Debbie raised many important points in her response. What disagreements we have are more of degree than absolute. * To begin with her last, "This {crossing the pond} statement only applies to American projects. UK participants, for example, do not tend to be interested in crossing the pond and finding matches in the US..." We need to guard against chauvinism; it is not only off-putting to our British, European & other cousins, but prevents us from seeing the bigger picture. It limits our perspective and, thus, keeps us from addressing real but unrecognized problems. James Irvine's concept of "penetration" is useful in this context; it is a measure of how well a project has attained coverage in the areas where the surname occurs. Most American-based projects have little penetration outside the US. * Re: "I would define a genealogical timeframe as the time from which surnames were adopted and records became available. In the south of England this is from the 1100s onwards for some surnames..." The importance of "genealogical timeframe" (abbreviated GTF) can't be overstated; it ties genetic genealogy into traditional genealogy. Projects' definitions of GTF may -- and perhaps should -- vary. But, DNA information which provides general and vague answers beyond the ability to identify a specific ancestor by name, dates and places isn't much good. * Re: ".. it is up to the individual project manager to decide how to group his or her results." We aren't asking for a "match czar" to decide the rules; these too may differ across projects. However, explicit statements (e.g., on the project website) of how things are done & decisions made are better than leaving things up in the air. I, for example, think about how my project would fare if someone else had to step in. (Recognition of mortality may be a sign of age.) Would they know what they need? Could they look at how things had been done and make necessary changes and adjustments? Perhaps, this is part of a larger question: Who is the project for? * Re: "No study, other than the early Sykes study on just four markers, has yet published its results." A telling indictment? Few of us are prepared to meet the rigorous requirements for academic publishing. We may, however, publish on our project websites. FTDNA provides a page for "Results" (other than marker/allele values). Most of us have reached some, at least tentative, conclusions. It would be appropriate to state them. For example, our project's results clearly refute the myth that we Taylors are all descended from a common patriarch. Some may think that obvious, but the myth crops up repeatedly. Who better to present the scientific evidence than us? * Re: "Surname projects are still in the very early days." We are all not even to our "teen years". But, it may be time for us to think about what maturity would look like. -ralpht_/)