It's worth doing the 1851 census as that would give you a more accurate picture of the surname's distribution than the 1881. You would need to use Griffiths' Valuation maps for the distribution in Ireland. There's a very useful piece of software called GenMap that enables you to compile your own maps based on your own data inputs (eg, Ancestry census indexes): http://www.archersoftware.co.uk/genmap01.htm You might find this website of interest: http://www.mapyourname.com Dynastree is also an interesting mapping website based on telephone directory information and has data for lots of European countries: www.dynastree.co.uk/maps Howard Mathieson has links to some colourful and interesting surname distribution maps on his website which might give you a few ideas: http://www.members.shaw.ca/geogenealogy/pages/surname%20distributions.htm Debbie Kennett

> Have you tried doing a similar mapping exercise using the birthplaces given in the British censuses to see if there is a correlation? Thanks Debbie, I have looked at the maps produced by Great Britain Family Names Profiling website http://gbnames.publicprofiler.org/ and based on the 1881 census there appears to be correlation by shire but I have only a vague idea how to quantify it. I may give the 1851 census a spin as that would less daunting with 600 fewer hosueholds to deal with :)

We don't really know the answer to questions such as this because the research has not yet been done. You can be sure however that all those emigrants were not thinking of future generations and that they did not make a conscious effort to ensure that a representative from each known lineage emigrated to America. If you had 20 lineages in the British Isles in the 1600s you might well find that two or three of those lineages are represented in disproportionate numbers in America because people from the same area who were more likely to be related would have emigrated together. Brothers, cousins and neighbours would all travel together or follow each other out there. Some lineages will have died out and others will not have any descendants at all in America but might still have descendants in the British Isles or in Australia or New Zealand. Disproportionate numbers of people from Scotland and Ireland went to America because of the Highland Clearances and the Potato Famine, so it might well be that America is a better proxy for Scottish and Irish lineages than it is for English surnames. Have you tried doing a similar mapping exercise using the birthplaces given in the British censuses to see if there is a correlation? Debbie Kennett

Debbie wrote: "Only a small subset of the population of any given surname emigrated to America." I have been wondering if that small subset is more like X% of the families emigrating or X% of each family emigrating. I lean towards the latter in the case of the Fergus(s)on because when you look at the distribution of our earliest known ancestors in the UK they pretty much blankets Scotland and Northern Ireland where our name originates; see http://dna.cfsna.net/UK.htm

Hi Ralph, Thanks, I am delighted to see a critical examination of sample size. I also prefer "taking action to affect (i.e., bias) the outcome in the desired way". For example, in the Fergus(s)on project we work hard to recruit Scottish and Irish participants in an attempt to reduce the US bias others alluded to. We have had some success as about 10% of our participants reside in Scotland or Ireland. As I read your paper I realized that I think of G=Groups as the number of found lines and S=Singletons as those waiting to be found or discovered to be NPE. Cheers, Colin

Ralph Many thanks for sharing your interesting paper. One of the big difficulties in any surname project is overcoming the inherent US bias in the data. From anecdotal evidence and my own observations, it would appear that many surnames in the US have been the subject of founder effects with one emigrant ancestor often accounting for thousands of living descendants. In contrast the lines in the British Isles are often on the verge of extinction, sometimes with only a handful of living descendants. If therefore you have one line in America with 2000 living males and five lines in England, each of which have only two descendants, if you take a random sample, you are highly unlikely even ro sample anyone from the English lines. The problem is compounded because Americans are much more likely to pay for a DNA test. In practice, what this means is that Americans who take a DNA test are much more likely to have a match than their counterparts in the British Isles. In my own project I actually do all the documentary research and I am then able to target descendants of specific lines for testing. This approach is however not possible for high-frequency surnames. I'm not sure what the answer is but it seems clear that a much higher level of sampling will be required in the European country of origin than in the US. Unfortunately, most surname projects are currently skewed the other way, with a surfeit of testees from the US. I just have a few minor corrections for you in your paper. There seems to be a certain amount of confusion with the concepts of Britain and the United Kingdom which is understandable as the terms are often used interchangeably. Great Britain actually consists of England, Wales and Scotland. The United Kingdom is made up of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The figures you quote for the 20 most frequent surnames in the United Kingdom are in fact the 20 most frequent surnames in England and Wales as the data have been extracted from this website: http://www.taliesin-arlein.net/names/search.php You might find data for Scotland on the Scotland's People's website. I'm not sure where to look for similar data for Northern Ireland. Similarly the figure you quote of c.59,000,000 for the 2001 population of Britain is in fact the figure for the population of the United Kingdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Census_2001 When looking at historical data I find it's usually easier to avoid any references to the United Kingdom altogether and focus on the individual countries. There are some useful population statistics on the Gendocs website which you might find interesting: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/hitch/gendocs/pop.html Debbie Kennett

