WA On Nov 19, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Stephanie Ray via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Good stuff, Marianne- thanks! > On Nov 19, 2015 9:18 AM, "Marianne Granoff via" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> >> I would also recommend looking on Facebook and even using Google for >> people with your surname. I have been successful in finding people >> with the surname I was researching and then sending them a short >> message about why I am looking for people with that surname to be DNA >> tested. You can offer to pay for part of a test as an >> incentive. Keep a list of those you have contacted. Sometimes they >> will get back to you months later. >> >> I have also kept up correspondence with some of the people I have >> found, and sent them email or messages when someone new joined the >> surname group or was tested. In one case, it took over five years >> for the person to be tested, but that was the person who broke >> through my roadblock because he was a perfect match to my second >> cousin (my closest male relative with that surname), and he had a lot >> of information about his family history. >> >> It only takes one person if it is the right person :-) >> >> Marianne Manley Granoff >> Albuquerque, NM >> >> At 06:46 AM 11/18/2015 -0800, you wrote: >>> Does anyone have any recent successes in recruiting candidates for >>> yDNA/Surname testing? There are 5 of us in a "group" within a surname but >>> 3 of us have paper trails that fall short of the probable common ancestor. >>> We need some New Englanders who probably feel no need to do DNA testing as >>> they've been in the same area for generations and all KNOW how they're >>> related. I'm assuming some good candidates are not genealogists or family >>> historians, so cannot be reached through traditional genealogical >> channels. >>> >>> >>> Of course, I'll try via Ancestry and Family Tree DNA to try to find >>> candidates we don't have to "beg to spit" (nod to Blaine Bettinger) but >>> would like to find a good representation of descendant lines. >>> >>> Thoughts or suggestions? >>> >>> >>> Mary E Hall >>> Santa Barbara, CA >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >>> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11025 - Release Date: 11/18/15 >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I would also recommend looking on Facebook and even using Google for people with your surname. I have been successful in finding people with the surname I was researching and then sending them a short message about why I am looking for people with that surname to be DNA tested. You can offer to pay for part of a test as an incentive. Keep a list of those you have contacted. Sometimes they will get back to you months later. I have also kept up correspondence with some of the people I have found, and sent them email or messages when someone new joined the surname group or was tested. In one case, it took over five years for the person to be tested, but that was the person who broke through my roadblock because he was a perfect match to my second cousin (my closest male relative with that surname), and he had a lot of information about his family history. It only takes one person if it is the right person :-) Marianne Manley Granoff Albuquerque, NM At 06:46 AM 11/18/2015 -0800, you wrote: >Does anyone have any recent successes in recruiting candidates for >yDNA/Surname testing? There are 5 of us in a "group" within a surname but >3 of us have paper trails that fall short of the probable common ancestor. >We need some New Englanders who probably feel no need to do DNA testing as >they've been in the same area for generations and all KNOW how they're >related. I'm assuming some good candidates are not genealogists or family >historians, so cannot be reached through traditional genealogical channels. > > >Of course, I'll try via Ancestry and Family Tree DNA to try to find >candidates we don't have to "beg to spit" (nod to Blaine Bettinger) but >would like to find a good representation of descendant lines. > >Thoughts or suggestions? > > >Mary E Hall >Santa Barbara, CA > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > >----- >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11025 - Release Date: 11/18/15

