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
  #21  
Old 4th April 2018, 01:55 AM
wombat wombat is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 275
And it seems a bit odd for someone to mock people who make giant trees and question the trees when they are free and open and share them when they themselves are hide everything away.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 4th April 2018, 10:11 AM
Carpathian Carpathian is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat View Post
And it seems a bit odd for someone to mock people who make giant trees and question the trees when they are free and open and share them when they themselves are hide everything away.
Mockery? No. Questioning? YES. Questioning is the foundation of academic inquiry. Good scholarship and protection of one's reputation requires integrity and responsibility that what you publish is proven. The act of questioning seems to bother you.

Whether one chooses to publish their trees in a public site or not is a personal decision. Don't mock those who prefer not to "share" their research with the world at large. I now see more 'locked' trees on Ancestry than ever. That is probably being done increasingly to prevent others from taking trees and publishing them as their own.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 4th April 2018, 05:34 PM
SuzeSoCal SuzeSoCal is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 15
My 2 cents

I believe much more rigor is needed with publishing trees with the current fad of dna testing.

A FTDNA a match contacted me and we were able to establish that we're 4th cousins. Our trees and CM shared back each other up. He invited me to see his tree. It has over 1600+ people in it and he has names coded based on the level of documentation established. Regarding me, I was a ? mark on his tree that he now knows is correct. So far, so good.

On the other hand, on Family Search my mother's and father's families pop up and are littered with errors made by various persons. Some erroneous relationships (even concerning relatives that I have met) are noted as having been ADDED by Family Search and I look at it and think WTF?

Another really BIG TREE tree on Ancestry has my GGF married to two women, having kids, at the same time in different states; BIG TREE's "documents" don't establish that my GFF was the groom (completely different name) that married woman #2. Other documents cited only establish that it was a man with almost the same name, with a different birthdate and occupation than my GGF. Did they not think it was strange that a man was somehow bouncing back and forth between states fathering children and holding down completely different jobs? I have not been able to contact and discuss with the tree owner.

Finally, my lines get to Eastern Europe in a hurry. There are persons from there that I'm almost 100% confident have my ancestors in their trees. But I won't add them to my tree. What I've gained is clues of records to obtain for my own research. I did add some of their surnames to my surname list solely to facilitate discussion with any dna matches. So far, no bites from that list.

Bottom line: I don't think it's good to tempt lazy/or intellectually weak persons with trees that have nothing to back them up.

Last edited by SuzeSoCal; 4th April 2018 at 05:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 5th April 2018, 02:20 AM
T E Peterman T E Peterman is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,577
A good tree creating program should warn the tree's author, as well as viewers, of inconsistencies: dates that don't make sense, geographical issues, DNA problems (eg, two brothers who belong to different y-DNA haplogroups). Such links should be red-flagged, with an open blog for comments from the author & users. Ancestry fails this miserably.

A good tree should have a place where documentation supporting a link can be attached, with a blog for comments from the author & users. Ancestry gets a far better mark here.

At Family Tree DNA, I would like to see the development of such enhanced trees outside of kits, but perhaps maintained within a project's portal. Kits could be attached to relatives on the tree (preferably, the name on the tree wouldn't modify the name on the kit), and a logic, similar to that used in Genome Mate Pro could estimate precisely the side of family for shared matches.

Timothy Peterman
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 5th April 2018, 08:39 AM
TPace713 TPace713 is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpathian View Post
This was mentioned recently in another thread.

When someone literally has many thousands of surnames in their profile or their "tree" what can we discern about their research?

Are they really genealogists, or what might they be called?

