RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 3/3
    1. [ROSE-DNA] Group S
    2. Diana Gale Matthiesen
    3. When I assumed administration of this project (Feb 2017), I decided to leave intact a listing of groups and progenitors created by the former administrators: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/rose/about/results A few days ago, someone queried me about "Group S" referring to the above web page. In examining Group S, I realized I needed to edit the page if I were to respond accurately to his query, even though it had been my original intent to leave the page untouched. And I further realized that I probably should do this for every group. I have, in one respect, already made most of the revisions, but they show up on the "DNA Results" page: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Rose?iframe=yresults not the listing of groups and progenitors, which makes it hard to see what changes have been made. One reason I had not planned to do this earlier is that I didn't want to turn the changes into a pointed criticism of the former admins. I realize, now, that it's not a good idea to leave misleading or erroneous groupings online, yet I don't wish to delete the information entirely because many have gotten "used to" using these groupings - for years, which makes them of historical value. So... I have revised Group S - and Group S1. Please visit the page, noting the "legend" to the text color at the top, then scrolling down to these groups. First, please note that there's no particular relationship between Group S and Group S1 beyond the fact that both are Haplogroup R1b-M269 the most common haplogroup in northwestern Europe, by far, and the most common haplogroup in the project. Only one member in Group S has tested 67 markers - the descendant of Thomas Jefferson ROSE - so he becomes the "anchor" for the group. To be added to the group, a person needs to match him. None of the others has tested 67 markers, so their matches will remain "suspect" until they do. Thomas Jefferson ROSE is at the top of the list, and beneath him is a name in blue. He's a new member, and he matches 36/37. A match at this level is likely to hold at 67 markers, but still possibly may not, so an upgrade to 67 markers is needed. The next individual is in greyed out text. With a match of only 24/25, he cannot be confidently joined to the group. The match could easily fall apart at 37 or 67 markers. Obviously, he, too, needs to upgrade. The next three individuals have names in red. Each has tested 25 markers, and at 12 markers they match this and other ROSE groups, but these matches fall away entirely at 25 markers, proving they do not belong in Group S or any other ROSE group, for the present. So, bottom line, of the original five members of Group S, three do not belong, at all, and the forth only weakly matches the "anchor" for the group. In other words: this was not really a group, at all. I would have placed all of them in the "no match" category. With the addition of the new member, we may have a group, so I'm not going to abolish it. But for the two of you who have not upgraded to 67 markers, please do so. I appreciate that the original admins were greatly handicapped by having only 12 and 25 markers available when the project opened and that the desire to have matches and create groups biased them towards lowering the threshold for matching. But testing has progressed, so I hope this example will encourage those of you who haven't upgraded your testing to 67 markers to please do so. FTDNA is having their annual Holiday Sale (ending December 31st), so this is a great time to upgrade. Diana

    12/24/2018 09:06:44
    1. [ROSE-DNA] Re: Group S
    2. Sandra Marsh
    3. Mike Rose has tested at the 111-marker level and matches Tom Rose. His kit number is: 6781. He has also taken the Big-Y. Sandy Rose Marsh -----Original Message----- From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [mailto:DianaGM@dgmweb.net] Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 11:07 AM To: ROSE-DNA@rootsweb.com Subject: [ROSE-DNA] Group S When I assumed administration of this project (Feb 2017), I decided to leave intact a listing of groups and progenitors created by the former administrators: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/rose/about/results A few days ago, someone queried me about "Group S" referring to the above web page. In examining Group S, I realized I needed to edit the page if I were to respond accurately to his query, even though it had been my original intent to leave the page untouched. And I further realized that I probably should do this for every group. I have, in one respect, already made most of the revisions, but they show up on the "DNA Results" page: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Rose?iframe=yresults not the listing of groups and progenitors, which makes it hard to see what changes have been made. One reason I had not planned to do this earlier is that I didn't want to turn the changes into a pointed criticism of the former admins. I realize, now, that it's not a good idea to leave misleading or erroneous groupings online, yet I don't wish to delete the information entirely because many have gotten "used to" using these groupings - for years, which makes them of historical value. So... I have revised Group S - and Group S1. Please visit the page, noting the "legend" to the text color at the top, then scrolling down to these groups. First, please note that there's no particular relationship between Group S and Group S1 beyond the fact that both are Haplogroup R1b-M269 the most common haplogroup in northwestern Europe, by far, and the most common haplogroup in the project. Only one member in Group S has tested 67 markers - the descendant of Thomas Jefferson ROSE - so he becomes the "anchor" for the group. To be added to the group, a person needs to match him. None of the others has tested 67 markers, so their matches will remain "suspect" until they do. Thomas Jefferson ROSE is at the top of the list, and beneath him is a name in blue. He's a new member, and he matches 36/37. A match at this level is likely to hold at 67 markers, but still possibly may not, so an upgrade to 67 markers is needed. The next individual is in greyed out text. With a match of only 24/25, he cannot be confidently joined to the group. The match could easily fall apart at 37 or 67 markers. Obviously, he, too, needs to upgrade. The next three individuals have names in red. Each has tested 25 markers, and at 12 markers they match this and other ROSE groups, but these matches fall away entirely at 25 markers, proving they do not belong in Group S or any other ROSE group, for the present. So, bottom line, of the original five members of Group S, three do not belong, at all, and the forth only weakly matches the "anchor" for the group. In other words: this was not really a group, at all. I would have placed all of them in the "no match" category. With the addition of the new member, we may have a group, so I'm not going to abolish it. But for the two of you who have not upgraded to 67 markers, please do so. I appreciate that the original admins were greatly handicapped by having only 12 and 25 markers available when the project opened and that the desire to have matches and create groups biased them towards lowering the threshold for matching. But testing has progressed, so I hope this example will encourage those of you who haven't upgraded your testing to 67 markers to please do so. FTDNA is having their annual Holiday Sale (ending December 31st), so this is a great time to upgrade. Diana _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/rose-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