Colin asked {paraphrasing & interpreting here} how large a sample size is adequate for the Ferguson Y-DNA project. Diana answered from a scientist's perspective: ".. I go into this kind of research with no expectations, and just let the data tell me the story." and went on to other aspects. I have a different perspective -- that of a manager, who's not comfortable "letting the chips fall where they may" and prefers taking action to affect (i.e., bias) the outcome in the desired way. I am a researcher only to the extent it's needed to answer a specific problem; when that is dealt with, I go on to different problem. Recognizing that one may never have all the information desirable, I'm less interested in "absolute proof" than in what can & should be done; I'm more prone to define problems than to construct hypotheses. Whichever perspective we look at the question from, we need to define what "adequate sample size" means in this instance. Does it mean (1) that we've identified a certain fraction of Y-DNA haplotypes for the target population? Or, (2) that we reach a certain probability of new participants matching existing participants? If we define it the second way, this happens to be a question to which I've devoted a fair amount of effort and developed a possible answer. It is somewhat complex and requires graphics and mathematics, so the list is not an appropriate medium for full discussion. (E-mail me for a Word version, or view the rough draft of the HTML version at http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~taylorydna/resources/size-vs-un matched.htm.) However, the brief essence of the matter is: - The probability of a random new participant matching existing participants depends on the ratio of the lines found within the project to the total number of ancestral lines for the project's target population. For short, I call this the "F/A ratio". The probability is Prob(match) = F/A (BTW, the F/A ratio could also be considered an index of "survey completeness" for the first definition.) "Found lines" (F, the numerator of the fraction) is a simple calculation; add up the number of groups (with matching Y-DNA, symbolized by G) and the number of unmatched singletons (symbolized by S): F = G + S If I have Colin's data correct, he has 20 groups and 250 participants total. G = 20, S <= 210; therefore, F <= 230. "Ancestral lines" (A, the denominator) is a more difficult number to determine and -- in many cases -- requires a variety of estimation methods. It may be particularly difficult for a clan surname such as Ferguson, as opposed to an occupational surname. Colin seems to have done an admirable amount of investigation into the Ferguson surname. This may establish, at least, upper & lower limits for A. (If one can't arrive at exact numbers, knowing the possible range is better than nothing.) To sum up: Yes, Colin, I believe you're on -- or close to -- the right track. -ralpht_/) Message: 1 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:50:07 -0700 From: Colin Ferguson <colin.fergie@gmail.com> Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Sample Size To: Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <AANLkTim+6dQ05oX4PcnHk27+-SR2xZeTLX0gAh4oby0H@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I estimate that there are 300,000 Ferguson and variants worldwide with slightly more than half of these resident in the US. We only have 250 participants in project which with 150,000 men to sample seems ridiculously small. However, I estimate further that back about 1600 there were only 5,000 Ferguson and 80% of these were in Scotland. If you assume that an average household of 5 then that equates to 1,000 heads of household as progenitors of all 300,000 Ferguson alive today. See http://dna.cfsna.net/Demographics.htm One number in particular that I struggle to estimate is how many of those 1,000 heads of household would we call related to one another. If that number is one in five then then I am down to only 200 earliest known ancestors that need be tested to characterize today's population of Ferguson. A reasonable sample size at least seems attainable. In our project we have about 20 different groupings of Ferguson each sharing their own ancestor about 800 years ago; 400 years the time back from present to our 1600s progenitors and another 400 years as a TMRCA for the 1600s progenitors accounting for the one in five as above. The 20 different groups referred to account for about half our participants, the remainder fall in small groups or don't match other participants. Relative to 200 earliest known ancestors our sample size is still small but at least not ridiculously so. Am I on track? ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:45:33 -0400 From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Sample Size To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <005c01cb5120$bb7966d0$326c3470$@dgmweb.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" There are so many factors that can affect how many progenitors any given surname has, it's difficult to predict how many there will actually turn out to be. Personally, I go into this kind of research with no expectations, and just let the data tell me the story. It's a patience I've learned, I guess, from being a scientist (now retired). Having expectations can lead to bias, and trying to make interpretations from too little data is futile, so I've learned to suppress the inclination to do either. I know that's not an exciting answer, but the lesson learned by every grad student is that it takes more data than you ever thought to really prove something. There is also a sampling issue here that is important for us: until your rarest group is represented by at least three individuals, there is a high probability that you have not found all groups. Now, the assumption here is that you are sampling a population randomly, which a surname project may not be doing. That is, I have no idea whether the FERGUSONs being tested are a random sample of FERGUSONs, or not. But, I think it's safe to say (and setting aside the issue of NPEs): As long as you have any FERGUSONs in your project who have no match, you can assume you have not, possibly remotely not, tested all the lineages. Rather than just sitting back and waiting for enough FERGUSONs to randomly join the project, one thing you can do to speed progress is to make a list of known FERGUSON immigrants to the U.S., then make it your goal to find and test at least one patrilineal descendant of each. The next goal would be to test a second one, to be certain the first doesn't have an NPE -- and if the first two don't match, to test a third, for the same reason. Of course, you would love to test FERGUSONs in Scotland, but if you're having as much trouble as I am bringing Europeans into your project, that's not really an option. Hope this helps, Diana

