I use EKA (Earliest Known Ancestor) Dick Chandler in Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Canada

Patriarch? Paul On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:54 AM, John Carey <johnca@quickclic.net> wrote: > Do you mean most distant known ancestor - MDKA? > > > John Carey (GOONS 6565) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+johnca=quickclic.net@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Doug Beezley > Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 10:40 AM > To: GOONS Forum <GOONS@rootsweb.com> > Subject: [G] Searching for a word (or phrase) > > This is a very simple question for which the answer may provoke me to slap > my forehead and say "D'OH". > Is there a common term for the "earliest ancestor" in a given surname > pedigree? > > I want the shorthand sort of like MRCA is used. Anyone? > > Doug Beezley > Cincinnati OH > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- Paul Howes Chairman, Guild of One-Name Studies www.howesfamilies.com Ponte Vedra, FL ; Horning, Norfolk

Do you mean most distant known ancestor - MDKA? John Carey (GOONS 6565) -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+johnca=quickclic.net@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Doug Beezley Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 10:40 AM To: GOONS Forum <GOONS@rootsweb.com> Subject: [G] Searching for a word (or phrase) This is a very simple question for which the answer may provoke me to slap my forehead and say "D'OH". Is there a common term for the "earliest ancestor" in a given surname pedigree? I want the shorthand sort of like MRCA is used. Anyone? Doug Beezley Cincinnati OH _____________________________________________ Information and admin page: http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

For years, I have had an ongoing subscription ($20/mo) to Intellius. I have no use for the more expensive services. The next level up includes social media, but I can do that myself. Beyond that, it includes criminal records and such, beyond my interest. In the past, I have used Whitepages and Peoplefinders. Basically, I think they all dip from the same bucket of information, probably various sources. The main thing for me is the ease of use and avoiding come-ons and sales traps. To me, Intelius is the most straightforward. The way I look at this is not "is it correct?" but "it may be a clue". Some of my own info is correct, some is not. I use it for all the same purposes that others have identified. When I include information I find on Facebook and LinkedIn, I can put together families with a level of detail that can be scary to people. Think what it is like for people with more knowledge of resources and the time and motivation to do this work for the sake of identity theft. Some people do find ways to get their info pulled off. I can understand that. For myself, I stay purposely public about my interest in people and genealogy. I want to be found. Doug Beezley On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Tony <mingay@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > Hi All, > Many, many thanks to all of you who replied to my question which where > gratefully received and duly noted the advice and comments. I am answering > generally as there were so many replies, I hope those who did reply will not > be offended if the do not receive a personal contact. > It is as suspected the list (in 'familytreenow' ) is a mixture of fact and > conjecture plus many errors and hence should be used with the utmost > caution. However it does give clues upon which to base further research, > again as I have found with every other similar 'lists', and all content > viewed with the 'must double check' attitude as one does with all other > information (or should do, I must try and follow my own advice more often). > On the positive side I have 'dug' up some 'gems' based on the clues > contained with in the 'detail' pages hence I will be 'shifting ' through > trying to find more. > > > Regards Tony. > Anthony John Mingay > Member of the Guild of One Name Studies, 1985 > (once of Kent & Suffolk now in NZ but still researching the surname MINGAY > and its variants Worldwide. > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message

Hi All, Many, many thanks to all of you who replied to my question which where gratefully received and duly noted the advice and comments. I am answering generally as there were so many replies, I hope those who did reply will not be offended if the do not receive a personal contact. It is as suspected the list (in 'familytreenow' ) is a mixture of fact and conjecture plus many errors and hence should be used with the utmost caution. However it does give clues upon which to base further research, again as I have found with every other similar 'lists', and all content viewed with the 'must double check' attitude as one does with all other information (or should do, I must try and follow my own advice more often). On the positive side I have 'dug' up some 'gems' based on the clues contained with in the 'detail' pages hence I will be 'shifting ' through trying to find more. Regards Tony. Anthony John Mingay Member of the Guild of One Name Studies, 1985 (once of Kent & Suffolk now in NZ but still researching the surname MINGAY and its variants Worldwide.

