Tony, I believe all the records found at Family Tree Now come from public record databases, such as real estate records and telephone directories. This is what they say they use to compile the info. However, they don't provided the specific sources, nor the dates, so it can likely be old info. Nothing is certain, but it is strongly suggestive when you don't have this info. Where I have found Family Tree Now most useful is that it links individuals as possible relatives and possible associates. Following these links I can be fairly sure who married couples are, and this is further supported when they have the same address! Family Tree Now is also useful for the females because it gives alternate names, thus often providing a wife's maiden name. This is supported by the other persons associated with her who also have the same last name as her maiden name. Family Tree Now also provides a residence address history, oftentimes going back 30 years or so. I know of no other site that does this. I can sometimes correlate one or more of these addresses with other sources of info. I have already collected in my database. I have checked my own info. there and it is generally correct. The possible relatives and possible associates are all my immediate relatives, but then there are some who are not shown. It does not link me to my father, who can also be found in this database. Where it deviates from the truth is in the dates associated with the various correct addresses listed. And, although the telephone numbers are correct, except possiblly one of them (I cannot remember), they are in no particular order compared to the address timeline shown. Jim Culbert Culbert Family Genealogy Project culbert.one-name.net ============ > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony" <mingay@xtra.co.nz> > To: "GOONS Forum" <GOONS@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 11:55 PM > 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 > > > _____________________________________________ > > 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

Is *.cfm a ColdFusion file? If so, I ought to be able to open it for you with Adobe Dreamweaver. If you send me a copy of your file to woolgar@one-name.org I'm happy to give it a try. Best wishes, Marion Woolgar Bognor Regis, West Sussex Guild Membership No: 1739

I concur, having swapped my Ancestry Worldwide + Fold3 + Newspapers.com for Ancestry All Access. However, I soon discovered that the Ancestry All Access does NOT include EVERYTHING in Newspapers.com - I recently had to upgrade that too. Ken On 20 April 2017 at 11:11, Mark Midega-Faulknall <mark@thefamilyhistoryspeaker.com> wrote: > > Hi > > > I have just upgraded from monthly to annual worldwide Ancestry subscription and discovered that "all" includes the newspaper archive plus their military site FOLD3 > > > > Regards > > > Mark Midega-Faulknall > 07583 031324 > www.thefamilyhistoryspeaker.com > > > > > > > From: Mark Midega-Faulknall > Sent: 20 April 2017 10:07 > To: goons@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [G] Ancestry website > > > Hi > > I have just upgraded from monthly to annual worldwide Ancestry subscription and discovered that "all" includes the newspaper archive plus their military site FOLD3 > > > > > > Regards > > > Mark Midega-Faulknall > 07583 031324 > www.thefamilyhistoryspeaker.com > > > > > > > From: GOONS <goons-bounces+mark=thefamilyhistoryspeaker.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of NIKKI BROWN <nikki.wabit@tesco.net> > Sent: 20 April 2017 09:56 > To: goons@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [G] Ancestry website > > I think it works like this. Worldwide is access to all "their" records, All access gives access to other websites (mainly newspaper) that you would normally pay to use but Ancestry have done a deal with. > Cant find the evidence on their site where it says this but seem to remember that this has come up before. > -- > Nikki Brown > #6552 > Pullum ONS > https://pullumons.wordpress.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jennie Fairs" <fairsj@optusnet.com.au> > To: "goons@rootsweb.com" <GOONS@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, 20 April, 2017 9:04:28 AM > Subject: [G] Ancestry website > > 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 > > > _____________________________________________ > > 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

Looking for a copy of Corel Family Master, that produces files with the .cfm extension. Anyone got a copy gathering dust on a shelf. I have been given a Featherstone file and need to get into it. Paul 2627

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.

Hi Tony, My impression is that the information is culled from telephone company records, and perhaps from other sources (e.g., directories-for-sale of the sort used for charity/commercial solicitations). I suppose there must be some legal proviso that allows this information to be sold or otherwise made available on the internet -- probably the same proviso that formerly made printed telephone directories a possibility. In fact, I suspect some of the information on the websites may actually have been derived from optical character recognition (OCE) applied to scans of old printed directories because some of the errors I've noted seem to be OCE errors. Some of the information also seems to have been assembled by automated inferencing on primary sources (e.g., people with the same surname living in close proximity to one another may be assumed to be family members). In the olden days, one could request to have their phone number be "unlisted" and I note that my dad doesn't come up ! in the "familytreenow" listings, probably because he always kept his number unlisted. Ancestry.com has for years carried a number of "U.S. Public Records Index" volumes in their database, from which as often as not one is able to glean not only addresses and phone numbers, but actual birthdates as well! I generally use this information as supplementary/confirmatory evidence for relationships that I've already (at least) tentatively established, or for finding new leads for a trail that has otherwise "gone cold." I confess that I have also used the information from time to time (and with little luck) to attempt establishing contact with potential participants in my DNA surname project, or to attempt placing NEW project members in family trees ahead of the curve. This sort of information was also extremely valuable in enabling me to establish contact with one or two somewhat distant branches of my own family tree. I'm generally not averse to its existence but am aware of the potential for it being used for mischief. As to reliability, the main limitations seem to be, 1) inferential errors, 2) OCE errors, and, 3) that the information generally appears to be somewhat dated -- at least 5 to 10 years old. -Mark Bunch (#6223)