Colin You should get in touch with Ron Ferguson who has recently registered the surname FERGUSON with the Guild of One-Name Studies. He might be able to give you a better idea of the distribution of the surname in the UK. You can see his profile page here: http://www.one-name.org/profiles/ferguson.html If all your project members are in the US then you will not have a representative sample of Fergusons in your project. Only a small subset of the population of any given surname emigrated to America. The ones who did go to America were often very successful with very large families and literally thousands of descendants. Your American project members will therefore greatly distort the picture for your surname, and you will only be capturing a small snapshot of the true genetic diversity of the surname. You will need to focus your recruiting efforts on the UK, Australia and New Zealand. If you've got 20 main genetic groups in the US you might well find that you will have 200 or more groups if you were to test large numbers of non-US Fergusons. You might also find the article by Chris Pomery in the autumn/fall 2009 issue of the Journal of Genetic Genealogy of interest: http://www.jogg.info/52/index.html The techniques he describe will not be applicable to a surname of your size, but you might be able to extrapolate from his figures. Debbie Kennett http://www.familytreedna.com/public/CruwysDNA In a message dated 10/09/2010 16:50:20 GMT Daylight Time, colin.fergie@gmail.com writes: I estimate that there are 300,000 Ferguson and variants worldwide with slightly more than half of these resident in the US. We only have 250 participants in project which with 150,000 men to sample seems ridiculously small. However, I estimate further that back about 1600 there were only 5,000 Ferguson and 80% of these were in Scotland. If you assume that an average household of 5 then that equates to 1,000 heads of household as progenitors of all 300,000 Ferguson alive today. See http://dna.cfsna.net/Demographics.htm One number in particular that I struggle to estimate is how many of those 1,000 heads of household would we call related to one another. If that number is one in five then then I am down to only 200 earliest known ancestors that need be tested to characterize today's population of Ferguson. A reasonable sample size at least seems attainable. In our project we have about 20 different groupings of Ferguson each sharing their own ancestor about 800 years ago; 400 years the time back from present to our 1600s progenitors and another 400 years as a TMRCA for the 1600s progenitors accounting for the one in five as above. The 20 different groups referred to account for about half our participants, the remainder fall in small groups or don't match other participants. Relative to 200 earliest known ancestors our sample size is still small but at least not ridiculously so. Am I on track?

There are so many factors that can affect how many progenitors any given surname has, it's difficult to predict how many there will actually turn out to be. Personally, I go into this kind of research with no expectations, and just let the data tell me the story. It's a patience I've learned, I guess, from being a scientist (now retired). Having expectations can lead to bias, and trying to make interpretations from too little data is futile, so I've learned to suppress the inclination to do either. I know that's not an exciting answer, but the lesson learned by every grad student is that it takes more data than you ever thought to really prove something. There is also a sampling issue here that is important for us: until your rarest group is represented by at least three individuals, there is a high probability that you have not found all groups. Now, the assumption here is that you are sampling a population randomly, which a surname project may not be doing. That is, I have no idea whether the FERGUSONs being tested are a random sample of FERGUSONs, or not. But, I think it's safe to say (and setting aside the issue of NPEs): As long as you have any FERGUSONs in your project who have no match, you can assume you have not, possibly remotely not, tested all the lineages. Rather than just sitting back and waiting for enough FERGUSONs to randomly join the project, one thing you can do to speed progress is to make a list of known FERGUSON immigrants to the U.S., then make it your goal to find and test at least one patrilineal descendant of each. The next goal would be to test a second one, to be certain the first doesn't have an NPE -- and if the first two don't match, to test a third, for the same reason. Of course, you would love to test FERGUSONs in Scotland, but if you're having as much trouble as I am bringing Europeans into your project, that's not really an option. Hope this helps, Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Colin Ferguson > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 11:50 AM > To: Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Sample Size > > I estimate that there are 300,000 Ferguson and variants worldwide with slightly more > than half of these resident in the US. We only have 250 participants in project which > with 150,000 men to sample seems ridiculously small. However, I estimate further > that back about 1600 there were only 5,000 Ferguson and 80% of these were in > Scotland. If you assume that an average household of 5 then that equates to 1,000 > heads of household as progenitors of all 300,000 Ferguson alive today. > See http://dna.cfsna.net/Demographics.htm > > One number in particular that I struggle to estimate is how many of those 1,000 > heads of household would we call related to one another. > If that number is one in five then then I am down to only 200 earliest known > ancestors that need be tested to characterize today's population of Ferguson. A > reasonable sample size at least seems attainable. > > In our project we have about 20 different groupings of Ferguson each sharing their > own ancestor about 800 years ago; 400 years the time back from present to our > 1600s progenitors and another 400 years as a TMRCA for the 1600s progenitors > accounting for the one in five as above. The 20 different groups referred to account > for about half our participants, the remainder fall in small groups or don't match > other participants. Relative to 200 earliest known ancestors our sample size is still > small but at least not ridiculously so. > > Am I on track? > > ------------------------------- > 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

I estimate that there are 300,000 Ferguson and variants worldwide with slightly more than half of these resident in the US. We only have 250 participants in project which with 150,000 men to sample seems ridiculously small. However, I estimate further that back about 1600 there were only 5,000 Ferguson and 80% of these were in Scotland. If you assume that an average household of 5 then that equates to 1,000 heads of household as progenitors of all 300,000 Ferguson alive today. See http://dna.cfsna.net/Demographics.htm One number in particular that I struggle to estimate is how many of those 1,000 heads of household would we call related to one another. If that number is one in five then then I am down to only 200 earliest known ancestors that need be tested to characterize today's population of Ferguson. A reasonable sample size at least seems attainable. In our project we have about 20 different groupings of Ferguson each sharing their own ancestor about 800 years ago; 400 years the time back from present to our 1600s progenitors and another 400 years as a TMRCA for the 1600s progenitors accounting for the one in five as above. The 20 different groups referred to account for about half our participants, the remainder fall in small groups or don't match other participants. Relative to 200 earliest known ancestors our sample size is still small but at least not ridiculously so. Am I on track?

