Ralph, I manage seven projects, only one of which is of sufficient size for this subject to be relevant, the White yDNA Project at FTDNA. First, I identified family groups with a known common ancestor. I identified the group by the common ancestor's name, and prefixed the name with an "A", so these family groups would sort first. Next, I identified family groups where no common ancestor is known, but there are genetic matches. These are called White Family 99999, with the 99999 being the appropriate number. These groups are numbered as found, and I left out the number 13, in case someone took exception to being assigned that number. The rest of the project members, who do not have matches are in two main groups by haplogroup. Those project members who have done the 37 or 67 marker test are grouped by haplogroup, with the prefix "Y" in front of the haplogroup name. Those project members with 12 or 25 marker tests are grouped by haplogroup with an "X" prefix in front of the haplogroup name. When you look at the yResults page, you see the results listed in this order: Family groups with a known common ancestor, Family groups with an unidentified common ancestor Project members without matches who have done a 37 or 67 marker test Project members without matches who have done a 12 or 25 marker test. I only place test results in family groups if they have a 37 or 67 marker test, or in the process of upgrading to at least 37 markers and the initial markers, 12 or 25 are a match with the family group. If they complain, I explain the a 12 or 25 marker test does not provide enough genetic information to confirm a family relationship. There is currently one group on the page listed as tentative, and one member may have to be removed. At 25 markers, this looked like a genuine family group. When creating family groups, I do my own analysis, and compare my conclusions to what FTDNA has on an individual's Matches page. There are times when FTDNA misses a match in the rare instance of a multi-step mutation, that puts an individual over their limit. The White project has over 300 members, so no matter how you organize the information, individuals are hard to find in the list. I use the Firefox browser. At the top of the screen under edit is a find command. I put the kit # or a unique name in the search box, and am usually where I want to be before I finish keying the information in. There is really no right or wrong way to organize the test results, except for not organizing them at all. Pick and choose from all of the suggestions and find a system that works for you and your project members. I think that since I organized the yResults in this way in May, we have had a number of people upgrade their test, and we have had about 10 new members join. I also started a White-DNA mail list at RootsWeb, and encouraged the project members to join. On the mail list, I tell them when new family groups have been created, or a new set of results added to an existing family, the individuals are identified by kit number, NEVER by name I also used the mail list to explain the organization of the yResults, and I answer general question there to help individuals understand their test results. Specific questions I answer privately. Marleen Van Horne White yDNA Project and others