Hi I have just upgraded from monthly to annual worldwide  Ancestry subscription and discovered that "all" includes the newspaper archive plus their military site FOLD3 Regards Mark Midega-Faulknall 07583 031324 www.thefamilyhistoryspeaker.com From: Mark Midega-Faulknall Sent: 20 April 2017 10:07 To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] Ancestry website   Hi I have just upgraded from monthly to annual worldwide  Ancestry subscription and discovered that "all" includes the newspaper archive plus their military site FOLD3 Regards Mark Midega-Faulknall 07583 031324 www.thefamilyhistoryspeaker.com From: GOONS <goons-bounces+mark=thefamilyhistoryspeaker.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of NIKKI BROWN <nikki.wabit@tesco.net> Sent: 20 April 2017 09:56 To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] Ancestry website   I think it works like this. Worldwide is access to all "their" records, All access gives access to other websites (mainly newspaper) that you would normally pay to use but Ancestry have done a deal with. Cant find the evidence on their site where it says this but seem to remember that this has come up before. -- Nikki Brown #6552 Pullum ONS https://pullumons.wordpress.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jennie Fairs" <fairsj@optusnet.com.au> To: "goons@rootsweb.com" <GOONS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, 20 April, 2017 9:04:28 AM Subject: [G] Ancestry website 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  _____________________________________________ 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 think it works like this. Worldwide is access to all "their" records, All access gives access to other websites (mainly newspaper) that you would normally pay to use but Ancestry have done a deal with. Cant find the evidence on their site where it says this but seem to remember that this has come up before. -- Nikki Brown #6552 Pullum ONS https://pullumons.wordpress.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jennie Fairs" <fairsj@optusnet.com.au> To: "goons@rootsweb.com" <GOONS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, 20 April, 2017 9:04:28 AM Subject: [G] Ancestry website 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

Of Lynn McAlister Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 6:12 AM > ... 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. Interesting point of view. Mine is different. Companies such as Google are searching the internet, providing me with an index of what they have found, and making money from it. Yes - I could search it myself but I rely on someone having done it for me unless I have already identified a site where the data I need can be found (e.g. FreeBMD.org.uk). There are search engines that specialise in certain aspects - for example 192.com. The problem with all search engines is that of trust. The example used - that of someone having resided at an address that they have never lived at - is just one such example. Companies that trawl news sites are at risk of presenting "fake news" - but obituaries and legal reports seem to be relatively safe. So - I am very willing to use the results provided by a commercial company once they have gained a degree of trust. Regards Chris -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+christopher.gray=gray-ons.org@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lynn McAlister Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 6:12 AM To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] Questions for USA Members maybe. 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)

When I received the notice of 'familytreenow' thought that I could find my son's telephone number in Florida (when I'd rung the number he gave me it was answered by US Security Service!). Was happy with the number the website gave until I checked for his wife - they live together - and that had a completely different number. From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony" <mingay@xtra.co.nz> To: "GOONS Forum" <GOONS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 11:55 PM 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

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. >

Hi Tanya I agree with the other opinions that this is not rare at all. I have just had a look at your project pages and I can see that your YDNA results are hidden, so I cannot see which haplogroup you have. It would be better to make these results public, so that everyone can see them. If you do not know how to do this, I can explain. However, my father’s line has the haplogroup of R1b or R-M269, which is the most common in Western Europe and when I got the first result for a cousin in this line, he had no matches at 37 markers. About 9 years later almost his only matches are men whom I have asked to do a test, and whose relationship I know. He also has very few matches at 12 markers. I have recently tested a cousin on my mother’s side and found that he has the same haplogroup and again very few matches at 37 markers. In his case, he has lots of matches at 12 markers, but only 3 at 37 markers. The same applies to some of the other men in my project, who have different haplogroups. It just means that men who might have matched have not tested. June Willing Guild of One-Name Studies member no 2117 Willing/Willings One-Name Study http://one-name.org/name_profile/Willing/ Willing/Willings DNA Project https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/willing Dominicus One-Name Study http://one-name.org/name_profile/dominicus/ > On 19 Apr 2017, at 18:53, Tanya Kimber <ridgeon_ons@outlook.com> wrote: > > 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

At 18:53 19/04/2017, Tanya wrote: >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 had a good match ("genetic distance" of zero) at 12 markers, which disappeared when we expanded the number of markers. Completely normal, and I wouldn't have thought it rare. HTH Andy.