This is a very simple question for which the answer may provoke me to slap my forehead and say "D'OH". Is there a common term for the "earliest ancestor" in a given surname pedigree? I want the shorthand sort of like MRCA is used. Anyone? Doug Beezley Cincinnati OH

An interesting sideline - this afternoon I was transcribing marriages for the post 1837 Lincs marriage index and found in the register two letters from the registrar pointing out errors that the vicar or whoever made out the entries had made in the duplicate book he had sent to the registrar! In one marriage entry he had apparently given the father of the bride the groom's surname instead of her surname! The register I was looking at was correct - the bride's father had the right surname. So perhaps the registers that went to the registrar were not as accurate as they could have been. I've come across many entries that were corrected in the register that remained at the church years after the duplicate book would have been sent away. I wonder how many of these corrections found their way into the indexes we use? Anne Anne Cole, President, Lincolnshire Family History Society Duncalf(e)/Duncuff/Duncuft One-name Study GOONS member 513 http://www.one-name.org/profiles/duncalf.html http://duncalfonenamestudy.tribalpages.com/ Lincolnshire Post 1837 Marriage Index http://mi.lincolnshiremarriages.org.uk/ Lincolnshire Family History Society http://www.lincolnshirefhs.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+duncalf=one-name.org@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of christopher.gray@gray-ons.org Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 7:50 AM To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] Do you trust UK GRO records? The recent partial digitisation of the GRO records has made a significant difference - especially since they went back to the originals. But - as you say - it still used the transcription from the original, and the transcription from that transcription, that is the source of many errors. With GRAY being a prominent name in the Gypsy community, I would expect to have significant trouble identifying from many indexes - government or not. I would need to rely on family history and actual certificates - assuming that events were registered. Regards Chris -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+christopher.gray=gray-ons.org@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Marie Byatt Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:49 PM To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] Do you trust UK GRO records? I put my level of trust of the GRO records probably on the same level as the one tree on family search or Ancestry trees - in short only if I have confirming evidence. This may be due to the fact the that the first several certificates I got (back around 2002/3) all had large errors - didn't seem worth wasting the money. So I treat it as I treat any transcribed index - half trust. I check back occasionally to see if they have gotten some of the ones I have but they missed and a few have made it, but on the whole it's definitely been a 50-50 proposition for me. When I get the true records ( especially on marriages) I make note of where the index is mistaken and go with the actual record information. My Peplxxs didn't seem to like bureaucrats too well and didn't mind flaunting the law. I have many that didn't get registered until 2 or more quarters after the event. Marie (GOONS 5318) Bringing the world together one surname at a time. 'A Pepler Name' http://pepler.tribalpages.com 'Hedgerow - the Ancestors' http://cranberry.tribalpages.com Pepler DNA Study http://www.familytreedna.com/public/pepler-ow/ 'Scroops, Scropes and Scroopes' http://dentonlk.tribalpages.com 'Peplers and Peplows' pepler.one-name.net _____________________________________________ Information and admin page: http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Stephanie, I cannot agree completely but I understand the statements. My response to Ms Kimber was because she published a superb JOONS article about her RIDGEONS following my article about surname origins, and I tend to provide advice to individuals rather than join the fray. I apparently do not do genealogy or genetics like anyone else on most of these lists. (I am writing a book on this subject at the moment and was working on it when I decided to catch up on e-mail.) I started with under 46 markers when they were all that was available. It was better than a poke in the eye, but when my growing project showed TWO pools of different haplotypes for the same surname(and variants), and attained about 50 participants, the refinement offered by more than 46 markers became more and more necessary. Now I am constantly being asked by some why I did not encourage higher marker results instead of trying to save the sampler/sponsor's money! (EXAMPLE: My surname and that of my wife's grandfather's surname are virtually identical, but we [me and her uncle] are on different branches of the I haplogroup. Not related in any meaningful way. A member of her family live in the same town with me and spells his surname the same as I spell mine.) I cannot agree that the common surname alone at 12 markers is reliable, certainly not in the US, at least. I cannot agree that a surname is a genetic marker in the U.S. There were virtually no constraints in the US for adopting any old name before about 1918(World War I and the Income tax.) And there are many small communities where men share the same 12 markers (haplotypes), but where surnames were adopted without regard to any genetic connections at all. I have two 12-marker men in my project and their DOCUMENTATION/ORAL