(I don't know which extreme is worse - those who cite thousands of surnames, or those who reveal absolutely nothing about their ancestry.)
Maybe an Arborist??? j/s
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 5th April 2018, 10:26 AM
Carpathian Carpathian is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPace713 View Post
Maybe an Arborist??? j/s
Your quip made me laugh.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 5th April 2018, 12:00 PM
dtvmcdonald dtvmcdonald is offline
mtDNA: | Big Y Pending
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 264
I've got about 4000 people in my main tree. About 190 are my recent ancestors. I've documented about 140 of those using primary documents or published, highly reputable books with lots of primary references (for example, Adventurers of Purse and Person.) The other 40 are copied from trees of researchers whom I impeccably trust to use primary sources. No one has every disproven any of these. About 10 people are "one additional generation back" folks whose name is 100% certain but nothing else.

The rest are connections back to medieval royalty. All connections back to the first royal person are documented, each and every generation, either by myself or published by the very reputable genealogist Paul Reed. The ones I did are now documented with protected profiles on Wikitree.

Beyond that I have put into my tree accepted lines that are well documented (e.g. Richardson's books or long threads that resulted in complete agreement on soc.genealogy.medieval). In a few cases there were disagreements that I was forced to settle through primary documents myself. I was very conservative about where I cut off lines. I think you can trust me. Therefore I have put this tree on Ancestry.

But there's a problem ... you can't find it by searching!
I have to give you a pointer. They can't tell me why. They do say that if you searched for medieval results it would be well down in the listings ... now get this ... because its too small (because its too conservative). You get listed at the top by installing vast numbers of bogus people in your tree!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 5th April 2018, 01:51 PM
dna dna is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald View Post
I've got about 4000 people in my main tree. About 190 are my recent ancestors. I've documented about 140 of those using primary documents or published, highly reputable books with lots of primary references (for example, Adventurers of Purse and Person.) The other 40 are copied from trees of researchers whom I impeccably trust to use primary sources. No one has ever disproved any of these. About 10 people are "one additional generation back" folks whose name is 100% certain but nothing else. [----]
As of today, the database report shows 4300 people in my tree. Exactly 252 of them are my ancestors, 8 of them were born in the 17th century. Essentially every line ends with a family where the last name was either not recorded (often it is clear from the context that it was deemed to be unimportant) or considerable spelling variations exist, and of course there is no trace of the maiden name.

I have 40+ 5th cousins there. But I have ever met only 5 of them.

I have 200+ 4th cousins in my tree, and met only dozens of them.

I will not post on Internet any tree with information about living or presumably living people. Thus I am only posting surnames with associated geographical regions. The tree is reserved for those in the family who perform genealogical research, and is used for making the wall poster for reunions. (This is not an arbitrary decision, that is the outcome of various experiences over past 10+ years.)


Mr. W.


P.S.
You know that you have a large tree when the available wall length becomes a factor when choosing a hall for your family reunion.

Last edited by dna; 5th April 2018 at 02:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 5th April 2018, 02:47 PM
ltd-jean-pull ltd-jean-pull is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald View Post

But there's a problem ... you can't find it by searching!
I have to give you a pointer. They can't tell me why. They do say that if you searched for medieval results it would be well down in the listings ... now get this ... because its too small (because its too conservative). You get listed at the top by installing vast numbers of bogus people in your tree!
I think that in order to be found on a search at Ancestry it needs to have Ancestry records attached. Ancestry has some Scottish marriages and baptisms, but if you find your records that prove the link elsewhere (wills, sasines etc), I don't think these individuals are searchable.

I've found Gordon MacGregor's books and website http://redbookofscotland.co.uk helpful for some of our Scottish lines. I've also sent information to Gordon when I've found details about people in the tree that he didn't appear to have.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 5th April 2018, 08:23 PM
Carpathian Carpathian is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald View Post
But there's a problem ... you can't find it by searching!
I have to give you a pointer. They can't tell me why. They do say that if you searched for medieval results it would be well down in the listings ... now get this ... because its too small (because its too conservative). You get listed at the top by installing vast numbers of bogus people in your tree!
Mmm. Who is (or was) it that you felt a need to have to give a "pointer" to?

In your response, why is there the constant use of "..." ?
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 05:38 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.