    12/24/2018 09:27:15
    1. [ROSE-DNA] Re: Group S
    2. Mike Rose
    3. Diana, Given what Sandra Rose says below about my testing results at the 111-marker level, should Tom Rose and I be in the same group? Thanks. Mike Rose -----Original Message----- From: Sandra Marsh <Smarsh34@cinci.rr.com> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 11:27 AM To: rose-dna@rootsweb.com Cc: Mike Rose <mike@mikeroselawfirm.com> Subject: RE: [ROSE-DNA] Group S Mike Rose has tested at the 111-marker level and matches Tom Rose. His kit number is: 6781. He has also taken the Big-Y. Sandy Rose Marsh -----Original Message----- From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [mailto:DianaGM@dgmweb.net] Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 11:07 AM To: ROSE-DNA@rootsweb.com Subject: [ROSE-DNA] Group S When I assumed administration of this project (Feb 2017), I decided to leave intact a listing of groups and progenitors created by the former administrators: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/rose/about/results A few days ago, someone queried me about "Group S" referring to the above web page. In examining Group S, I realized I needed to edit the page if I were to respond accurately to his query, even though it had been my original intent to leave the page untouched. And I further realized that I probably should do this for every group. I have, in one respect, already made most of the revisions, but they show up on the "DNA Results" page: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Rose?iframe=yresults not the listing of groups and progenitors, which makes it hard to see what changes have been made. One reason I had not planned to do this earlier is that I didn't want to turn the changes into a pointed criticism of the former admins. I realize, now, that it's not a good idea to leave misleading or erroneous groupings online, yet I don't wish to delete the information entirely because many have gotten "used to" using these groupings - for years, which makes them of historical value. So... I have revised Group S - and Group S1. Please visit the page, noting the "legend" to the text color at the top, then scrolling down to these groups. First, please note that there's no particular relationship between Group S and Group S1 beyond the fact that both are Haplogroup R1b-M269 the most common haplogroup in northwestern Europe, by far, and the most common haplogroup in the project. Only one member in Group S has tested 67 markers - the descendant of Thomas Jefferson ROSE - so he becomes the "anchor" for the group. To be added to the group, a person needs to match him. None of the others has tested 67 markers, so their matches will remain "suspect" until they do. Thomas Jefferson ROSE is at the top of the list, and beneath him is a name in blue. He's a new member, and he matches 36/37. A match at this level is likely to hold at 67 markers, but still possibly may not, so an upgrade to 67 markers is needed. The next individual is in greyed out text. With a match of only 24/25, he cannot be confidently joined to the group. The match could easily fall apart at 37 or 67 markers. Obviously, he, too, needs to upgrade. The next three individuals have names in red. Each has tested 25 markers, and at 12 markers they match this and other ROSE groups, but these matches fall away entirely at 25 markers, proving they do not belong in Group S or any other ROSE group, for the present. So, bottom line, of the original five members of Group S, three do not belong, at all, and the forth only weakly matches the "anchor" for the group. In other words: this was not really a group, at all. I would have placed all of them in the "no match" category. With the addition of the new member, we may have a group, so I'm not going to abolish it. But for the two of you who have not upgraded to 67 markers, please do so. I appreciate that the original admins were greatly handicapped by having only 12 and 25 markers available when the project opened and that the desire to have matches and create groups biased them towards lowering the threshold for matching. But testing has progressed, so I hope this example will encourage those of you who haven't upgraded your testing to 67 markers to please do so. FTDNA is having their annual Holiday Sale (ending December 31st), so this is a great time to upgrade. Diana _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/rose-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

    12/24/2018 11:06:21