Go Back   Family Tree DNA Forums > Family Tree DNA Communications > Grumbles & Gripes

Grumbles & Gripes This is a place for free and open grumbling, griping, and venting about anything and everything about DNA, companies, and genealogy that irks you. You may even come here to complain about the Forums and how they are run.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 2nd March 2018, 02:03 AM
ltd-jean-pull ltd-jean-pull is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoberlyDrake View Post

I've been researching for about 18 years and I still have a couple of branches on my tree that are extremely short because I can't find any documents telling me who the parents of these ancestors were.
Same here.

I cannot prove who one of my gtgt-grandfathers was, so at this point the tree I use for DNA purposes stops at him. I know his name and approximate age and where he states he was born, but I cannot find a single record back in the UK which supports any of this.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 9th March 2018, 06:16 PM
toast toast is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 3
Talking 15G

My own Innes line comes to a screeching halt in 1797, my grandmother's line goes back to Charlemagne, and my mother married five times - between all that I have accrued a rather large file. I have most of the main Innes arteries as collateral branches in my grandmother's Irvine line so that if and when my Innes line is identified, they will most likely already exist in the file. Regardless, they are in there legitimately, if distant.
Most of the older lines are from Burkes or other recognized/established sources. My grandmother proved our Irvine connection to the satisfaction of the Dames of the Magna Carta before she died.
I also like to pursue collateral lines to see where lines often split and then rejoin a few generations later, or relocate to other parts of the world.
I'm from MS. My friend is from AB. We live in BC. In researching her ancestors I found that our sons are 10C1R through the Kidders in my MIL's line. I rather like having a large file and seeing where the cousins and in-laws led, but my online tree is much, much, smaller.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 9th March 2018, 06:35 PM
John McCoy John McCoy is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 629
I don't buy the idea that you shouldn't publish a tree that contains links that aren't proven on the theory that it might sully your reputation. Rather, I think it's useful to publish what you think the genealogy is, and state your reasoning. You may have found the evidence that somebody else needs! Your research, although inconclusive, may include exactly the clue that will help someone else to uncover the proof! In other words, it may be useful to publish a hypothesis suggested by something you have found that you think others have overlooked. However, in order to do this, it is essential to include RESEARCH NOTES, and to publish in a place or in a form that supports the inclusion of extensive notes for each individual in the tree. I don't think FTDNA includes "notes" of any kind when they import and publish a GEDCOM file, unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 9th March 2018, 08:41 PM
Carpathian Carpathian is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by John McCoy View Post
I don't buy the idea that you shouldn't publish a tree that contains links that aren't proven on the theory that it might sully your reputation. Rather, I think it's useful to publish what you think the genealogy is, and state your reasoning. You may have found the evidence that somebody else needs! Your research, although inconclusive, may include exactly the clue that will help someone else to uncover the proof! In other words, it may be useful to publish a hypothesis suggested by something you have found that you think others have overlooked. However, in order to do this, it is essential to include RESEARCH NOTES, and to publish in a place or in a form that supports the inclusion of extensive notes for each individual in the tree. I don't think FTDNA includes "notes" of any kind when they import and publish a GEDCOM file, unfortunately.
Dear John,

Not everyone has time to publish RESEARCH NOTES, nor provide GEDCOM files. I don't do either. Experienced researchers such as me have no need to prove that or anything else to anyone in the world at large.

How's about trying to encourage others that they not publish anything until the veracity of what they have found is proven or accurate through research and documentation? Discussion of their findings with their DNA relatives might be productive. Good scholarship and protection of one's reputation requires a measure of reticence. But now we are in a world of (dare I say it?) intellectual and academic prostitution. Or might I mention comparing that with cholera, or other viral diseases that result from 'going with the flow'?

Today anyone can publish anything and make a quick buck on it. Disinformation has been around forever in the academic world, but not to this high a degree, such as through social media. IMO, genealogy is now becoming a quick buck activity. This includes genetic genealogy which IS scientifically accurate, but it is non-specific and can never be more than that which it is.

Virtually no one ever labels anything as a hypothesis when they post or 'publish' it. So whom are we kidding? GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

IMO, the bottom line for anyone who is doing genealogy in a responsible way is this: If you can't prove something, don't publish it. When anyone publishes unverified elements, stated or suggested as fact, they are only polluting the pool or reservoir of currently provided information by introducing what amounts to (you get to fill in the blank) into it.

Let's not turn reservoirs into cesspools.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 9th March 2018, 09:42 PM
PDHOTLEN PDHOTLEN is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bellingham, WA; since attending WWU.
Posts: 2,140
Cool

I really don't care if you moralizers approve of my big tree or not. What's the matter, you don't like my Charlemagne or emperor of Byzantium? ha ha!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 9th March 2018, 10:12 PM
georgian1950 georgian1950 is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
I really don't care if you moralizers approve of my big tree or not. What's the matter, you don't like my Charlemagne or emperor of Byzantium? ha ha!
Even before I got into genetic genealogy, I had developed my "theory of the bad seed". I think the odds are that some bad seed got into those lines somewhere along the way.