Might any of you administrate or know of a yDNA surname project that is formally structured as a charitable educational charity in the US? Also, I'd welcome comments about donations to sponsor worthy, eligible participants who are not known or suspected to be closely related to the a giver? The approaches used to solicited donations? Does your project have a formal committee structure to set the policy for using such donations or do you as administrator make all the decisions? I'd especially welcome comments from those with significant US as well as European, especially Irish or Celtic Clan, participants. Thanks in advance. Jim O'Mahony Surname DNA Project Administrator

I have sent quite a few reports in on GAP 2.0. They have a long way to go before it is ready, I have a Y haplo project and at the moment only 60% of members show on Y list, some pages don't open and they have two pages that haven't opened to testing yet. have you had a look at the known problems list. link in info top right bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] feedback on new GAP 2.0 beta > Yes, Monday is "Labor Day" in the U.S., so most people have a three-day > weekend. > It's the traditional end of the summer vacations, here, and most grade > school > children return to school on Tuesday. > > Diana > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- >> bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Debbie Kennett >> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 10:36 AM >> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com; Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] feedback on new GAP 2.0 beta >> >> Hi Margaret >> >> I don't think there's a limit on giving feedback. FTDNA responded to my > feedback >> within a couple of days. I couldn't get the members' information pages to > display for >> some of my projects. The problem only affected non-American admins as it >> was >> related to the American English style of displaying the month before the >> day. > The >> problem has now been fixed but I understand that the dates are still >> causing a > few >> problems with some of the reports. >> >> I believe it's a holiday in America this weekend so it might take longer >> to > get a reply. >> >> I agree with Diana's comments on the problems for geographical project >> admins > who >> collect both Y-DNA and mtDNA results. Perhaps if enough of us raise this >> issue > they >> will address it as a matter of priority. >> >> 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 -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 4787 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message

Hi Margaret I don't think there's a limit on giving feedback. FTDNA responded to my feedback within a couple of days. I couldn't get the members' information pages to display for some of my projects. The problem only affected non-American admins as it was related to the American English style of displaying the month before the day. The problem has now been fixed but I understand that the dates are still causing a few problems with some of the reports. I believe it's a holiday in America this weekend so it might take longer to get a reply. I agree with Diana's comments on the problems for geographical project admins who collect both Y-DNA and mtDNA results. Perhaps if enough of us raise this issue they will address it as a matter of priority. Debbie Kennett

