I did't say that in my post, please read it again. If you have a deeper understanding of databases, schemas and especially those requirements behind Gedmatch to prepare the one-to-many list then you will understand how they are going to safe computing resources and even disk space with this move. Same btw for 23andme, both of them can exclude those anonymous from matching list that are usually prepared up front (and stored). The one-to-one is run on-the-fly, it means when requested by the user. BTW, everyone who ever has got a new cousin in a TG and needs to do all the one-to-one vs all other cousins knows how this work is increasing with every single new cousin. Tedious work. Apparently it's N to the power of 4 for every new customer though I haven't found out why (that's from a person who worked with Ancestry on their database requirements when they switched to a NoSQL solution). But it's surely N*N -1 Hope that makes it clearer computing power needed to run those queries for DNA genealogy are enormous, especially with such a large user base that they have. Andreas > On Nov 13, 2015, at 14:39, Brooks Family via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I don't see where it says they won't be able to do queries? > I don't see where it says they won't be able to generate a match list > from their kit, only that their kit won't appear on /other/ kits' match > lists: > "will no longer be shown in comparison results" > > further clarification is needed > >> On 11/12/15 11:33 PM, Andreas West wrote: >> I guess it all happens to ease their load on the server as this is their constant problem with so many users. >> >> As those without an email are excluded from queries there is less to computate. >> >> Andreas >> >>> On 13 Nov 2015, at 14:17, 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

The page at this link indicates that there will be a difference between just participating in DNA Relatives and opting for "Open Sharing" - the former still requiring an invitation in order to compare DNA, the latter showing both overlapping DNA and Ancestry reports, without requiring an individual invitation: https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212170838-Privacy-and-display-settings-in-the-new-DNA-Relatives Hope that helps Regards Barbara Griffiths On 13 November 2015 at 13:57, Karla Huebner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Andreas, > > I'm going from my overall impression of reading several pages worth of > discussion on a 23andMe forum thread. As I recall, this was where clicking > on the link for more information about the change took me, but I couldn't > say which page of the thread to go to. I read about the first six pages, > but there are over 30 pages. > > Karla > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:44 PM, ahnen@awest.de <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > > That would be indeed much different than was mentioned before Karla. Do > > you have a quote where you read that from? > > > > Andreas > > > > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 08:41, Karla Huebner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Thank you, Jamie... sounds as though many of us should just take a break > > > from expecting to do much with 23andMe for awhile. > > > > > > I did a bit of reading myself trying to catch up on 23andMe's forum > > > discussion, and my impression, given the many intelligent questions > > people > > > had (only some of which were answered), is that there could be a lot of > > > complexities unforeseen or unacknowledged by 23andMe. And... the company > > > distinguishes between "invitations" and "introductions" in a manner I > > don't > > > think the average user (myself included) was aware of or will easily keep > > > straight. If I understand correctly, we will still need to invite people > > to > > > share, just that the only people who can be invited will be Public. > > Earlier > > > it had been my understanding that all Public profiles would automatically > > > share with their matches. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong!) > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jamie Arnold via < > > > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> I don't know how many members are with 23andme or how many members will > > be > > >> in > > >> each transition batch but it could take up to a couple of months or more > > >> for the > > >> completion of every member to be transferred to the new site. > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> > > >> Jamie > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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

I guess it all happens to ease their load on the server as this is their constant problem with so many users. As those without an email are excluded from queries there is less to computate. Andreas > On 13 Nov 2015, at 14:17, 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

