David, I am still grieving for the loss of the ancestry Y-DNA database, and the Sorenson databases. Before those closed I tried for ages to download a record copy of matches for my family tested with them, but alas I was unable to access the web site to recover all the information I needed. All I can hope is that a future owner of Ancestry will be more enlightened, and reactivate their dormant resources.............. If they can still find them at the bottom of the trash can. Ancestry told me that there were only 3 billion males on earth, so it wasn't sufficient potential market for them to be involved in Y-DNA. Of the living females on earth, only 3 billion were thought by Ancestry to have had a male parent, so they were not considered sufficient market either. Clearly they don't think females are particularly interested in the male side of their ancestry. Perhaps to save money, Ancestry should remove all males from their on line trees, census returns, parish registers, and genealogical resources generally. Am I all bitter and twisted about it? I refuse to answer that question! Ancestry still have some useful resources, but do I think that as a company they can be trusted...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... John. Sent from my iPad > On 25/11/2015, at 5:22 pm, David Faux via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > And this should bring me consolation? The outcome is the same - and as you > can probably sense, I am furious with Ancestry based on what they have done > to me (including siphoning 2 grand from my bank account and leaving me and > a hundred or so cousins with nothing). > > David. > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Drew Smith via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, David Faux via < >> genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess that I am looking at all these changes on a relative scale - >>> relative to what Ancestry.com did to us when they precipitously cancelled >>> MyFamily (which they had earlier purchased). >>> >> >> Ancestry didn't purchase MyFamily. Ancestry changed the name of its >> holding company from Ancestry to MyFamily in 1999. MyFamily had always >> belonged to Ancestry. >> >> Drew Smith >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

Ancestry is dead wrong about females not being interested in paternal ancestry. Time and again, I have men being recruited for Y-DNA by their sisters, nieces, aunts, and female cousins for my project at FamilyTreeDNA. I myself am a contact for my brother's FTDNA account, created and administer the project for our surname, and have spent 35 years in traditional genealogical research of my father's lineage more than all my other family lines combined. My suspicion is that Ancestry simply couldn't compete with FTDNA for Y-DNA. No business is perfect, any more than individuals are perfect, but some clearly are better than others. FamilyTreeDNA does all the DNA tests for National Geographics Genographic Project and has the world's largest DNA database. As to MyFamily, that is a sore point with me as well. There nearly 1,000 images on my MyFamily site, about half of which were uploaded by distant cousins. They were invaluable. Unfortunately, when I downloaded them ahead of the announced closing date, every one of them came with generic file names assigned by MyFamily/Ancestry rather than the original file names. The result is that every image needed scrutiny and renaming. Loretta -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:21 AM To: David Faux; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] new 23andMe David, I am still grieving for the loss of the ancestry Y-DNA database, and the Sorenson databases. Before those closed I tried for ages to download a record copy of matches for my family tested with them, but alas I was unable to access the web site to recover all the information I needed. All I can hope is that a future owner of Ancestry will be more enlightened, and reactivate their dormant resources.............. If they can still find them at the bottom of the trash can. Ancestry told me that there were only 3 billion males on earth, so it wasn't sufficient potential market for them to be involved in Y-DNA. Of the living females on earth, only 3 billion were thought by Ancestry to have had a male parent, so they were not considered sufficient market either. Clearly they don't think females are particularly interested in the male side of their ancestry. Perhaps to save money, Ancestry should remove all males from their on line trees, census returns, parish registers, and genealogical resources generally. Am I all bitter and twisted about it? I refuse to answer that question! Ancestry still have some useful resources, but do I think that as a company they can be trusted..................................................................... ............................................................................ ..................................................................... John. Sent from my iPad > On 25/11/2015, at 5:22 pm, David Faux via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > And this should bring me consolation? The outcome is the same - and > as you can probably sense, I am furious with Ancestry based on what > they have done to me (including siphoning 2 grand from my bank account > and leaving me and a hundred or so cousins with nothing). > > David. > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Drew Smith via > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, David Faux via < >> genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess that I am looking at all these changes on a relative scale - >>> relative to what Ancestry.com did to us when they precipitously >>> cancelled MyFamily (which they had earlier purchased). >>> >> >> Ancestry didn't purchase MyFamily. Ancestry changed the name of its >> holding company from Ancestry to MyFamily in 1999. MyFamily had >> always belonged to Ancestry. >> >> Drew Smith >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 don't know what Ancestry.com is saying, but I can confirm that many of want to know more about our families, regardless of whether it is a paternal or maternal lineage. These different types of DNA are just tools. There are several nice things that Y DNA can show. It provides great resolution through stable SNPs (passed down as is) that occur every couple-three generations and STRs that also mutate frequently and help form a huge matching database. Then Y DNA also can provide cross-validation via surnames. This is particularly helpful where genealogical records leave off going back in time. Going back to the statements, I'm male but I definitely care about both my grandmothers' ancestry. Good gosh, I have Civil War and Revolutionary War veterans in them. Besides, I could never do anything wrong in a grandmother's eyes. atDNA is helpful but not so much for the deep connections I'd like to see too, so mtDNA is good but mtDNA doesn't have the resolution that Y DNA does. Good news, though, my grandmothers each had fathers. duh! but I've got (via cousins) the Y DNA of three of four great-grandfathers so I just need one more. That gives me partial coverage of my grandmothers' heritage as well as my father's line, in a very high resolution way. I'd love to get all eight great-great-grandfathers. I don't think I will get that far though. Regards, Mike W On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Loretta Layman via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Ancestry is dead wrong about females not being interested in paternal > ancestry. Time and again, I have men being recruited for Y-DNA by their > sisters, nieces, aunts, and female cousins for my project at FamilyTreeDNA. > I myself am a contact for my brother's FTDNA account, created and > administer > the project for our surname, and have spent 35 years in traditional > genealogical research of my father's lineage more than all my other family > lines combined. > > My suspicion is that Ancestry simply couldn't compete with FTDNA for Y-DNA. > No business is perfect, any more than individuals are perfect, but some > clearly are better than others. FamilyTreeDNA does all the DNA tests for > National Geographics Genographic Project and has the world's largest DNA > database. > > As to MyFamily, that is a sore point with me as well. There nearly 1,000 > images on my MyFamily site, about half of which were uploaded by distant > cousins. They were invaluable. Unfortunately, when I downloaded them > ahead > of the announced closing date, every one of them came with generic file > names assigned by MyFamily/Ancestry rather than the original file names. > The result is that every image needed scrutiny and renaming. > > Loretta > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:21 AM > To: David Faux; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] new 23andMe > > David, > > I am still grieving for the loss of the ancestry Y-DNA database, and the > Sorenson databases. Before those closed I tried for ages to download a > record copy of matches for my family tested with them, but alas I was > unable > to access the web site to recover all the information I needed. > > All I can hope is that a future owner of Ancestry will be more enlightened, > and reactivate their dormant resources.............. If they can still > find > them at the bottom of the trash can. > > Ancestry told me that there were only 3 billion males on earth, so it > wasn't > sufficient potential market for them to be involved in Y-DNA. Of the > living > females on earth, only 3 billion were thought by Ancestry to have had a > male > parent, so they were not considered sufficient market either. Clearly they > don't think females are particularly interested in the male side of their > ancestry. > > Perhaps to save money, Ancestry should remove all males from their on line > trees, census returns, parish registers, and genealogical resources > generally. > > Am I all bitter and twisted about it? I refuse to answer that question! > > Ancestry still have some useful resources, but do I think that as a company > they can be > > trusted..................................................................... > > ............................................................................ > ..................................................................... > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 25/11/2015, at 5:22 pm, David Faux via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > > And this should bring me consolation? The outcome is the same - and > > as you can probably sense, I am furious with Ancestry based on what > > they have done to me (including siphoning 2 grand from my bank account > > and leaving me and a hundred or so cousins with nothing). > > > > David. > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Drew Smith via > > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > >> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, David Faux via < > >> genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I guess that I am looking at all these changes on a relative scale - > >>> relative to what Ancestry.com did to us when they precipitously > >>> cancelled MyFamily (which they had earlier purchased). > >>> > >> > >> Ancestry didn't purchase MyFamily. Ancestry changed the name of its > >> holding company from Ancestry to MyFamily in 1999. MyFamily had > >> always belonged to Ancestry. > >> > >> Drew Smith > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >