As far as I know (AFAIK). gm On Dec 8, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Rebecca wrote: With all due respect, many of us do not know the new acronyms that apparently stand for phrases. I assume they are born of texting. The gliph below is just one of the many acronyms that are popping up everywhere and used as though everyone understands. Maybe I am just behind the times and should shut up, but really, I haven't a clue what AFAIK means and it is not obvious from the context. AFAIK -----Original Message----- From: Diana Gale Matthiesen <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Sent: Wed, Dec 8, 2010 2:43 pm Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] The view from the outside looking in. Definitely not boring. We all owe the "pioneers" who tested early at SMGF our gratitude. I am pleased that they instituted GeneTree. I suspect it's creation was in part due to what turned out to be a short-coming of SMGF: that there's no way to contact a test subject. The charges to move results from SMGF to GeneTree are nominal and, I presume, serve to maintain the web site. AFAIK, SMGF no longer does free testing. If you want to join the SMGF database, you pay for it via GeneTree, as indicated on the SMGF Home Page http://www.smgf.org/index.jspx > From what I understand, the Sorensons are Mormons, hence the dedication to genealogy, but that there is no official connection between SMGF and the LDS. They give a brief history here: http://www.genetree.com/history and their early press releases pretty much spell out who they are and what they're about: http://www.genetree.com/pressroom It's not clear to me whether GeneTree is for profit or non-profit, but I suspect the former or they'd be touting the latter. One nice thing about the SMGF search engine is that you can save searches, so you don't have to re-enter the test results. I have all the modal haplotypes from my projects as saved searches, making it easy come back periodically and do a new search. You can also use their search engine to convert markers between lab standards, at least for the markers they test. If you have not registered on the site, you are missing a lot. You don't need to have tested there to register. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Billie Walsh > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 8:12 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] The view from the outside looking in. > > On 12/05/2010 01:19 AM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote: >> SMGF (the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation) is a non-profit >> organization backed, at least in part, by philanthropic donations. It >> was never the intention of the foundation to make a profit. But it's >> a fact of life that you do "get what you pay for," and most >> genealogists find the limitations of being tested at SMGF unworkable. >> Hence the market for commercial DNA testing, despite the fact that someone's giving it > away (or at least was). >> > > I know I said I wouldn't bore you with the details but.......... > > About fifteen years ago the Church of Latter Day Saints put out a call for subjects to > donate a blood sample and at least a five generation tree. It was an experimental project > to gather subjects for DNA genealogical research. There was no promise of the results > ever being made available. Sorenson was the lab that did the work. [ I think they are > connected to the LDS in some way, but that's just my opinion ] A few years ago I saw that > Sorenson was in the "business" of doing testing so I contacted them. At that time they > weren't releasing any of the original subjects results. Every so often I would get an email > about their services because I had gotten in their mail database. Then about a year or so > ago I got an email that for just a few dollars I could "buy" > my mtdna results. I figured what the heck, why not. Several months later I got the e-mail > that said they would "sell" me my Y results for a few more dollars. Best I can recall I got a > 37 YDNA and my mtdna results for about fifty dollars total. With the possibility that they > "might" give more findings in the future, probably for a small sum of course. This also > included a membership in Sorensons website, Genetree. > > My original intention when I made my "donation" was not so much to get my results as to > further the science of DNA genealogical research in it's infancy. The fact that I did get > my results was more of a bonus than anything else. > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

AFAIK = As Far As I Know On 12/08/2010 09:48 AM, Rebecca wrote: > With all due respect, many of us do not know the new acronyms that > apparently stand for phrases. I assume they are born of texting. The > gliph below is just one of the many acronyms that are popping up > everywhere and used as though everyone understands. Maybe I am just > behind the times and should shut up, but really, I haven't a clue what > AFAIK means and it is not obvious from the context. > > AFAIK > -- "A good moral character is the first essential in a man." George Washington _ _... ..._ _ _._ ._ ..... ._.. ... .._