Good stuff, Marianne- thanks! On Nov 19, 2015 9:18 AM, "Marianne Granoff via" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I would also recommend looking on Facebook and even using Google for > people with your surname. I have been successful in finding people > with the surname I was researching and then sending them a short > message about why I am looking for people with that surname to be DNA > tested. You can offer to pay for part of a test as an > incentive. Keep a list of those you have contacted. Sometimes they > will get back to you months later. > > I have also kept up correspondence with some of the people I have > found, and sent them email or messages when someone new joined the > surname group or was tested. In one case, it took over five years > for the person to be tested, but that was the person who broke > through my roadblock because he was a perfect match to my second > cousin (my closest male relative with that surname), and he had a lot > of information about his family history. > > It only takes one person if it is the right person :-) > > Marianne Manley Granoff > Albuquerque, NM > > At 06:46 AM 11/18/2015 -0800, you wrote: > >Does anyone have any recent successes in recruiting candidates for > >yDNA/Surname testing? There are 5 of us in a "group" within a surname but > >3 of us have paper trails that fall short of the probable common ancestor. > >We need some New Englanders who probably feel no need to do DNA testing as > >they've been in the same area for generations and all KNOW how they're > >related. I'm assuming some good candidates are not genealogists or family > >historians, so cannot be reached through traditional genealogical > channels. > > > > > >Of course, I'll try via Ancestry and Family Tree DNA to try to find > >candidates we don't have to "beg to spit" (nod to Blaine Bettinger) but > >would like to find a good representation of descendant lines. > > > >Thoughts or suggestions? > > > > > >Mary E Hall > >Santa Barbara, CA > > > >------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > >without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > >----- > >No virus found in this message. > >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11025 - Release Date: 11/18/15 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Mary, trust me, this is emminently doable! We just went through this with a prospective participant in our Cobb DNA project... here is the thing. Not only might these people not have as good of a grip on their ancestry as you might think, they also might be happy to participate to establish the "gold standard" for their family group. They also can test just to be sure they are who they think they are- that there was no NPE, or mix-up at a hospital! Another nice thing is that after they test into a family group at FTDNA, they will have access to the names and contact info of their relatives, should they be so inclined. Should you run across any tough nuts, don't forget he also could have brothers, sons, nephews, etc., etc., etc. who may be more amenable. Now is an especially good time bc of the holidays... people are thinking of family, and there's a sale on at FTDNA! Try peoplefinders.com to get in touch, and best of luck to you! On Nov 18, 2015 6:48 AM, "Mary E Hall via" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Does anyone have any recent successes in recruiting candidates for > yDNA/Surname testing? There are 5 of us in a "group" within a surname but > 3 of us have paper trails that fall short of the probable common ancestor. > We need some New Englanders who probably feel no need to do DNA testing as > they've been in the same area for generations and all KNOW how they're > related. I'm assuming some good candidates are not genealogists or family > historians, so cannot be reached through traditional genealogical channels. > > > Of course, I'll try via Ancestry and Family Tree DNA to try to find > candidates we don't have to "beg to spit" (nod to Blaine Bettinger) but > would like to find a good representation of descendant lines. > > Thoughts or suggestions? > > > Mary E Hall > Santa Barbara, CA > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Does anyone have any recent successes in recruiting candidates for yDNA/Surname testing? There are 5 of us in a "group" within a surname but 3 of us have paper trails that fall short of the probable common ancestor. We need some New Englanders who probably feel no need to do DNA testing as they've been in the same area for generations and all KNOW how they're related. I'm assuming some good candidates are not genealogists or family historians, so cannot be reached through traditional genealogical channels. Of course, I'll try via Ancestry and Family Tree DNA to try to find candidates we don't have to "beg to spit" (nod to Blaine Bettinger) but would like to find a good representation of descendant lines. Thoughts or suggestions? Mary E Hall Santa Barbara, CA

List List members might find this of interest - but I am not sure what to make of it ... "A new model of human dispersal" Trevor G. Underwood 2425 Sunrise Key Blvd, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304, USA Abstract Analysis of previously unpublished allele counts obtained from the French-San-NeanderthalChimpanzee alignment of the high quality DNA sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains raises significant questions about the currently accepted phylogenetic model of the origins of Europeans. Previous estimates of the proportion of Neanderthal ancestry in presentday Europeans ranged between 1.3% and 2.7% supporting a recent Out-of Africa dispersal model followed by a low level of admixture with Neanderthals. However, analysis of the allele counts indicates the existence of an unidentified third archaic ancestor of Europeans, which diverged from its common ancestor with sub-Saharan Africans around 900 thousand years ago. This analysis shows that the relative proportions of derived alleles in the 0.0826% of the European genome that is not shared with the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzee are 13.6% Neanderthal, 32.3% sub-Saharan African and 54.2% third archaic ancestor. This analysis together with anthropological and archaeological evidence suggests a new model of human dispersal based on a Eurasian lineage in the Levant, which admixed with Neanderthals and descendants of African mtDNA haplogroup L3, followed by radiation from a basal admixed population around 55-50 Kya, with no subsequent major contribution to the European genome. A free download on: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/11/14/031674.full.pdf