> 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 doubt that there is a problem with the sample, I am sure FTDNA report inadequate samples as such. Most people support the view that the only 'significant' results are with 37 or more markers. With my common surname (not my ONS) I have a zero genetic distance match at 37 markers with one person. Unfortunately for both of us neither have been able to find birth details for our earliest known male line ancestors around 1730 - 40 although we know they were living 50 miles apart. What matters for the ONS is matches with others of the ONS name, probably none have tested. Colin Stevenson

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

Tony, Most family researchers in the USA will remove our names from the "familytreenow" website. I know I did Russ GOONS 6327 On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:55 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 -- hrworth@gmail.com

-----Original Message----- 6. Re: Hargraves/ Hodge help (Peter Copsey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Not sure if this is the right family as the mother's name isn't HODGE. John Hargraves 3Q 1850 mother Hodge registered St Luke and John Hargroves 2Q 1852 , St Mary Newington mother Askew are not the same child. Seems like two families with similar names. Pat Hanby 0854 ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:16:49 +0100 From: "Peter Copsey" <peter.copsey@talktalk.net> To: <goons@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [G] Hargraves/ Hodge help Message-ID: <42EB30C1A40D4FAB90F34B9BC8F177B3@ownerPC> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original I think this is the one: Joseph HARGROVES married Ann ASKEW on 24 March 1839 at St Dunstan & All Saints, Stepney. Their children were: Joseph, birth registered Q1 1846 St Mary Newington RD - died Q1 1846 St Mary Newington RD Ann, birth registered Q3 1847 St Mary Newington RD Joseph, birth registered Q4 1849 St George, Southwark RD John, birth registered Q2 1852 St Mary Newington RD. For all children, the GRO index states mother's maiden name as AGNEW Suggest that Ann ASKEW was baptised at St Dunstan's on 25 Dec 1814, born 10(?) June 1813, daughter of John and Sarah, John a boat builder. She would have been 47 in the 1861 census, not 45 as given. In the 1851 census, living at 14 Cross Street, Southwark (HO107/1557 fol 115) she was given as aged 36. Peter Copsey -----Original Message----- From: Susan Cater Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 3:47 PM To: GOONS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [G] Hargraves/ Hodge help Dear All, I am bashing my head against a very solid brick wall in a friend?s tree. I am trying to find a marriage between these two people and anything on their parents, etc. Joseph Hargraves born 9 Jun 1816, baptised 13 Apr 1817 at St. Leonard?s, Shoreditch. He is recorded as ?Hargroves? and his parents are recorded as Robert and Susannah. I can?t find anything more on them. Joseph Hargraves died 1870 in London and was buried 11 Apr 1870 at Victoria Park Cemetery, Hackney. In the 1861 census Joseph is a slater living at 9 Ratcliff Square, Stepney. He is recorded as ?Hargraves? and is living with his wife Ann and three children: Ann, Joseph and John. I haven?t found a birth record for Ann junior but Joseph and John are both recorded as born in St. Luke registration district in 1849 and 1850 respectively. Their mother?s maiden name is given as ?Hodge?. There is an Ann Hodge born 27 Oct 1816 and baptised 7 Nov at the British Lying-In Hospital, Endell Street, Holborn. It was a non-conformist baptism but I don?t know what denomination. I cannot find any marriage between these two. I have tried all the variants of their names that I can think of and am currently stumped. I would be very grateful for any advice or suggestions. Thank you Susan Cater 4437

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

Tanya, You don't say just what you mean by 'matching' for the various levels -- do you mean a genetic distance of zero, or is it allowing a small genetic distance? My Y-DNA test done in 2009 at FTDNA has a number of perfect matches at the 12 marker level, which I regard as entirely insignificant. At the 25 marker level I have a few, but all at a genetic distance of 2; at the 37 marker level I have exactly 1 'match' but at a genetic distance of 4 (not sure if that is the maximum allowed at this level by FTDNA for it to be considered a match). I have not run across the statement you mention that such a small number of matches (or none at all) is 'quite rare'. John (7338) On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:53:39PM +0000, Tanya Kimber wrote: > 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

I would think it means no relatives have been tested for 25 or 37 markers. It basically means you are related to a lot of cheapskates! :) As more relatives get better testing, you'll get more matches. I tell people all the time, just getting a 12-marker test may be cheap, but basically useless as a 12-marker match is not very related at all. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 19, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Tanya Kimber <ridgeon_ons@outlook.com> wrote: > > 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