Definitely not boring. We all owe the "pioneers" who tested early at SMGF our gratitude. I am pleased that they instituted GeneTree. I suspect it's creation was in part due to what turned out to be a short-coming of SMGF: that there's no way to contact a test subject. The charges to move results from SMGF to GeneTree are nominal and, I presume, serve to maintain the web site. AFAIK, SMGF no longer does free testing. If you want to join the SMGF database, you pay for it via GeneTree, as indicated on the SMGF Home Page http://www.smgf.org/index.jspx >From what I understand, the Sorensons are Mormons, hence the dedication to genealogy, but that there is no official connection between SMGF and the LDS. They give a brief history here: http://www.genetree.com/history and their early press releases pretty much spell out who they are and what they're about: http://www.genetree.com/pressroom It's not clear to me whether GeneTree is for profit or non-profit, but I suspect the former or they'd be touting the latter. One nice thing about the SMGF search engine is that you can save searches, so you don't have to re-enter the test results. I have all the modal haplotypes from my projects as saved searches, making it easy come back periodically and do a new search. You can also use their search engine to convert markers between lab standards, at least for the markers they test. If you have not registered on the site, you are missing a lot. You don't need to have tested there to register. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Billie Walsh > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 8:12 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] The view from the outside looking in. > > On 12/05/2010 01:19 AM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote: > > SMGF (the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation) is a non-profit > > organization backed, at least in part, by philanthropic donations. It > > was never the intention of the foundation to make a profit. But it's > > a fact of life that you do "get what you pay for," and most > > genealogists find the limitations of being tested at SMGF unworkable. > > Hence the market for commercial DNA testing, despite the fact that someone's giving it > away (or at least was). > > > > I know I said I wouldn't bore you with the details but.......... > > About fifteen years ago the Church of Latter Day Saints put out a call for subjects to > donate a blood sample and at least a five generation tree. It was an experimental project > to gather subjects for DNA genealogical research. There was no promise of the results > ever being made available. Sorenson was the lab that did the work. [ I think they are > connected to the LDS in some way, but that's just my opinion ] A few years ago I saw that > Sorenson was in the "business" of doing testing so I contacted them. At that time they > weren't releasing any of the original subjects results. Every so often I would get an email > about their services because I had gotten in their mail database. Then about a year or so > ago I got an email that for just a few dollars I could "buy" > my mtdna results. I figured what the heck, why not. Several months later I got the e-mail > that said they would "sell" me my Y results for a few more dollars. Best I can recall I got a > 37 YDNA and my mtdna results for about fifty dollars total. With the possibility that they > "might" give more findings in the future, probably for a small sum of course. This also > included a membership in Sorensons website, Genetree. > > My original intention when I made my "donation" was not so much to get my results as to > further the science of DNA genealogical research in it's infancy. The fact that I did get > my results was more of a bonus than anything else. >

I don't think it matters what his motives were, it's the result that matters. He has monopolized a major surname -- one that is in horrific need of research and revisions -- and is doing absolutely nothing with the results. Worse, yet, he's making it difficult for anyone else to accomplish anything. He could at least subgroup the members by haplogroup. He hasn't even turned on the mapping feature. If someone just wants to be a "figurehead" taking tickets at the door, they should pass their project on to someone with a desire to do more. This is a common surname, and according to FTDNA, as of now, 890 people with this surname have been tested. If you check the surname project, only 465 have joined it. Where can I view these other results? This is not only unfair to researchers of this surname, it has to be a drag on FTDNA's business. If I were a novice to DNA testing and came to FTDNA looking at what I could do by testing this surname, I would go away thinking it wasn't worth the expense. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Martha H. Bowes > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:42 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] keeping projects updated > > Perhaps as administrator of that project his goal is simply to make a discount available > to people from his large surname group, then letting them do what they want with the > results and matches. As has been pointed out, anyone can set up any group for almost > any purpose. Maybe he or she is not interested in a surname study the way many of us > think of it. Just a hypothesis in the context of the notion that people may set up projects > for all different reasons. > > Martha Bowes > > > On Dec 7, 2010, at 1:01 AM, y-dna-projects-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > > There's a major project on FTDNA (one of the top ten surnames in the > > US in terms of frequency), who does not subgroup his members, at all, even by > haplogroup. > > He only subgroups a member if *the member* tells him what group he > > belongs in or that a group needs to be created. How's that for a "passive" management > style?! > > > > Diana > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject > and the body of the message