Jim, keep us updated on how your work with the (not so) smart matches goes on. No one else is having as many TG's and mapped it's chromosome out like you. So results are easy to check against your huge database of TG's. 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: > A better answer to Eric's good questions: > > I don't know of a term for assigning to the other side. Perhaps ABL - > Assigned By Logic - would work. In my case I have TGs covering most of my > DNA, so new Matches almost always match someone in a TG. It is nice, and > reassuring, when segments on one side are confirmed to not match on the other > side - and I look for that test whenever possible. > > I'm pretty sure Ancestry's Smart Matches are NOT Triangulated. > 1. If they were, there would be much more hype by AncestryDNA. > 2. I've gone through my 400 SMs and they don't form TGs. Many of them match > others who are not SMs with each other - a telltale sign that they are NOT > TGs. > 3. However, there may be associations there. I'm now trying to tie my Hints > (spread out to distant cousins) back to 4th cousin SMs). Maybe the Hint CAs > can be teased out of some of my 4C (most w/o hints). But perhaps a long shot > since SMs are not TGs. > > This would be a hard pill for AncestryDNA to swallow. It would taste a lot > like crow, because they have dissed Triangulation. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org

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

Ann, you're brilliant! Didn't think about that, so true. Andreas (WEST) born BASSO My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) "Ann Turner via" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > The N to the power of 4 is probably because they are checking phased > haplotypes. They need to compare both of your haplotypes with both of the > haplotypes in the other party. > > Ann Turner

That would be indeed much different than was mentioned before Karla. Do you have a quote where you read that from? Andreas > On Nov 13, 2015, at 08:41, Karla Huebner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Thank you, Jamie... sounds as though many of us should just take a break > from expecting to do much with 23andMe for awhile. > > I did a bit of reading myself trying to catch up on 23andMe's forum > discussion, and my impression, given the many intelligent questions people > had (only some of which were answered), is that there could be a lot of > complexities unforeseen or unacknowledged by 23andMe. And... the company > distinguishes between "invitations" and "introductions" in a manner I don't > think the average user (myself included) was aware of or will easily keep > straight. If I understand correctly, we will still need to invite people to > share, just that the only people who can be invited will be Public. Earlier > it had been my understanding that all Public profiles would automatically > share with their matches. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong!) > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jamie Arnold via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> >> >> I don't know how many members are with 23andme or how many members will be >> in >> each transition batch but it could take up to a couple of months or more >> for the >> completion of every member to be transferred to the new site. >> >> Regards >> >> Jamie > > ------------------------------- > 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

23andme has over 1 million members. The transition in batches is necessary as they are changing to a new website (read system) and they want to ensure that the huge demand can be handled. All of this (throttling and controlling how many accounts can log into the new system) is common practice in the software industry. Let's have some patience here, it's all for the better experience Andreas > On Nov 13, 2015, at 04:43, Jamie Arnold via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Well i have managed to log in after a few attempts and the first thing i noticed > is that all the anonymous matches in my DNA relatives list no longer no longer > show any contact button to send them a message. > > Also in the Ancestry Tools menu the Countries of Ancestry link is still showing > but on clicking that brings up a message to say that it is no longer available. > > Also, I have been reading some of the forum comments and there is a message from > Christine from 23andme to say "New customers (purchased in the US after 10/21) > should be receiving results on the new site shortly; after that we will be > transitioning the first group. We expect to move forward before the end of the > month." > > I have also read that the "open sharing" option will come into play on the new > site, so new customers who are already on the new site will be first with on > choosing whether to open share, remain anonymous etc. All those on the current > old site will be moved over to the new site in batches and each batch of people > will be notified by email a week before transition of the batch that they are in > that they are to be transitioned and then an email will be sent when the batch > has been transitioned and completed. > > I don't know how many members are with 23andme or how many members will be in > each transition batch but it could take up to a couple of months or more for the > completion of every member to be transferred to the new site. > > Regards > > Jamie > >> >> On 12 November 2015 at 18:47 Robert Paine via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> They have started doing the update, I have gotten a few error messages / >> time outs and things are moving really slow. Some of the old links are no >> longer working. >> >> RPaine. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Franklin Genetics via >> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:26 AM >> To: ISOGG@yahoogroups.com ; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com ; >> autosomal-dna-l@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [DNA] 23andme down? >> >> Is anyone else having trouble logging into their 23andME today? Was >> working fine early this morning. Am wondering if updates are going on now >> as it just sits and spins and does nada toward actually logging in once >> the >> signin info is entered. >> >> sigh.. >> thx------------------------------- >> 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