Hi Diana, How long do we have to give feedback? I have sent three emails to Family Tree DNA regarding problems. I am waiting for a reply to my last one. If you are a project administrator, check to see that your name and email address are displayed properly on your public webpage at Family Tree DNA. On one of the projects I administrate, there is now no name listed on the public webpage just an email address. So, we have no administrator's name or co-administrator's name or email address. Family Tree DNA had a problem in recent years with making changes to administration in projects due, I think, to software configurations and this seems to have come back to bite them. Regards, Margaret Jordan On 04/09/2010 14:49, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote: > If you are a project admin and you have not tried out the new GAP, you may want > to do so because we have a limited amount of time to supply feedback. I just > sent this message to FTDNA: > > ============================================= > > I have always kept an Excel spreadsheet to manage my projects; and, in my > regional project, I have kept separate worksheets for Y-DNA and mtDNA results. > The ability to get a Paternal Ancestry list and a Maternal Ancestry list should > be a great help -- or would be, except... > > Everyone is included on both lists, even people who should not be displayed (who > are not eligible on that side of their ancestry). Please SUPRESS the names of > people who shouldn't be displayed from the Paternal Ancestry or Maternal > Ancestry list. Otherwise, I don't find these lists any more useful than the > old, single list. In fact less so, for another reason... > > I used to be able to tell who was and was not eligible from the membership > roster -- if necessary, by checking the person's Notes by hovering my cursor > over them. Now I have to go to a separate display page, a page where my Notes > are no longer visible -- it's in the Notes where I place the information needed > to decide whether to display results or not. I cannot rely on the Country of > Origin entered by the member as many give an unproven location as their origin. > > If you must list everyone in the Paternal and Maternal Lists, then please at > least add a column indicating whether their results are displayed, or not, and > allow us to sort on that column, so the ineligible ones are separated from the > eligible ones. > > Obviously, none of this is a problem in a surname project, but it's an acute > problem in a regional project, especially one like mine where the regional > criterion is strict. > > ============================================== > > There are some good things in the new GAP, like being able to put Kit numbers in > true alphanumeric order. However, as it stands, I will hang on to using the old > GAP as long as I can. > > 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 > >

I won't re-hash others' comments -- waste of bandwidth. But, a few of my own: * This has been in the works for a while. The "open beta" testing follows a few months of earlier beta testing by a few admins. There have been some changes made based on the feedback from those testers. * Be aware that the beta GAP works with old data, not the most current, live data. A "firewall" keeps any problems found from corrupting FTDNA's database. During the testing phase, you may find you can't use the new GAP for changes. * I like the "look-and-feel" of this new interface with the FTDNA databases. New features are available (Some, I'd like to see improved.) and the presentation doesn't get in the way. * Support for large projects seems better. Ability to monitor key performance indicators has been improved. (The larger the project, the more difficult to keep every aspect in your head or dig it out from multiple sources.) For example, downloads of project data to Excel files has been facilitated. * I think, though, that I'll still need to keep separate spreadsheet &/or database files on my own computer. I'll use the GAP for questions involving individual participants and download data as needed for summary statistics. * I'd guess, based on a presentation on the new GAP being part of FTDNA's Oct 30-31 conference, there isn't much time left for programmers to make fundamental changes in how it works. However, there's probably time for changes which don't affect the underlying design. * Even if you don't comment, your testing of the new GAP beta will help the programmers to spot & diagnose problems. Often, problems show up only in unusual situations and sequences of use. -ralph_/)

Yes, Monday is "Labor Day" in the U.S., so most people have a three-day weekend. It's the traditional end of the summer vacations, here, and most grade school children return to school on Tuesday. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Debbie Kennett > Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 10:36 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com; Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] feedback on new GAP 2.0 beta > > Hi Margaret > > I don't think there's a limit on giving feedback. FTDNA responded to my feedback > within a couple of days. I couldn't get the members' information pages to display for > some of my projects. The problem only affected non-American admins as it was > related to the American English style of displaying the month before the day. The > problem has now been fixed but I understand that the dates are still causing a few > problems with some of the reports. > > I believe it's a holiday in America this weekend so it might take longer to get a reply. > > I agree with Diana's comments on the problems for geographical project admins who > collect both Y-DNA and mtDNA results. Perhaps if enough of us raise this issue they > will address it as a matter of priority. > > Debbie Kennett >