Doug and Robert Thanks for your replies. I have never heard of it myself and though there was something I missed. My original thoughts, when I saw the results, were "Wow a triple mutation". Then I had someone challenge me and my wheels started turning. Glad to put that to bed. Thanks Pete

What you are seeing is a simply case of accident. High mutation rate STRs are prone to changing two or even three in one step. And having zero mutations in 200 years is very common. In my project we have people with one change in 800 years, just as expected as we have about 200 descendants from one person living then. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Pete Beatty via Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 8:24 AM To: GENEALOGY-DNA Subject: [DNA] Genetic Collapse?? I am looking for more information on what has been suggested as a case of "Genetic Collapse" within my lineage. The Background: 1. Three individuals have been tested (STR @ 111, and SNP) 2. These three individuals have a common ancestor, proven through traditional research) that was married c 1795-1800. 3. Two individuals match of 67/67 and 111/111. The third has a 66/67 and 110/111. 4. The difference comes from DYS576 where the allele counts for the first two is 16 and the third is 19. 5. The mutation rate for DYS576 is 0.01109, or approximately 11 mutations every 1000 generations. 6. All SNPs are consistent.

I am looking for more information on what has been suggested as a case of "Genetic Collapse" within my lineage. The Background: 1. Three individuals have been tested (STR @ 111, and SNP) 2. These three individuals have a common ancestor, proven through traditional research) that was married c 1795-1800. 3. Two individuals match of 67/67 and 111/111. The third has a 66/67 and 110/111. 4. The difference comes from DYS576 where the allele counts for the first two is 16 and the third is 19. 5. The mutation rate for DYS576 is 0.01109, or approximately 11 mutations every 1000 generations. 6. All SNPs are consistent. The questions are: What is a "Genetic Collapse"? I can only find proof, or indication, of a "Pedigree Collapse". Can this really be classified as a "Genetic Collapse", or is it simply a matter of a three step mutation and is really a simple case of probability? The DYS576 allele counts might suggest that the 16 value, when compared with the modal value of 19, is ancestral. Comments? Pete

Pete I have not come across the term "Genetic collapse", I have seen "pedigree collapse" when talking about autosomal Dna but not in reference to the Y-chromosome. I am not familiar with the behavior of DYS576 but I would suspect that rather than 3 separate changes you are looking at a single insertion or deletion of 3 repeats. RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Pete Beatty via Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 6:23 AM To: GENEALOGY-DNA Subject: [DNA] Genetic Collapse?? I am looking for more information on what has been suggested as a case of "Genetic Collapse" within my lineage. The Background: 1. Three individuals have been tested (STR @ 111, and SNP) 2. These three individuals have a common ancestor, proven through traditional research) that was married c 1795-1800. 3. Two individuals match of 67/67 and 111/111. The third has a 66/67 and 110/111. 4. The difference comes from DYS576 where the allele counts for the first two is 16 and the third is 19. 5. The mutation rate for DYS576 is 0.01109, or approximately 11 mutations every 1000 generations. 6. All SNPs are consistent. The questions are: What is a "Genetic Collapse"? I can only find proof, or indication, of a "Pedigree Collapse". Can this really be classified as a "Genetic Collapse", or is it simply a matter of a three step mutation and is really a simple case of probability? The DYS576 allele counts might suggest that the 16 value, when compared with the modal value of 19, is ancestral. Comments? Pete ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Does anybody know when the new mtDNA tree is going to be published? According to this article, Build 17 is already completed but I can't find it on the official website: http://www.fsigeneticssup.com/article/S1875-1768(15)30243-2/abstract Best regards, Atanas Kumbarov http://dna.kumbarov.com/

To find the paper: Search the page with 'Van Oven' as the author. I guess the new tree will be produced any day now. Ian --------------- On 14/11/2015 19:40, Atanas Kumbarov via wrote: > Does anybody know when the new mtDNA tree is going to be published? > According to this article, Build 17 is already completed but I can't > find it on the official website: > http://www.fsigeneticssup.com/article/S1875-1768(15)30243-2/abstract > > Best regards, > Atanas Kumbarov > > http://dna.kumbarov.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Just thought I'd report on the 23 revamp: As of this morning my sis' DNA Relatives list is ~350 Anonymous matches (out of ~800) shorter. My DNAR list is ~150 Anonymous matches out of ~850 shorter. My wife's DNAR list is ~250 AM out of ~850 shorter. Also curiously my list yesterday morning had grown overnight to 2001 names long (a growth of ~25 names.  I could identify about 5 who were apparently Most Recent overnight.).  I wondered if that was coincidental to 23's new 2000 match limit (2000 + my "owned" sis's Sharing). I've been meaning to ask: Has anyone seen an indication that they're going to have a better app for determining 100% IBD segments than Family Traits which seldom runs unless you have the latest OS and latest Flash Player?  (Yes I know I can look at my sis's and my raw data.)  For those who haven't noticed, 1/2 of all sibling segment matches are non-corroborative since they're 100% IBD (1/4th of the genome).

