Ginny, Do you belong to our Northern Neck tree on ancestry.com? All of the data for William-2 Ball is there. No need to look it up. That's been a hundred times, an this tree is an effort to give it a permanent and documented home. One of our main goals to not have to repeat all this same information over and over and over. Craig Kilby On Oct 29, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Virginia L. Ginny Keefer wrote: > > Hi David, What dates are you giving to William Ball and what place do you > have listed for him living ? I am retired with time on my hands and want to > take a look too. Thanx. Ginny Keefer > ************************************************** > -----Original Message----- > From: DAVID BROWN > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:35 PM > To: va-northern-neck@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [VA-NORTHERN-NECK] Revised Patriarch List: William Ball,I & > Hannah Atherold > > Craig, > > You’re right in that I should have listed William Ball, I & Hannah Atherold. > However, I wasn’t sure how conclusive the evidence is for this marriage to > Hannah Atherold, and I also wasn’t entirely confident of my own data on > William Ball, I as far as dates were concerned (I had more concrete data on > William Ball, II who married Margaret Williamson). >

I understood the criteria for the NN dna project's patriarch list as differing from criteria for NN tree inclusion. The patriarchs as well as gedcoms uploaded to Family Tree DNA are intended to assist dna matches in locating the common ancestor. The patriarchs are not necessarily well documented or proven ancestors. (Those who aren't should not be on the NN tree.) About half of my NN patriarchs are flagged in my genealogy software as "hold" and as "candidates" and NEVER make it into my reports or trees. I included them, for reasons just stated, in the project's patriarch list and in the gedcom I uploaded to Family Tree DNA. Barbara

Barbara That's exactly correct. For atDNA matching purposes we need to use the most robust Trees we can. When/if a match is made on a Common Ancestor which is iffy, then the two parties should share reasoning and make a reasonable call. We'll all learn using this process. Craig, we'll need to go easy as we feel our way through this new frontier. We need some slack to experiment a little, and learn from our experience. We don't have a single atDNA Common Ancestor to report yet. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:56 PM, "karenhappuch" <karenhappuch@cox.net> wrote: > I understood the criteria for the NN dna project's patriarch list as > differing from criteria for NN tree inclusion. The patriarchs as well as > gedcoms uploaded to Family Tree DNA are intended to assist dna matches in > locating the common ancestor. The patriarchs are not necessarily well > documented or proven ancestors. (Those who aren't should not be on the NN > tree.) > > About half of my NN patriarchs are flagged in my genealogy software as > "hold" and as "candidates" and NEVER make it into my reports or trees. I > included them, for reasons just stated, in the project's patriarch list and > in the gedcom I uploaded to Family Tree DNA. > > > > Barbara > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VA-NORTHERN-NECK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message