HISTORY is what makes them fit into the project, not simply their surnames in combination with YDNA. So while I agree that the idea of pursuing a One Name Study can be begun by inexpensive low-marker differentiation, it limits the future utility of such projects. I recognize the value of being able to afford to offer more sponsored results with 12-37 markers, but as a Project grows, the refinement element may begin to take on more importance than quantity of samplers. I feel the pain of the massive Rb1 results to be filtered out compared to our I groups, (the two British-based surname samplers we have so far are R-M269) but I would still suggest that if one is starting out at Step One in tracing a either Y line or surname, it is better served by the higher resolution for genetic distances than 37. Any project, no matter how modest it expects to remain, may grow beyond simple sorting of lines, and questions may arise about accuracy of genetic distance and the possibility of traceable later mutations running along a particular branch. I do agree that it is easier to see and mentally group the less-than-67 results, and also agree that 111-up-to Big Y or other SNP tests constitute a huge expense and takes one into another realm of interpretation (usually someone else's). 67 markers as a recommended test became my go-to position because it seems to me the most cost-effective. This is my opinion after 20 years of dealing with about seven different Y lines with the same surname. Clinton Slayton (6995) -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+cslayton19=windstream.net@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Stephanie Ray Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 12:39 PM To: GOONStgll Subject: Re: [G] Y-DNA Results question Clinton, this was the subject of some exhaustive debate over the Christmas holidays on the DNA and R1b mailing lists! What I myself would like to emphasize is that 37 markers (or even 12) may be plenty when you have a DNA match with the SAME surname. If, however, you have matches with different surnames (generally from the same subclade, i.e., families that are related back before the introduction of surnames), then even 111 markers may not be enough to tell them apart. The key is the surname, which sort of serves as a genetic marker in its own right, and of course which fits in beautifully with the goals of this organization. Best regards, Stephanie Admin, Cobb DNA project Member #5587, Guild of One Name Studies On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Clinton Slayton <cslayton19@windstream.net> wrote: > Tanya, I second the previous poster: you need to get a participant to test > 67-111 markers. > > You are indeed at the first steps, and any single result can be a false > paternal event. For that reason, if your participant has a male cousin, that > is a good target, while a brother is usually not. Spread your net as far as > possible from the one you have. Also, keep an eye on the (small) RIGDON and > (perhaps future) RICHEN results. The RICHENS look like derived from REICHEN > (German) but this is just the sort of morphing (Ridgeon-Richen) that takes > place in American perhaps more than in Britain. > > The 12-to-46 markers tests are useful for corralling haplotypes, but when it > comes to interpreting surname "pools," matches below 67 markers are poor for > genetic distance in case of non-Ridgeons, while a 111 match even without the > surname can be a possible clue to a commonality somewhere in the past. > > The issue with 111 is of course the cost and that so few (relatively) have > done them, but the sale is on! > > I have just paid to upgrade my personal 67 markers to 111, even though I > already have them! The STR values derived from Big Y will not show up on my > FTDNA STR grid, and since I am now at the point in my Project where > refinement is needed over corralling, I feel hypocritical asking for that > level for New Members when they cannot see mine. The only solution is to > explicitly upgrade my previous STR test. > > I cannot overemphasize how important the more-results-the-more-accurate when > it comes to as surname-based YDNA Project. Please consider 67 the lower > limit for that purpose. > > Clinton Slayton(6996) > > -----Original Message----- > From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+cslayton19=windstream.net@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Tanya Kimber > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:54 PM > To: GOONS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [G] Y-DNA Results question > > Hi all > > I've just got the Y-DNA results back from FTDNA for my first Ridgeon > participant. I know that I now need to do a lot of reading and research > myself but wanted to put a question 'out there' for comment as I am a bit > concerned! > > My participant has been allocated a Haplogroup and has a lot of matches at > the 12 marker level, but only 1 at the 25 marker level and none at all at > the 37 marker level, which I understand is quite rare. My concern is what > this means! I am worried that perhaps this means that the sample wasn't very > good and it has been possible to extract only limited information from it. > > I would be really grateful for any views/knowledge/ideas/comments on this > outcome as I guess this may affect where I go next with my study. > > Many thanks. > > Tanya (6296) > > ridgeon@one-name.org > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____________________________________________ Information and admin page: http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I have used several of these sites to estimate the current Kelsall population in the