He needs to make his DNA results visible to all. The default is now to have DNA results showing to project members only. The problem with that is he or you or anyone has to be logged in to the project before you can see the results. Get him to login to his private page, hover over his kit number, and check privacy settings, change DNA results to anyone. This will apply to any other recent testers as well. Belinda -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lindsey Britton via Sent: Saturday, 14 November 2015 1:18 PM To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Does anyone else have this problem at Family Tree? DNA results are not current unless you are logged in as Administrator. I discovered this problem after reporting new results to my members yesterday, one of whom wrote to say he couldn't see the new results. When I tried, I found that I can't see the new results either unless I am logged in as Administrator. To whom should I report this problem and what is the solution? Lindsey ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you, Belinda. I'll encourage new members to check their privacy settings. I have another new member who transferred from Ancestry and purchased a Y-25 upgrade. FTDNA lists him as WAMH, yet he has no matches even at the 12 marker level. What is wrong? His privacy settings indicate that anyone can see his DNA results in group projects so why can't I see his matches? Lindsey -----Original Message----- From: Belinda Dettmann <belindadettmann@optusnet.com.au> To: 'Lindsey Britton' <lplantagenet@aol.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, Nov 13, 2015 9:34 pm Subject: RE: [DNA] Does anyone else have this problem at Family Tree? He needs to make his DNA results visible to all. The default is now to have DNA results showing to project members only. The problem with that is he or you or anyone has to be logged in to the project before you can see the results. Get him to login to his private page, hover over his kit number, and check privacy settings, change DNA results to anyone. This will apply to any other recent testers as well. Belinda -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lindsey Britton via Sent: Saturday, 14 November 2015 1:18 PM To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Does anyone else have this problem at Family Tree? DNA results are not current unless you are logged in as Administrator. I discovered this problem after reporting new results to my members yesterday, one of whom wrote to say he couldn't see the new results. When I tried, I found that I can't see the new results either unless I am logged in as Administrator. To whom should I report this problem and what is the solution? Lindsey ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Just shows that police officers aren't smarter than the average Joe. Some people will never understand and we won't convince them. Move on, spend your time on other DNA kits were you have people willing to work with you on finding the common ancestors. Andreas > On Nov 14, 2015, at 00:29, Franklin Genetics via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I'm sorry Karla, but I agree with Sam. I have a lady in our Jones group > sending me questions about DNA testing as her test participant is her son > at FTDNA and my kits she wants to compare to in order to prove my Jones > ancestor is hers too, are all at 23andMe. Her son is a police officer and > absolutely refused to use gedmatch. So making things harder to privatize > will only keep more folks scared and confused and have them not joining. > The only way she might convince him to let her post is if she can assure > some privacy and the more we are forced to do things that expose personal > information (your email can usually be found all over the web by a simple > google to identify you) the less likely the weary will be to participate at > all. > > Those who wanted folks forced to have an email want to be able to contact > folks on their list in particular that they currently cannot, however, > ultimately those kits will simply be removed altogether or folks will use > an email address that they don't monitor so the whiners likely still will > not be happy as they still won't get responses. DUH! > > Personally I hope the site doesn't lose it's usefulness because of this and > I think folks who don't have an email should still be able to use those > kits to find matches especially if they are gedmatch contributors. To > boot--this entire force folks to show an email topic was likely started by > someone who's never contributed a dime! :( As a webmaster of 20 years > myself, I can attest that those who have fussed about things on my own > site, were not contributing in any way to the site's continuation, support > or growth. I'd hate to see gedmatch dwindle in use or someone recreate > it's functionality on another site that allows privacy because this topic > was every brought up to start with. :( > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Karla Huebner via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> Including an email address is not the same thing as