Jack

Last edited by georgian1950; 9th March 2018 at 10:13 PM. Reason: syntax
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10th March 2018, 09:24 AM
dtvmcdonald dtvmcdonald is offline
mtDNA: | Big Y Pending
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 253
I have about 4100 people in my tree, all but about 70 of them direct ancestors. The rest are close relatives or infamous cousins (e.g. Jesse James) whom I am always on the lookout for ... they are more interesting than the "merely famous".

Once you manage to get past reliable "gateway ancestors" to Europe the rest is mostly easy ... the work is already done by people much more competent and knowledgeable than you, e.g. Douglas Richardson. I've discovered a very few medieval lines that are as reliable ... but it is very very hard going through the true primary documents! The good news is that they are mostly in Latin and not Scots Gaelic, the bad news is that the microfilms are very very bad before 1600, and transcriptions unreliable (as people in this thread have mentioned before.) For example, for years I thought a critical ancestor was a "coctorem corobesiae". Coctorem is medieval Latin for "cook", but corobesiae is the genitive singular of a non-word. One day I looked at it and realized that the handwriting said "cerevesiae". A "coctorem cerevesiae" must surely have been a brewer. That sort of thing is all too common.

Last edited by dtvmcdonald; 10th March 2018 at 09:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10th March 2018, 09:39 AM
John McCoy John McCoy is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 629
My solution for the problem of medieval Latin and it's amazingly inaccurate transcriptions: I found a very distant cousin who lives near Paris, she enjoys traveling to the archives in the parts of Switzerland and France where our shared ancestors lived, armed with her little digital camera. (Imagine that! -- in France, you can take the TGV to the archives!) She sends me hundreds of images of documents. With experience and dedicated colleagues, it's possible to work from the primary sources, and to untangle the crazy abbreviations and script of the medieval Latin.

It doesn't take long to understand how the bad transcriptions came about! It takes somewhat longer to arrive at a correct reading, but the experience is fascinating and very rewarding.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 4th April 2018, 01:44 AM
wombat wombat is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by John McCoy View Post
I don't buy the idea that you shouldn't publish a tree that contains links that aren't proven on the theory that it might sully your reputation. Rather, I think it's useful to publish what you think the genealogy is, and state your reasoning. You may have found the evidence that somebody else needs! Your research, although inconclusive, may include exactly the clue that will help someone else to uncover the proof! In other words, it may be useful to publish a hypothesis suggested by something you have found that you think others have overlooked. However, in order to do this, it is essential to include RESEARCH NOTES, and to publish in a place or in a form that supports the inclusion of extensive notes for each individual in the tree. I don't think FTDNA includes "notes" of any kind when they import and publish a GEDCOM file, unfortunately.
exactly
it's always helpful
plus when you see people with no trees you figure maybe they know nothing and with so many potential matches to deal with you end up ignoring all of those matches
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 4th April 2018, 01:51 AM
wombat wombat is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 279
In some places it helps to go nuts adding thousands into your tree since due to partially incomplete records, no surnames until 1826 or 1835 and other factors, often you have to map out tons and tons in all directions to find ways to figure out some part of some key line and it also gives the only remotest remote hope to manage to connect up your tree to a DNA match (something extremely hard to do for people from certain areas). I wouldn't just laugh off large trees.

Also you need to know a lot about what went on in different areas. Some surely look at my tree and see like 5 different surname lines all tracing to one guy and think man what a junk tree, but in this country that is not so rare and can be totally legit. Ethnic peasants were not given surnames until 19th century! and if neither the father nor grandfather were around at the time of naming each brother could potentially be assigned or chose a different surname! In one case we even have it that my mom's maiden name actually comes from someone's mother's brother's surname so her strictly paternal line kinda stole it's surname from a totally different strictly paternal line, but things like that happened in some countries.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to see other trees I appear in? Rhyssa6 Family Finder Basics 3 1st March 2018 09:30 AM
Linking DNA to trees CyndyeB Features Requests & Bug Reports Area 1 8th March 2017 11:22 AM
New Trees? MoberlyDrake Features Requests & Bug Reports Area 7 1st July 2016 04:38 PM
Trees Worse than Ever!!! Bug??? MoberlyDrake Features Requests & Bug Reports Area 1 17th November 2015 01:57 PM
The new trees TMontes Features Requests & Bug Reports Area 1 11th October 2014 10:43 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Family Tree DNA - World Headquarters

1445 North Loop West, Suite 820
Houston, Texas 77008, USA

Phone: (713) 868-1438 | Fax: (832) 201-7147
Copyright 2001-2010 Genealogy by Genetics, Ltd.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.