I sure hope 23andMe makes the messages searchable and sortable. I am not so brilliantly organized that I can instantly put my finger on which matches I need to tell what. At least Ancestry's messages can be sorted into various user-defined folders, so that I can separate out different ancestral lines. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Franklin Genetics < franklingenetics@gmail.com> wrote: > Same here Karla, I also found it frustrating and easy to miss public > marked folks as it didn't earmark them on the list as invite sent, etc. > I'm just hoping this new site is better and makes things easier - if so it > will make things a lot better. I did ask if our old messages would still > be there and was told yes. I also aked if the messages would now have a > search feature to make them more easily useable--no reply to that one. :( > I am crossing my fingers as early on I didn't have enough knowledge to know > I needed to keep URL links to those messages so I could find them again, so > the posts from the first year are tough as I have well over 5000 messages > in the system! :( > Lisa > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Barbara Shroyer via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> Matches will be marked as Sharing, Pending, Open Sharing, Not Sharing. >> >> https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212170718-Sorting-and-fil >> tering-your-matches-in-the-new-DNA-Relatives >> <https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212170718-Sorting-and-filtering-your-matches-in-the-new-DNA-Relatives> >> >> Barbara >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Karla Huebner >> via >> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 8:06 AM >> To: B Griffiths <ibgriffiths@gmail.com> >> Cc: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [DNA] 23andme down? >> >> Thanks, Barbara, that was very helpful. So in other words there will still >> be two levels of DNA relatives and invitations will still need to be sent >> to >> quite a few people.... let's hope that at least we no longer have to click >> on every Public profile to see whether that person has already been >> invited. >> It has been my procedure to invite all DNA relatives, but I miss a lot of >> Public profiles because I have to open them to see if I've already invited >> them, and it's not as though they appear in alphabetical order or anything >> like that. >> >> At times like this I have the feeling that 23andMe not only does not care >> that we need to spend hundreds of hours--on a continual basis--in order to >> make effective use of their site, but that the company takes pleasure in >> ensuring that every DNA genealogist must devote insane amounts of time to >> tasks that could simply be automated or unnecessary. (Same, of course, for >> Ancestry with its impractical interface and refusal to provide a >> chromosome >> browser.) >> >> I work full time and have other interests besides genealogy, so I am a bit >> fed up with the way companies needlessly waste our time, and can see why >> many people test and then give up trying to figure out their results. >> >> Karla >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com

You can't steal an identity with a name and email however It takes more than that -----Original Message----- From: Sam Sloan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Cc: Brooks Family <Coverly@xmission.com> Sent: Fri, Nov 13, 2015 7:31 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Would you support the suggestion to GEDmatch to makeemail addresses mandatory to contact? 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

When we triangulate the exome of our "DNA relative" N on our cousins' exomes, we're looking for a match so we can say "aha; now we know via which of our parents we're related to N!" But provided the cousin *does* match us at that same chromosomal address, that comparison can be just as useful in case of a *non*-match. Do we have a name for this kind of match? non-match match opposing match negative match en face match counter-match anti-match My 23andMe sharing management interface still says "1509 outgoing invitations." Just now I did receive a new-format notice of an accepted invitation which is HTML instead of the old-style plaintext notification--but alas it (the notification) still fails to tell me which of my 20+ exomes the invitation was sent from, so I have to continue comparing matches like this to all my genomes to figure it out. Do we know, yet, whether AncestryDNA's new ICW feature means "ICW on the same HIR"? Best, Eric