Thank you, Larry. Yes, that's the email I received, but cannot find. I see it's the "Dashboard" (introduced last year) that is being retired. I wonder if we'll have the option, this time, to stick with the "Classic" GAP? Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Larry Vick > Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 11:44 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] feedback on new GAP 2.0 beta > > Below is what the e-mail said. > > Regards, > > Larry > > Dear Project Administrator, > Tomorrow the new GAP 2.0 will be launched into "Open Beta" *.You will have the > option of being an “Open Beta tester” and start using GAP 2.0 immediately! There is > no need to reply to this message to participate. Simply log in to your group page and > follow the instructions. The final GAP 2.0 upgrade will take place in a few weeks. > Therefore, your active participation and feedback during the Beta test phase, while > not required, will be much appreciated. Your participation will guarantee that GAP > 2.0 will be the ideal tool for administrating your project(s). > GAP 2.0 will include these much-requested features, among other things: > Faster-loading web pages: Get the information you need without delay! > Single Sign On (SSO): Access ALL of your projects with one set of credentials. > You get to choose one login and password for all of the projects you administer. > > Personalized Notification Settings: You can choose which notices you wish to receive. > > IMPORTANT: > Effective immediately, we will retire the GAP Dashboard which was being used by > less than 2% of our group administrators. > > none of your GAP work will be lost; it will transfer automatically to GAP 2.0. > While the upgrade process should be simple, we have established an FAQ section > dedicated to guiding you through the project transfer process and using GAP 2.0: > http://www.familytreedna.com/faq/answers/default.aspx?faqid=20 > Thank you for your participation and your work as a project administrator, > > *Beta means that the software is still being tested and finalized. As an “Open Beta" > tester of GAP 2.0, you will start using this software early and participate in the > software development by providing your feedback and > recommendations. > > © All Contents Copyright 2001-2010 Genealogy by Genetics, Ltd. > > > >

Well, we can always give feedback, but somewhere I got the idea (can't find the email, maybe I'm dreaming) that we had a couple of weeks to give feedback on the new GAP, then they were going to launch, with no going back to the old one. If I'm wrong on this, someone please correct me. FTDNA is notorious for problems with the GAP pages. A couple of years ago, they upgraded it so disastrously that they gave up on it. Then last year, they upgraded it again, and few people liked or used the upgrade, so here we go again. That's one reason I think it's important that we give the new one a try and give them feedback on it. You should have control over both the admin's name and email address from the GAP. I would give the steps how, except that the FTDNA web site appears to be down, entirely, and has been for the last hour or so. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Margaret Jordan > Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 10:17 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] feedback on new GAP 2.0 beta > > Hi Diana, > > How long do we have to give feedback? > > I have sent three emails to Family Tree DNA regarding problems. I am waiting for a > reply to my last one. If you are a project administrator, check to see that your name > and email address are displayed properly on your public webpage at Family Tree > DNA. On one of the projects I administrate, there is now no name listed on the public > webpage just an email address. So, we have no administrator's name or co- > administrator's name or email address. > > Family Tree DNA had a problem in recent years with making changes to > administration in projects due, I think, to software configurations and this seems to > have come back to bite them. > > Regards, > Margaret Jordan > > On 04/09/2010 14:49, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote: > > If you are a project admin and you have not tried out the new GAP, you > > may want to do so because we have a limited amount of time to supply > > feedback. I just sent this message to FTDNA: > > > > ============================================= > > > > I have always kept an Excel spreadsheet to manage my projects; and, in > > my regional project, I have kept separate worksheets for Y-DNA and mtDNA results. > > The ability to get a Paternal Ancestry list and a Maternal Ancestry > > list should be a great help -- or would be, except... > > > > Everyone is included on both lists, even people who should not be > > displayed (who are not eligible on that side of their ancestry). > > Please SUPRESS the names of people who shouldn't be displayed from the > > Paternal Ancestry or Maternal Ancestry list. Otherwise, I don't find > > these lists any more useful than the old, single list. In fact less so, for another > reason... > > > > I used to be able to tell who was and was not eligible from the > > membership roster -- if necessary, by checking the person's Notes by > > hovering my cursor over them. Now I have to go to a separate display > > page, a page where my Notes are no longer visible -- it's in the Notes > > where I place the information needed to decide whether to display > > results or not. I cannot rely on the Country of Origin entered by the member as > many give an unproven location as their origin. > > > > If you must list everyone in the Paternal and Maternal Lists, then > > please at least add a column indicating whether their results are > > displayed, or not, and allow us to sort on that column, so the > > ineligible ones are separated from the eligible ones. > > > > Obviously, none of this is a problem in a surname project, but it's an > > acute problem in a regional project, especially one like mine where > > the regional criterion is strict. > > > > ============================================== > > > > There are some good things in the new GAP, like being able to put Kit > > numbers in true alphanumeric order. However, as it stands, I will > > hang on to using the old GAP as long as I can. > > > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