disclosing one's >> identity. The same person can have a raft of different email addresses for >> different purposes. >> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Sam Sloan via < >> genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Sorry. I would not support this change. >>> >>> Many people are afraid of identity theft. Many people will not upload to >>> gedmatch.com because they fear their identity will be stolen. I have had >>> people get very angry with me when I offer to give them a free DNA test >>> even though I will be paying for it. >>> >>> I would rather have incomplete information than no information at all. >>> >>> Some day there will be a gigantic family tree and all of us will be on >> it. >>> >>> Sam Sloan >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Andreas West via < >>> genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I've posted my number before when we started this discussion, it was 6 >> or >>>> 7% >>>> if I remember correctly. Indeed, let's hope these people read it and >>> change >>>> their settings. >>>> >>>> If not, those emotionally not capable of coping with the disappointment >>>> (like >>>> me, who brought this idea up) might break down and cry endlessly >>>> (attention, >>>> irony was intended). >>>> >>>> Andreas (WEST) born BASSO >>>> >>>> My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- >>>> Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) >>>> "Jim Bartlett via" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>>>> I have less than 1% of my GEDmatch Matches w/o an email. Is this a >>> major >>>>> issue for some? With the doubling of of test takers every 14 months, >>>> I've got >>>>> my hands full (and my TGs runneth over) with new Matches. I'm trying >>>> hard to >>>>> keep up communications - the genealogy part of this puzzle - but am >>>> slipping >>>>> behind. I won't miss the very few w/o emails - maybe this policy will >>>>> convince a few to add their emails. >>>>> >>>>> Jim - www.segmentology.org >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 13, 2015, at 1:17 AM, Brooks Family via < >>>> genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> /"/ /*Effective December 1, 2015, kits with hidden (private) email >>>>>> addresses// >>>>>> //will no longer be shown in comparison results. If you have a >> hidden >>>>>> email// >>>>>> //address, you can make it visible by clicking on the EDIT link at >>> the >>>>>> bottom// >>>>>> //of your DNA resources box. *// >>>>>> //// >>>>>> //"So will those who have hidden addresses still have access to our >>>>>> data? It// >>>>>> //sound like they will not be able to see the results but not sure >>> if I >>>>> am// >>>>>> //reading this correctly"/ >>>>>> >>>>>> OMG. The way I read this, it instantly makes private all >> email-less >>>>>> kits. It doesn't state that a match list /for that kit /will not >> be >>>>>> generated, just that it will not be on any other kits' match lists. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can see how the change would cut the amount of griping to >> gedmatch, >>>>>> but IMO it doesn't solve the problem. Even if the kit owner >> decided >>> to >>>>>> give the kit an email, there's no requirement to answer an email or >>>>>> share info. I have those now, anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>> Small matches aren't useful if a kit owner is unresponsive - but >>> large >>>>>> matches /are/ even when the owner is unresponsive! They can be used >>> for >>>>>> comparisons. And sometimes I can figure out who they are on the >> site >>>>>> that the kit came from. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good grief. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA- >>>>> 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 >>>> GENEALOGY-DNA-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 >>> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> -- >> Karla Huebner >> calypsospots AT gmail.com >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > -- > Lisa R Franklin RN,BSN > Admin, Franklin Y DNA Project > http://trackingyourroots.com/FranklinGenetics/ > FranklinGenetics@gmail.com > http://trackingyourroots.com/DNA (How To presentation (23andme), tips, & > helps. > > *2**3**&**m**e**: **The World's Largest database & coincidentally the ONLY > one with all the tools you need for genealogy and DNA!--* > http://refer.23andme.com/v2/share/6158544791499756901/4672616e6b6c696e47656e657469637340676d61696c2e636f6d > > BEST GENETIC GENEALOGY BOOK! > http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Genealogy-Emily-D-Aulicino-ebook/dp/B00HJJWBU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391174801&sr=8-1&keywords=Genetic+Genealogy > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

DNA results are not current unless you are logged in as Administrator. I discovered this problem after reporting new results to my members yesterday, one of whom wrote to say he couldn't see the new results. When I tried, I found that I can't see the new results either unless I am logged in as Administrator. To whom should I report this problem and what is the solution? Lindsey