Had to giggle at that one at the same time I grimaced Sam! OUCH! On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Sam Sloan <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote: > I am having a big fight right now. I have a friend who is 87 years old. I > know for a fact that he had intercourse with nearly a thousand women > especially in Japan where he spent 40 years arriving there in 1945 in the > US Army Occupation Forces. He never used protection. He has five children > that we know about and I am sure he has many more that we do not know about. > I got him to take the Family Tree DNA test to see if any of these > children pop up. Now his family his wife and his son are threatening me. > They think I am trying to use this DNA test to steal money from him. (By > the way he is also a millionaire.) The DNA test results are back and it > just shows the usual 1500 matches on gedmatch, no relatives closer than 4th > cousin. > > Sam Sloan > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:29 AM, ahnen@awest.de via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

one statement hardly constitutes several occassions (I can't help it is repeated in every reply to the same thread-yet it's still only one comment) and I'm sorry if you are offended by my statement but I stand behind my input. And have no worries as it won't affect me personally either way. Thank you for your input too Gregory. I won't get into any petty back and forth with you on semantics. I've said my peace and this had no relevance to the topic. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Gregory Morley <glmorley@me.com> wrote: > Franklin Genetics: > > You have referred to genetic genealogists who support the identity of DNA > participants as “whiners” on several occasions. Are you not able to > appreciate the opinions of others while still disagreeing with them, or do > you enjoy insulting others, belittling them, and invalidating their > perspectives? > > Hypothetical: What if we refer to your opinions as contemptible, narrow > minded, biased, incompetent, selfish, arrogant and ignorant How would that > make you feel? And because you're so contemptible what if we delete every > one of your posts because there is no way you could ever articulate any > point with any breadth or depth and without insulting others? > > Here’s a suggestion: apologize to the List for your limited and prejudice > views, and start demonstrating appreciation for the offerings of others. > > gm > > > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 10:29 AM, 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 > > -- 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

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

Franklin Genetics: You have referred to genetic genealogists who support the identity of DNA participants as “whiners” on several occasions. Are you not able to appreciate the opinions of others while still disagreeing with them, or do you enjoy insulting others, belittling them, and invalidating their perspectives? Hypothetical: What if we refer to your opinions as contemptible, narrow minded, biased, incompetent, selfish, arrogant and ignorant How would that make you feel? And because you're so contemptible what if we delete every one of your posts because there is no way you could ever articulate any point with any breadth or depth and without insulting others? Here’s a suggestion: apologize to the List for your limited and prejudice views, and start demonstrating appreciation for the offerings of others. gm > On Nov 13, 2015, at 10:29 AM, 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

Same here Karla, I also found it frustrating and easy to miss public marked folks as it didn't earmark them on the list as invite sent, etc. I'm just hoping this new site is better and makes things easier - if so it will make things a lot better. I did ask if our old messages would still be there and was told yes. I also aked if the messages would now have a search feature to make them more easily useable--no reply to that one. :( I am crossing my fingers as early on I didn't have enough knowledge to know I needed to keep URL links to those messages so I could find them again, so the posts from the first year are tough as I have well over 5000 messages in the system! :( Lisa On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Barbara Shroyer via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Matches will be marked as Sharing, Pending, Open Sharing, Not Sharing. > > https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212170718-Sorting-and-fil > tering-your-matches-in-the-new-DNA-Relatives > > Barbara > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Karla Huebner via > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 8:06 AM > To: B Griffiths <ibgriffiths@gmail.com> > Cc: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] 23andme down? > > Thanks, Barbara, that was very helpful. So in other words there will still > be two levels of DNA relatives and invitations will still need to be sent > to > quite a few people.... let's hope that at least we no longer have to click > on every Public profile to see whether that person has already been > invited. > It has been my procedure to invite all DNA relatives, but I miss a lot of > Public profiles because I have to open them to see if I've already invited > them, and it's not as though they appear in alphabetical order or anything > like that. > > At times like this I have the feeling that 23andMe not only does not care > that we need to spend hundreds of hours--on a continual basis--in order to > make effective use of their site, but that the company takes pleasure in > ensuring that every DNA genealogist must devote insane amounts of time to > tasks that could simply be automated or unnecessary. (Same, of course, for > Ancestry with its impractical interface and refusal to provide a chromosome > browser.) > > I work full time and have other interests besides genealogy, so I am a bit > fed up with the way companies needlessly waste our time, and can see why > many people test and then give up trying to figure out their results. > > Karla > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