If you are a project admin and you have not tried out the new GAP, you may want to do so because we have a limited amount of time to supply feedback. I just sent this message to FTDNA: ============================================= I have always kept an Excel spreadsheet to manage my projects; and, in my regional project, I have kept separate worksheets for Y-DNA and mtDNA results. The ability to get a Paternal Ancestry list and a Maternal Ancestry list should be a great help -- or would be, except... Everyone is included on both lists, even people who should not be displayed (who are not eligible on that side of their ancestry). Please SUPRESS the names of people who shouldn't be displayed from the Paternal Ancestry or Maternal Ancestry list. Otherwise, I don't find these lists any more useful than the old, single list. In fact less so, for another reason... I used to be able to tell who was and was not eligible from the membership roster -- if necessary, by checking the person's Notes by hovering my cursor over them. Now I have to go to a separate display page, a page where my Notes are no longer visible -- it's in the Notes where I place the information needed to decide whether to display results or not. I cannot rely on the Country of Origin entered by the member as many give an unproven location as their origin. If you must list everyone in the Paternal and Maternal Lists, then please at least add a column indicating whether their results are displayed, or not, and allow us to sort on that column, so the ineligible ones are separated from the eligible ones. Obviously, none of this is a problem in a surname project, but it's an acute problem in a regional project, especially one like mine where the regional criterion is strict. ============================================== There are some good things in the new GAP, like being able to put Kit numbers in true alphanumeric order. However, as it stands, I will hang on to using the old GAP as long as I can. Diana

Below is what the e-mail said. Regards, Larry Dear Project Administrator, Tomorrow the new GAP 2.0 will be launched into "Open Beta" *.You will have the option of being an “Open Beta tester” and start using GAP 2.0 immediately! There is no need to reply to this message to participate. Simply log in to your group page and follow the instructions.  The final GAP 2.0 upgrade will take place in a few weeks. Therefore, your active participation and feedback during the Beta test phase, while not required, will be much appreciated. Your participation will guarantee that GAP 2.0 will be the ideal tool for administrating your project(s). GAP 2.0 will include these much-requested features, among other things: Faster-loading web pages: Get the information you need without delay! Single Sign On (SSO): Access ALL of your projects with one set of credentials.  You get to choose one login and password for all of the projects you administer. Personalized Notification Settings: You can choose which notices you wish to receive. IMPORTANT: Effective immediately, we will retire the GAP Dashboard which was being used by less than 2% of our group administrators. none of your GAP work will be lost; it will transfer automatically to GAP 2.0. While the upgrade process should be simple, we have established an FAQ section dedicated to guiding you through the project transfer process and using GAP 2.0: http://www.familytreedna.com/faq/answers/default.aspx?faqid=20 Thank you for your participation and your work as a project administrator, *Beta means that the software is still being tested and finalized.  As an “Open Beta" tester of GAP 2.0, you will start using this software early and participate in the software development by providing your feedback and recommendations. © All Contents Copyright 2001-2010 Genealogy by Genetics, Ltd.   ________________________________ From: Diana Gale Matthiesen <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Sent: Sat, September 4, 2010 11:29:07 AM Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] feedback on new GAP 2.0 beta Well, we can always give feedback, but somewhere I got the idea (can't find the email, maybe I'm dreaming) that we had a couple of weeks to give feedback on the new GAP, then they were going to launch, with no going back to the old one.  If I'm wrong on this, someone please correct me.