The RootsWeb mailing lists were acquired by Ancestry when they bought RootsWeb, but AFAIK they still remain managed by RootsWeb. So, even though Ancestry has put its stamp on them: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ the old index page still exists, as does the old staff and listadmins: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/index.html It's my understanding that the lists still reside on the RootsWeb servers in California, but that may have changed. Ancestry Trees are simply WorldConnect with Ancestry's interface on the database. I presume if you remove your file from WorldConnect, it will disappear from Ancestry Trees. Has anyone tried it? You are treading onto a touchy subject when you start congratulating Ancestry for the RootsWeb mailing lists and for WorldConnect. RootsWeb was built by volunteers -- who for years donated their labor, money, and data -- to what was promised to be a non-profit organization: The "RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative." For years, the owner of RootsWeb said he was working on incorporating RootsWeb as a 501(c)(3), non-profit organization. When he finally did incorporate, he did so as a *for-profit* corporation, a betrayal that many dedicated RootsWeb donors took very hard, then doubly hard when he then turned around and sold RootsWeb to Ancestry. Even though this all happened over a decade ago, it still makes my blood boil, so... I am declaring this subject OFF TOPIC. Do not respond to this message or pursue the topic further. It's past history, but sometimes if you don't know the history, you don't really see the present for what it is. Diana Y-DNA-PROJECTS Listadmin > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of RT > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:49 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Norton AntiSpam]Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Y-DNA-PROJECTS Provider comparison -- > was joinauthorization > > "Is there any way to see Ancestry's so called 'public trees' without being a subscriber or > pestering the owner for an invitation?" > No. In this context, 'public' means available to anyone as long as they have an > Ancestry.com subscription. > > Re someone's comment about Ancestry stealing trees from another site, I wonder if that > referred to the fact that trees posted at Rootsweb Worldconnect show up within > Ancestry.com? That's to be expected, it is one of the two prices paid for Worldconnect > hosting one's family tree for free. Ancestry also sponsors hundreds (thousands?) of free > mailing lists like this one, which similarly show up within Ancestry.com. (The other > price paid for a free Worldconnect tree is that ads are displayed on the pages of the tree. > But with FireFox, NoScript, & Adblock Plus, I don't even see the ads.) I do appreciate the > fact that Ancestry.com provides those services gratis. Of course I expect that they view > it as an investment. (It's called Capitalism...) > > For those who WANT their family trees to be hidden from the general public, > Ancestry.com is a great place for hosting a tree; photos etc can be attached to > individuals, and many other features are available. On the other hand, for people who > like me feel that genealogical research should be shared, putting one's tree behind > Ancestry.com's wall makes little sense. Beyond the issue of public visibility, one of the > main problems with having Ancestry.com host your online tree is that once you start, > you tend to be locked in to paying a subscription fee forever -exactly as Ancestry.com > desires. What happens when you stop paying? Moving data maintained there to other > programs seems to often cause problems (apparently Ancestry.com trees as well as their > consumer genealogy program, Family Tree Maker, export gedcoms in non-standard > format), and the majority of users probably do not even know that it can be moved. > > I am a huge fan of the system available to host trees for free at Ancestry's Rootsweb > Worldconnect, at least for those who are OK with displaying the basic info with no frills. > If you have a 23andMe account you can see a long discussion I started about how to post > your tree at Worldconnect, and some of the reasons that keeping a tree behind > Ancestry.com's wall is less constructive: > https://www.23andme.com/you/community/thread/3619/ > > Rootsweb Worldconnect allows you to suppress details of living persons born after any > year you choose. You can decide whether your notes and sources will be visible. (Mine > are not visible, since they contain my sources' personal contact info.) It is EASY to > update. In contrast to ancestry.com trees, Rootsweb Worldconnect trees are indexed by > search engines such as Google. If someone searches for a specific name, there is a good > chance they will find your tree. I've had many relatives (who I didn't know existed) find > my Rootsweb tree via google search & contact me. The presentation allows the viewer to > decide whether to view an individual's details (group sheet view), descendants, > ahnentafel format, etc, or to look for other possible connections in your tree. > > Here's where to start, assuming your data is already maintained within a program that > can export your data in the form of a gedcom file) (-and Ancestry.com trees are able to > do that): > http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > Richard Thrift >

I agree. I use WorldConnect *a lot*. It's become large enough that it's a valuable resource, with an excellent search engine -- probably the best of it's type online. And I believe you can remove your files anytime you want. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of dnalister@comcast.net > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:32 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Worldconnect Re: Y-DNA-PROJECTS Provider comparison -- > wasjoinauthorization > > Worldconnect is part of Rootsweb and is sponsored by Ancestry, but it is easy for > anyone to access Worldconnect trees. So for anyone wanting to share a tree, it's a very > good option. > > Kirsten >