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

Thanks, Barbara, that was very helpful. So in other words there will still be two levels of DNA relatives and invitations will still need to be sent to quite a few people.... let's hope that at least we no longer have to click on every Public profile to see whether that person has already been invited. It has been my procedure to invite all DNA relatives, but I miss a lot of Public profiles because I have to open them to see if I've already invited them, and it's not as though they appear in alphabetical order or anything like that. At times like this I have the feeling that 23andMe not only does not care that we need to spend hundreds of hours--on a continual basis--in order to make effective use of their site, but that the company takes pleasure in ensuring that every DNA genealogist must devote insane amounts of time to tasks that could simply be automated or unnecessary. (Same, of course, for Ancestry with its impractical interface and refusal to provide a chromosome browser.) I work full time and have other interests besides genealogy, so I am a bit fed up with the way companies needlessly waste our time, and can see why many people test and then give up trying to figure out their results. Karla On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:41 AM, B Griffiths <ibgriffiths@gmail.com> wrote: > The page at this link indicates that there will be a difference > between just participating in DNA Relatives and opting for "Open > Sharing" - the former still requiring an invitation in order to > compare DNA, the latter showing both overlapping DNA and Ancestry > reports, without requiring an individual invitation: > > > https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212170838-Privacy-and-display-settings-in-the-new-DNA-Relatives > > Hope that helps > Regards > Barbara Griffiths > > On 13 November 2015 at 13:57, Karla Huebner via > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > Andreas, > > > > I'm going from my overall impression of reading several pages worth of > > discussion on a 23andMe forum thread. As I recall, this was where > clicking > > on the link for more information about the change took me, but I couldn't > > say which page of the thread to go to. I read about the first six pages, > > but there are over 30 pages. > > > > Karla > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:44 PM, ahnen@awest.de <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > > > > That would be indeed much different than was mentioned before Karla. Do > > > you have a quote where you read that from? > > > > > > Andreas > > > > > > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 08:41, Karla Huebner via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thank you, Jamie... sounds as though many of us should just take a > break > > > > from expecting to do much with 23andMe for awhile. > > > > > > > > I did a bit of reading myself trying to catch up on 23andMe's forum > > > > discussion, and my impression, given the many intelligent questions > > > people > > > > had (only some of which were answered), is that there could be a lot > of > > > > complexities unforeseen or unacknowledged by 23andMe. And... the > company > > > > distinguishes between "invitations" and "introductions" in a manner I > > > don't > > > > think the average user (myself included) was aware of or will easily > keep > > > > straight. If I understand correctly, we will still need to invite > people > > > to > > > > share, just that the only people who can be invited will be Public. > > > Earlier > > > > it had been my understanding that all Public profiles would > automatically > > > > share with their matches. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong!) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jamie Arnold via < > > > > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I don't know how many members are with 23andme or how many members > will > > > be > > > >> in > > > >> each transition batch but it could take up to a couple of months or > more > > > >> for the > > > >> completion of every member to be transferred to the new site. > > > >> > > > >> Regards > > > >> > > > >> Jamie > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > 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 > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com

I am having a big fight right now. I have a friend who is 87 years old. I know for a fact that he had intercourse with nearly a thousand women especially in Japan where he spent 40 years arriving there in 1945 in the US Army Occupation Forces. He never used protection. He has five children that we know about and I am sure he has many more that we do not know about. I got him to take the Family Tree DNA test to see if any of these children pop up. Now his family his wife and his son are threatening me. They think I am trying to use this DNA test to steal money from him. (By the way he is also a millionaire.) The DNA test results are back and it just shows the usual 1500 matches on gedmatch, no relatives closer than 4th cousin. Sam Sloan On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:29 AM, ahnen@awest.de via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Oops, sent that message to the wrong list, sorry. (It was in response to some discussion on another dna genealogy list, about how Ancestry was saying that there was almost zero chance of three 4th cousins matching on the same segment.) Karen