US. They all say they are based on public records but they don’t produce the same results. For total population I got 570 from Public Profiler, 395 from Locate My Name and 423 from Whitepages. From various other sources including the census I think the correct answer is about 400 - but any search that produces about 400 might be by chance with duplicates balancing missing data. There is also a lot of conflicting information in the details. Looking up my own records Familytreenow lists my son and daughter but not my wife (who uses the name Kelsall). I have no connection with the address they came up with, other than it may belong to another Peter Kelsall. Another site correctly listed my current address plus other addresses I have had in the past, but that site identified my wife and daughter but not my son. Some of the listings you get clearly include many obvious duplicates and other possible duplicates. Of course there is no way of knowing what is missing. So these sites have their uses but I would not call them reliable. Also I have not explored Familytreenow much because there is a lot of negative publicity about how they may use the data. Peter Kelsall http://kelsall.one-name.net/ -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+kelsall=q.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tony Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 4:56 PM To: GOONS Forum <GOONS@rootsweb.com> Subject: [G] Questions for USA Members maybe. Hi All, Have been looking at several sites that give USA phone numbers and addresses, the last being ‘familytreenow’ another has been ‘Intelius’, ( although I think the former used the latter), in which lists of possible relatives are given. My questions are:- 1) On what basis are those lists formed, ie same address or phone number at some time in their lives? 2) What is the best way to use those lists and/ or how do others use the lists? 3) How much certainty can I put on the data they contain, particularly were it cannot be found elsewhere? Regards Tony. Anthony John Mingay Member of the Guild of One Name Studies, 1985 (once of Kent & Suffolk now in NZ but still researching the surname MINGAY and its variants Worldwide. _____________________________________________ Information and admin page: http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Tanya, I second the previous poster: you need to get a participant to test 67-111 markers. You are indeed at the first steps, and any single result can be a false paternal event. For that reason, if your participant has a male cousin, that is a good target, while a brother is usually not. Spread your net as far as possible from the one you have. Also, keep an eye on the (small) RIGDON and (perhaps future) RICHEN results. The RICHENS look like derived from REICHEN (German) but this is just the sort of morphing (Ridgeon-Richen) that takes place in American perhaps more than in Britain. The 12-to-46 markers tests are useful for corralling haplotypes, but when it comes to interpreting surname "pools," matches below 67 markers are poor for genetic distance in case of non-Ridgeons, while a 111 match even without the surname can be a possible clue to a commonality somewhere in the past. The issue with 111 is of course the cost and that so few (relatively) have done them, but the sale is on! I have just paid to upgrade my personal 67 markers to 111, even though I already have them! The STR values derived from Big Y will not show up on my FTDNA STR grid, and since I am now at the point in my Project where refinement is needed over corralling, I feel hypocritical asking for that level for New Members when they cannot see mine. The only solution is to explicitly upgrade my previous STR test. I cannot overemphasize how important the more-results-the-more-accurate when it comes to as surname-based YDNA Project. Please consider 67 the lower limit for that purpose. Clinton Slayton(6996) -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+cslayton19=windstream.net@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tanya Kimber Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:54 PM To: GOONS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [G] Y-DNA Results question Hi all I've just got the Y-DNA results back from FTDNA for my first Ridgeon participant. I know that I now need to do a lot of reading and research myself but wanted to put a question 'out there' for comment as I am a bit concerned! My participant has been allocated a Haplogroup and has a lot of matches at the 12 marker level, but only 1 at the 25 marker level and none at all at the 37 marker level, which I understand is quite rare. My concern is what this means! I am worried that perhaps this means that the sample wasn't very good and it has been possible to extract only limited information from it. I would be really grateful for any views/knowledge/ideas/comments on this outcome as I guess this may affect where I go next with my study. Many thanks. Tanya (6296) ridgeon@one-name.org _____________________________________________ Information and admin page: http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Clinton, this was the subject of some exhaustive debate over the Christmas holidays on the DNA and R1b mailing lists! What I myself would like to emphasize is that 37 markers (or even 12) may be plenty when you have a DNA match with the SAME surname. If, however, you have matches with different surnames (generally from the same subclade, i.e., families that are related back before the introduction of surnames), then even 111 markers may not be enough to tell them apart. The key is the surname, which sort of serves as a genetic marker in its own right, and of course