Worldconnect is part of Rootsweb and is sponsored by Ancestry, but it is easy for anyone to access Worldconnect trees. So for anyone wanting to share a tree, it's a very good option. Kirsten

One thing to consider... Which of these databases allows you to delete your account, your data, and your GEDCOM? Both Ysearch and mitoSearch allow you to delete your entries. FTDNA allows you to delete your GEDCOM and drop out of projects, which would stop any public display of either. I suppose you could rescind your Release to share results, though I've never tried it. I entered my mtDNA and my father's Y-DNA into Ancestry, so I could join projects there, and now I find I can't delete them. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Debbie Kennett > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 6:57 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Y-DNA-PROJECTS Provider comparison -- was > joinauthorization > > Rebecca > > If people want to see your tree on Ancestry they will have to set up an Ancestry account. > They can set up a free account without having to subscribe to Ancestry. > > Another possibility you might like to consider is MyHeritage: > > http://www.myheritage.com > > You can export the Gedcom from Ancestry and upload it to MyHeritage. The free > accounts do however limit you to 250 people in your tree. > > www.Geni.com also have a nice tree-building service, but you need to make sure you > upload a Gedcom when you create the account. Also if you expand your tree there you > can't download the Gedcom unless you have a paid Pro account. > > Debbie Kennett > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject > and the body of the message

No!!! They want me to subscribe to view it. I would be interested to know if you gave your tree to Ancestry yourself or whether they grabbed it from another site as happened to a cousin of mine. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Debbie Kennett" <debbiekennett@aol.com> To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Y-DNA-PROJECTS Provider comparison -- wasjoinauthorization > Rebecca > > I thought I was able to view trees before I had an Ancestry subscription. > Can you see my tree here? > > http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/21521180 > > Debbie > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Re: I would not dream of waiting for results to "accumulate" before I updated the project web site. The changes in our Y-results table that "accumulate" are NOT the results; those DO get posted immediately. What changes accumulate (for a few days) relate to the organization of the results -- sorting into matching groups ("lineages"), color coding, etc. These tasks take a little more effort than posting raw numbers. For a large project (We now have 400 members.), comparing new results to existing ones takes time & care. It isn't always readily apparent where or whether the newbie fits. He may match one of the existing 40+ groups or another ungrouped member (thus making a new group) or no one in the project. -ralpht_/)

Rebecca I thought I was able to view trees before I had an Ancestry subscription. Can you see my tree here? http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/21521180 Debbie

Rebecca If people want to see your tree on Ancestry they will have to set up an Ancestry account. They can set up a free account without having to subscribe to Ancestry. Another possibility you might like to consider is MyHeritage: http://www.myheritage.com You can export the Gedcom from Ancestry and upload it to MyHeritage. The free accounts do however limit you to 250 people in your tree. www.Geni.com also have a nice tree-building service, but you need to make sure you upload a Gedcom when you create the account. Also if you expand your tree there you can't download the Gedcom unless you have a paid Pro account. Debbie Kennett

No...the link takes me straight to the subscription page, with an option for a 14day free trial. I am signed in. Rebecca -----Original Message----- From: Debbie Kennett <debbiekennett@aol.com> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:53 pm Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Y-DNA-PROJECTS Provider comparison -- was joinauthorization Rebecca I thought I was able to view trees before I had an Ancestry subscription. Can you see my tree here? http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/21521180 Debbie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Richard Many thanks for updating the ISOGG Wiki. I find the whole Ancestry DNA system very difficult to navigate. I'd previously added my dad's FTDNA results to my Ancestry account. Last week I tried to update my account to add my mtDNA results from FTDNA but could find no way of doing so. However, I set up a second free "Registered Guest" account using my Googlemail address and was then able to input my mtDNA results. The ISOGG Y-DNA comparison chart is now somewhat out of date, and really needs revising. There is another useful comparison chart which provides a list of project management features from the perspective of an administrator: http://www.isogg.org/features.htm Debbie Kennett

Perhaps as administrator of that project his goal is simply to make a discount available to people from his large surname group, then letting them do what they want with the results and matches. As has been pointed out, anyone can set up any group for almost any purpose. Maybe he or she is not interested in a surname study the way many of us think of it. Just a hypothesis in the context of the notion that people may set up projects for all different reasons. Martha Bowes On Dec 7, 2010, at 1:01 AM, y-dna-projects-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > There's a major project on FTDNA (one of the top ten surnames in the US in terms > of frequency), who does not subgroup his members, at all, even by haplogroup. > He only subgroups a member if *the member* tells him what group he belongs in or > that a group needs to be created. How's that for a "passive" management style?! > > Diana

