RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 3/3
    1. Re: [DNA] Would you support the suggestion to GEDmatch to makeemail addresses mandatory to contact?
    2. Sam Sloan via
    3. 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 >

    11/13/2015 12:31:21
    1. Re: [DNA] Would you support the suggestion to GEDmatch to makeemail addresses mandatory to contact?
    2. Karla Huebner via
    3. 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

    11/13/2015 04:15:17
    1. Re: [DNA] Would you support the suggestion to GEDmatch to makeemail addresses mandatory to contact?
    2. Wjhonson via
    3. 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

    11/13/2015 05:25:55