which fits in beautifully with the goals of this organization. Best regards, Stephanie Admin, Cobb DNA project Member #5587, Guild of One Name Studies On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Clinton Slayton <cslayton19@windstream.net> wrote: > Tanya, I second the previous poster: you need to get a participant to test > 67-111 markers. > > You are indeed at the first steps, and any single result can be a false > paternal event. For that reason, if your participant has a male cousin, that > is a good target, while a brother is usually not. Spread your net as far as > possible from the one you have. Also, keep an eye on the (small) RIGDON and > (perhaps future) RICHEN results. The RICHENS look like derived from REICHEN > (German) but this is just the sort of morphing (Ridgeon-Richen) that takes > place in American perhaps more than in Britain. > > The 12-to-46 markers tests are useful for corralling haplotypes, but when it > comes to interpreting surname "pools," matches below 67 markers are poor for > genetic distance in case of non-Ridgeons, while a 111 match even without the > surname can be a possible clue to a commonality somewhere in the past. > > The issue with 111 is of course the cost and that so few (relatively) have > done them, but the sale is on! > > I have just paid to upgrade my personal 67 markers to 111, even though I > already have them! The STR values derived from Big Y will not show up on my > FTDNA STR grid, and since I am now at the point in my Project where > refinement is needed over corralling, I feel hypocritical asking for that > level for New Members when they cannot see mine. The only solution is to > explicitly upgrade my previous STR test. > > I cannot overemphasize how important the more-results-the-more-accurate when > it comes to as surname-based YDNA Project. Please consider 67 the lower > limit for that purpose. > > Clinton Slayton(6996) > > -----Original Message----- > From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+cslayton19=windstream.net@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Tanya Kimber > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:54 PM > To: GOONS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [G] Y-DNA Results question > > Hi all > > I've just got the Y-DNA results back from FTDNA for my first Ridgeon > participant. I know that I now need to do a lot of reading and research > myself but wanted to put a question 'out there' for comment as I am a bit > concerned! > > My participant has been allocated a Haplogroup and has a lot of matches at > the 12 marker level, but only 1 at the 25 marker level and none at all at > the 37 marker level, which I understand is quite rare. My concern is what > this means! I am worried that perhaps this means that the sample wasn't very > good and it has been possible to extract only limited information from it. > > I would be really grateful for any views/knowledge/ideas/comments on this > outcome as I guess this may affect where I go next with my study. > > Many thanks. > > Tanya (6296) > > ridgeon@one-name.org > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The recent partial digitisation of the GRO records has made a significant difference - especially since they went back to the originals. But - as you say - it still used the transcription from the original, and the transcription from that transcription, that is the source of many errors. With GRAY being a prominent name in the Gypsy community, I would expect to have significant trouble identifying from many indexes - government or not. I would need to rely on family history and actual certificates - assuming that events were registered. Regards Chris -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+christopher.gray=gray-ons.org@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Marie Byatt Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:49 PM To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] Do you trust UK GRO records? I put my level of trust of the GRO records probably on the same level as the one tree on family search or Ancestry trees - in short only if I have confirming evidence. This may be due to the fact the that the first several certificates I got (back around 2002/3) all had large errors - didn't seem worth wasting the money. So I treat it as I treat any transcribed index - half trust. I check back occasionally to see if they have gotten some of the ones I have but they missed and a few have made it, but on the whole it's definitely been a 50-50 proposition for me. When I get the true records ( especially on marriages) I make note of where the index is mistaken and go with the actual record information. My Peplxxs didn't seem to like bureaucrats too well and didn't mind flaunting the law. I have many that didn't get registered until 2 or more quarters after the event. Marie (GOONS 5318) Bringing the world together one surname at a time. 'A Pepler Name' http://pepler.tribalpages.com 'Hedgerow - the Ancestors' http://cranberry.tribalpages.com Pepler DNA Study http://www.familytreedna.com/public/pepler-ow/ 'Scroops, Scropes and Scroopes' http://dentonlk.tribalpages.com 'Peplers and Peplows' pepler.one-name.net