"Is there any way to see Ancestry's so called 'public trees' without being a subscriber or pestering the owner for an invitation?" No. In this context, 'public' means available to anyone as long as they have an Ancestry.com subscription. Re someone's comment about Ancestry stealing trees from another site, I wonder if that referred to the fact that trees posted at Rootsweb Worldconnect show up within Ancestry.com? That's to be expected, it is one of the two prices paid for Worldconnect hosting one's family tree for free. Ancestry also sponsors hundreds (thousands?) of free mailing lists like this one, which similarly show up within Ancestry.com. (The other price paid for a free Worldconnect tree is that ads are displayed on the pages of the tree. But with FireFox, NoScript, & Adblock Plus, I don't even see the ads.) I do appreciate the fact that Ancestry.com provides those services gratis. Of course I expect that they view it as an investment. (It's called Capitalism...) For those who WANT their family trees to be hidden from the general public, Ancestry.com is a great place for hosting a tree; photos etc can be attached to individuals, and many other features are available. On the other hand, for people who like me feel that genealogical research should be shared, putting one's tree behind Ancestry.com's wall makes little sense. Beyond the issue of public visibility, one of the main problems with having Ancestry.com host your online tree is that once you start, you tend to be locked in to paying a subscription fee forever -exactly as Ancestry.com desires. What happens when you stop paying? Moving data maintained there to other programs seems to often cause problems (apparently Ancestry.com trees as well as their consumer genealogy program, Family Tree Maker, export gedcoms in non-standard format), and the majority of users probably do not even know that it can be moved. I am a huge fan of the system available to host trees for free at Ancestry's Rootsweb Worldconnect, at least for those who are OK with displaying the basic info with no frills. If you have a 23andMe account you can see a long discussion I started about how to post your tree at Worldconnect, and some of the reasons that keeping a tree behind Ancestry.com's wall is less constructive: https://www.23andme.com/you/community/thread/3619/ Rootsweb Worldconnect allows you to suppress details of living persons born after any year you choose. You can decide whether your notes and sources will be visible. (Mine are not visible, since they contain my sources' personal contact info.) It is EASY to update. In contrast to ancestry.com trees, Rootsweb Worldconnect trees are indexed by search engines such as Google. If someone searches for a specific name, there is a good chance they will find your tree. I've had many relatives (who I didn't know existed) find my Rootsweb tree via google search & contact me. The presentation allows the viewer to decide whether to view an individual's details (group sheet view), descendants, ahnentafel format, etc, or to look for other possible connections in your tree. Here's where to start, assuming your data is already maintained within a program that can export your data in the form of a gedcom file) (-and Ancestry.com trees are able to do that): http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ Richard Thrift ---- Rebecca <rbccstrr@aol.co.uk> wrote: Is there any way to see Ancestry's so called 'public trees' without being a subscriber or pestering the owner for an invitation? I set up a tree at Ancestry with the idea that others could freely access it, but they cannot.

I have a free guest account at Ancestry and have done for years, yet when I click on an Ancestry 'public tree' link, I always get taken to the subscription page. What am I doing wrong? -----Original Message----- From: Debbie Kennett <debbiekennett@aol.com> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:57 am Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Y-DNA-PROJECTS Provider comparison -- was joinauthorization Rebecca If people want to see your tree on Ancestry they will have to set up an Ancestry account. They can set up a free account without having to subscribe to Ancestry. Another possibility you might like to consider is MyHeritage: http://www.myheritage.com You can export the Gedcom from Ancestry and upload it to MyHeritage. The free accounts do however limit you to 250 people in your tree. www.Geni.com also have a nice tree-building service, but you need to make sure you upload a Gedcom when you create the account. Also if you expand your tree there you can't download the Gedcom unless you have a paid Pro account. Debbie Kennett ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Is there any way to see Ancestry's so called 'public trees' without being a subscriber or pestering the owner for an invitation? I set up a tree at Ancestry with the idea that others could freely access it, but they cannot. -----Original Message----- From: RT <rtx@cox.net> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:53 am Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Y-DNA-PROJECTS Provider comparison -- was joinauthorization Debbie, Ralph, AND Charles, I appreciate all the info on the comparison. Of course the killer is the advantage 67 markers has over "46" markers. My own line would be hard to distinguish from WAMH at ancestry.com. (I'm not sure the provider comparison at the ISOGG wiki presents a dismal enough picture of Ancestry.com's service for newcomers who may not know any better.) One point that is not common knowledge: For access to the Ancestry.com database, a free Ancestry.com "Registered Guest" account suffices. Paid or subscription accounts, at either Ancestry.com or myfamily.com, are NOT required. So FTDNA customers, as has been pointed out, may benefit by searching for matches at ancestry.com -but THIS MAY BE DONE FOR FREE. In fact I have set up a group there, with having only the "Registered Guest" status. I have had a "Registered Guest" account for years, so I know it can be done, but when I wanted to describe how to obtain one, I could not find ANY mention of it at Ancestry.com, even by doing a google site search for the term. I also had a hard time (but not nearly so hard) finding the link to manually enter a DNA haplotype into their database. I've edited the article Debbie mentioned, http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Ancestry.com_DNA , so the links are shown explicitly there. Richard Thrift ---- Debbie Kennett <debbiekennett@aol.com> wrote: I fully agree with Ralph's comments on the advantages of FTDNA vs. Ancestry. There are many additional benefits at FTDNA which Ralph hasn't covered. First and foremost is the ability to upgrade and order additional markers. Currently a 67-marker test is available which is essential for deciding whether or not a match with another surname is meaningful. Some time next year additional markers will be available bringing the total up to over 100 markers. The reporting of micro alleles (eg, 13.3, 14.2) will also further help to refine matches. Micro-alleles will be introduced when the FTDNA database is upgraded in line with the NIST guidelines next spring. I don't believe Ancestry even report micro-alleles.... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

There's a major project on FTDNA (one of the top ten surnames in the US in terms of frequency), who does not subgroup his members, at all, even by haplogroup. He only subgroups a member if *the member* tells him what group he belongs in or that a group needs to be created. How's that for a "passive" management style?! Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of RT > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:53 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] keeping projects updated > > Of course one huge irritant regarding 'poorly managed projects' is that results appearing > in the FTDNA Results page which clearly belong in one of the already-established > categories may not be moved there for months, or ever > > Richard Thrift >

We are mainly talking about the Y-DNA results table. After having had six years to edit and revise the "background," etc. sections of my project web sites, they seldom need revision. I do keep the "News" section up to date, which lets people know the "as of" date, that is, the last time the site was updated with new results and whether or not there are any new results still pending. For projects using the web site provided by FTDNA, the update of results is automatic, without intervention from the listadmin. The results appear as soon as they return, which is just one reason I suggest all project admins make the FTDNA site visible, even if they have a second project web site elsewhere. That way, someone anxiously awaiting results still gets them ASAP -- even if you have an unexpected absence, such as a family emergency. The results at WFN are not updated automatically; the admin must initiate the update. In the case of the project I was using as an example, the WFN results table went over three months without being updated, when in fact at least three new members had results return during that period -- I knew because they were in contact with me. There are any number of reasons why an admin needs to update their results tables immediately (certainly within 24 hours) of their return. One is that your project members are footing the bill, and they have a right to see results displayed expeditiously. I would not dream of waiting for results to "accumulate" before I updated the project web site. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Taylor > Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:21 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Y-DNA-PROJECTS The view from the outside looking in > > Or, is the topic now "from the inside looking out"? > > Diana raised good points when she wrote, in part "If a project web page has not been > updated since last March, the question is: Has it not been updated because there are no > new members or results (i.e., nothing to add)? Or has the project admin really been > remiss in updating the site? ... > > "With the financial collapse of 2008, I had a *profound* drop in the number of new > members, in all six of my projects, and I'm still not getting new members in anything > like the number I was getting before September '08. Is it possible there's nothing to > update?" > > For project websites at FTDNA, the site consists of several pages. Some of those pages > (project goals, etc.) needn't be changed frequently. But, perhaps, we're talking about the > "Y-results" page; that should be updated either (1) when there are results to add or (2) > groups to revise. Most won't revise the page daily; they'll let a few changes accumulate. > > Our project, too, has seen a falling-off of new members, especially since July. We've > been stuck at the same number of total members for months. I do think it's an economy > thing. Perhaps, the "Holiday Sale" prices will help; hope so. In the meantime, some > upgrades & matches are coming through & we'll have to update our Y-results soon. > > > -ralpht_/) > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject > and the body of the message