Hi, The World subscription for Ancestry used to cover exactly that "The World" by the looks of it Ancestry have decided that they want to make as much money as possible out of our Hobby. I refuse to up grade as they put it as it is not an up grade on what I subscribed to in the first place. Clearly Ancestry do not value their customers, what is the betting that when you go to unsubscribe they then sting you for unsubscribing as well now, some companies out there are already trying that scam. Regards, David J Grimshaw (or is it Grimason?) Genealogical Researcher of the "Grimason" surname and variations of the "Grimason" surname World Wide. A One Name study registered with the Guild of One Name Studies (GOONS): 6138 formerly 2962 The "Sherlock Holmes" of this family according to some. On 20/04/2017 8:03 PM, Jennie Fairs wrote: > Just received an email from Ancestry.co.uk offering access to the Guardian > and Observer archive if I upgrade to "All Access Annual Membership". I > currently hold a World subscription to Ancestry which I thought allowed me > access to everything. Am I wrong? Is the World membership no longer the > be-all of Ancestry memberships and I now have to upgrade again? > > > > Jennie Fairs > > Edenborough ONS #4646 > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I put my level of trust of the GRO records probably on the same level as the one tree on family search or Ancestry trees - in short only if I have confirming evidence. This may be due to the fact the that the first several certificates I got (back around 2002/3) all had large errors - didn't seem worth wasting the money. So I treat it as I treat any transcribed index - half trust. I check back occasionally to see if they have gotten some of the ones I have but they missed and a few have made it, but on the whole it's definitely been a 50-50 proposition for me. When I get the true records ( especially on marriages) I make note of where the index is mistaken and go with the actual record information. My Peplxxs didn't seem to like bureaucrats too well and didn't mind flaunting the law. I have many that didn't get registered until 2 or more quarters after the event. Marie (GOONS 5318) Bringing the world together one surname at a time. 'A Pepler Name' http://pepler.tribalpages.com 'Hedgerow - the Ancestors' http://cranberry.tribalpages.com Pepler DNA Study http://www.familytreedna.com/public/pepler-ow/ 'Scroops, Scropes and Scroopes' http://dentonlk.tribalpages.com 'Peplers and Peplows' pepler.one-name.net ________________________________ From: "christopher.gray@gray-ons.org" <christopher.gray@gray-ons.org> To: Goons <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 1:30 PM Subject: [G] Do you trust UK GRO records? This is taken from an e-mail by Russell Ridout to the SoG mailing list - with his permission. He refers to books by Michael Foster - well worth reading. ******** he (Michael Foster) does report that there are instances of either or both parties to a marriage not being indexed. In addition, there are cases of father's names - and witnesses - being indexed instead of the bride or groom and at least one where the bride's name was repeated for the groom. Add to that wrong page numbers/district/misread names/mistyped or miswritten data. Also factor in register copies which never reached the GRO for any number of reasons; transcribers losing concentration and missing a few entries - or not realising that the copy entries that they received were on double sided paper and it makes you extremely grateful to have found any of the events that we need! Given that until very recently all the indexing has been done manually you can understand why the GRO staff had regular breaks, as evidenced by changes in handwriting every half dozen pages or so. Michael mentions that he carried out an experiment with a quill pen and thinks that each clerk probably wrote for three or four hours at a time. Error checking - if it occurred at all - seems to have been rudimentary at best, but having worked in an industry where records were originally kept manually I understand how easy it is to introduce mistakes no matter how careful you are! Whether the modern computerised records are any more reliable remains to be seen. Ideally the records should be completely reindexed from the originals, but there isn't the spare cash for this to be funded by the state. Some records have been reindexed locally but these are in a minority. ******** So - please do not be concerned if you find multiple sources that are inconsistent. Just bear in mind that such records are manually produced and can be in error. Regards Chris _____________________________________________ Information and admin page: http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This is taken from an e-mail by Russell Ridout to the SoG mailing list - with his permission. He refers to books by Michael Foster - well worth reading. ******** he (Michael Foster) does report that there are instances of either or both parties to a marriage not being indexed. In addition, there are cases of father's names - and witnesses - being indexed instead of the bride or groom and at least one where the bride's name was repeated for the groom. Add to that wrong page numbers/district/misread names/mistyped or miswritten data. Also factor in register copies which never reached the GRO for any number of reasons; transcribers losing concentration and missing a few entries - or not realising that the copy entries that they received were on double sided paper and it makes you extremely grateful to have found any of the events that we need! Given that until very recently all the indexing has been done manually you can understand why the GRO staff had regular breaks, as evidenced by changes in handwriting every half dozen pages or so. Michael mentions that he carried out an experiment with a quill pen and thinks that each clerk probably wrote for three or four hours at a time. Error checking - if it occurred at all - seems to have been rudimentary at best, but having worked in an industry where records were originally kept manually I understand how easy it is to introduce mistakes no matter how careful you are! Whether the modern computerised records are any more reliable remains to be seen. Ideally the records should be completely reindexed from the originals, but there isn't the spare cash for this to be funded by the state. Some records have been reindexed locally but these are in a minority. ******** So - please do not be concerned if you find multiple sources that are inconsistent. Just bear in mind that such records are manually produced and can be in error. Regards Chris

Thank you very much to everyone who replied to my post. In terms of some of the questions asked, the Haplogroup is the common R-M269, and the match at the 25 marker level is a genetic distance of 2; there are no matches at any genetic distance at the 37 marker level. In this respect I have a very similar pattern to those John Cordes mentions in his post (including a lot of perfect matches at the 12 marker level), so it is reassuring to find that the results I have so far are not unusual :o) What I’ve learnt since getting my results and asking these questions is that no matches at the 37 marker level is a not necessarily an unexpected outcome, and that my focus must be on DNA testing within my surname study. Many thanks to all for the comments and advice. I am off to do some reading and research now ;o) Tanya

Just received an email from Ancestry.co.uk offering access to the Guardian and Observer archive if I upgrade to "All Access Annual Membership". I currently hold a World subscription to Ancestry which I thought allowed me access to everything. Am I wrong? Is the World membership no longer the be-all of Ancestry memberships and I now have to upgrade again? Jennie Fairs Edenborough ONS #4646

Just received an email from Ancestry.co.uk offering access to the Guardian and Observer archive if I upgrade to "All Access Annual Membership". I currently hold a World subscription to Ancestry which I thought allowed me access to everything. Am I wrong? Is the World membership no longer the be-all of Ancestry memberships and I now have to upgrade again? Jennie Fairs Edenborough ONS #4646

Lynn, But the sites offer this info. for free. Jim Culbert On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Lynn McAlister <cmsdistrict7@att.net> wrote: > Most of these sites (Intelius, e.g.) are basically compilations of information once available for free through the telephone book. Some of them claim to include criminal records, land sales, etc. - don't know if they do or not because I've never needed to do a background check on someone, but I suspect it's all information freely available elsewhere on the internet. Some of it must be taken from mailing lists - for example my in-laws' names appear as residents of our home even though they've never lived here, presumably because at one time my husband lived with them so when his name moved, theirs moved with it. In my opinion it's just another example of people using the internet to insert themselves as middle men and charge for information they did not generate and shouldn't profit from. But that's just my opinion. > > Lynn McAlister (6121) > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 19 Apr 2017, at 17:55, Tony <mingay@xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> Have been looking at several sites that give USA phone numbers and addresses, the last being ‘familytreenow’ another has been ‘Intelius’, ( although I think the former used the latter), in which lists of possible relatives are given. >> My questions are:- >> 1) On what basis are those lists formed, ie same address or phone number at some time in their lives? >> 2) What is the best way to use those lists and/ or how do others use the lists? >> 3) How much certainty can I put on the data they contain, particularly were it cannot be found elsewhere? >> Regards Tony. >> Anthony John Mingay >> Member of the Guild of One Name Studies, 1985 >> (once of Kent & Suffolk now in NZ but still researching the surname MINGAY and its variants Worldwide. >> > > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Stephanie, Credit card info. is not public info., so I doubt that is one of their sources. Jim Culbert On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Stephanie Ray <netnuevo@gmail.com> wrote: > I use those sites quite a bit, in an effort to track potential DNA > project participants. My guess is that the information is pulled from > credit card data. My favorite by far is peoplefinders.com, because not > only does it show you info on the person for whom you searched, but > also for people who have lived at the same address. One can usually > guess by the ages the family relationship. > > Best regards, > Stephanie > > Admin, Cobb DNA > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Tony <mingay@xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> Hi All, >> Have been looking at several sites that give USA phone numbers and addresses, the last being ‘familytreenow’ another has been ‘Intelius’, ( although I think the former used the latter), in which lists of possible relatives are given. >> My questions are:- >> 1) On what basis are those lists formed, ie same address or phone number at some time in their lives? >> 2) What is the best way to use those lists and/ or how do others use the lists? >> 3) How much certainty can I put on the data they contain, particularly were it cannot be found elsewhere? >> Regards Tony. >> Anthony John Mingay >> Member of the Guild of One Name Studies, 1985 >> (once of Kent & Suffolk now in NZ but still researching the surname MINGAY and its variants Worldwide. >> >> _____________________________________________ >> >> Information and admin page: >> http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message