New Tree Tool ???

[jkuehn8]

Gedcom update Consequences

What will I lose if I work on the FTDNA Tree for a while, then, after making 'offline' changes and additions to my tree, decide to update my FTDNA tree by uploading the new changed gedcom? Say I add or connect a lot of people.
Will my prior FTDNA work on my tree be lost, or will the updated tree reflect the matches and links already in the old tree?
If the tree will lose all of the FTDNA 'work' when updated with a new gedcom load/reload, then I don't know if I am motivated to spend any great time and effort.
I have several unconnected sub trees that I'm working on now, with an aim toward eventually connecting them to my primary persons tree. They don't show in FTDNA's tree now, but should once connected.

[dbird]

Gedcom update Consequences

I'm just a customer, but I can answer your question.

As currently configured, there is no way to modify the FTDNA familytree and download back down to your private data base. At least I don't see any way to do it. If one modifies the familytree on FTDNA, then one has to be careful to also update your private data base to track it. And, when you upload your private gedcom to FTDNA it overwrites the old one, so at that point all of the modifications to it are probably gone.

As an ex-programmer, there are probably ways in which the modifications to the FTDNA familytree could be preserved, and re-linked to a new replacement gedcom. But of course there would be issues to be taken care of by the software that would not be trivial, so I don't expect that functionality to be forthcoming very quickly.

The simplest way is to just allow the downloading of the FTDNA familytree gedcom (hint FTDNA familytree staff) so that the changes can then be incorporated into the local database (or the downloaded gedcom becomes the local database if that's what one wants.)

My own attitude to the new familytree is that I expect to check into it every time there is an update to see if it offers anything usable yet. Hopefully, they will let us know when there is an update...

[jkuehn8]

RE: Gedcom update Consequences

Thanks for the reply dbird. That's kind of what I figured.
I currently have my tree on Ancestry and have 6000+ connected and in-process unconnected names.

That leads me into a feature request that should be pretty simple to implement.

A couple of metrics/stats about the tree,
1.The total number of nodes/individuals in the current family view tree.
2 the number of nodes/individuals in the direct line ancestry view tree.

I guess I could count the dots in the tree drop down.

[jkuehn8]

Gedcon Update Consequences

Dbird et. all

In looking over your response, I just realized that I may have mis-stated my concerns.

I was trying to get the specifics of WHAT would be LOST/Overwritten when uploading/reloading an expanded/updated Gedcom to FTDNA.

I realized/assumed that the problem existed, I was just fishing for answers as to it's extent.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[AngeliaR]

New upload loses modifications

My understanding is that any modifications you make to a tree on FTDNA would be lost if you upload (and overwrite) a new gedcom. This means matches placed in the tree as well as new family members or branches that were added. Of course, you can always do double entry to your offsite tree to preserve the new people added, but matching would still be lost.

This could change depending on what they intend to do with the tree function down the line, but we don't have a clear answer on that yet either.

[jkuehn8]

Test Callouts vs 'FTDNA Customer' editing

AngelaR,

Do you know where you edited the info that shows below your login name in messages?
From the apparent default to listing your taken tests?
eg. 'mtDNA: H31a | Y-DNA: R-L21' vice 'FTDNA Customer'

[dbird]

Family view vs ancestry view

<snip>

That leads me into a feature request that should be pretty simple to implement.

A couple of metrics/stats about the tree,
1.The total number of nodes/individuals in the current family view tree.
2 the number of nodes/individuals in the direct line ancestry view tree.

I guess I could count the dots in the tree drop down.

I don't see any reason why the number should be any different. The database being viewed is the same - the gedcom you uploaded to FTDNA. The only difference is how the data is presented.

Counting the dots won't get the total either. There are typically portions of the tree that are not presented. These parts of the tree are accessed by clicking on the little blue tree symbol sometimes presented next to an individual in your tree. That branch of the tree is then shown in a new tab.

I haven't discovered what causes some portions of a tree to be viewable only by clicking on the dot. It certainly isn't the size or number of individuals or branches in the tree. My tree shows dozens of people, with more dozens accessible only via the little dots. Other trees I have seen show less than a dozen individuals, but still have many others accessible only through the dots. Go figure.

[AngeliaR]

Signature Block - response

There used to be a signature block that allowed customers to add it and edit for ourselves. That went away. I asked for simple haplo identifiers on mine during the forum discussion and was granted the request.

I'm attaching a link to the thread about signatures.

I'm not sure if there is a process now or if you have to make a request through customer service. It would be nice if we could self-edit again.

http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=34557&highlight=signature+block

[jkuehn8]

RE: Signature Block - response

Thanks for the response AngeliaR
I guess I'll have to pursue that myself.
I'll let you know if I come up with anything different.

[jkuehn8]

Re: Family view &amp; Ancestry view Metrics Request

I am assuming that FTDNA filters the incoming Gedcoms, removing un-connecteds, invalids etc

I just wanted a way to compare, quantitatively, what was in my FTDNA Tree vs my offline (Ancestry) tree.

In order for me to respond to 'content' problems at the earliest possible moment.

I also agree that 'counting the dots' won't work for the reasons you stated.

That is the reason for the request, for THEM (on the inside), to show us a count of the actual totals of tree nodes, currently in the Ancestry and Family FTDNA trees.

Quote:
I don't see any reason why the number should be any different. The database being viewed is the same - the gedcom you uploaded to FTDNA. The only difference is how the data is presented.

Counting the dots won't get the total either. There are typically portions of the tree that are not presented. These parts of the tree are accessed by clicking on the little blue tree symbol sometimes presented next to an individual in your tree. That branch of the tree is then shown in a new tab.

I haven't discovered what causes some portions of a tree to be viewable only by clicking on the dot. It certainly isn't the size or number of individuals or branches in the tree. My tree shows dozens of people, with more dozens accessible only via the little dots. Other trees I have seen show less than a dozen individuals, but still have many others accessible only through the dots. Go figure.

[BJackson]

I liked the old one better. It was a lot easier to navigate. And why are so many entries now "private" when they were not before? Sorry, but I don't have time to read all 20-some pages of this thread.

Maybe I am missing something. Is there documentation for the new Family Tree feature somewhere?

[Karen Eck]

2. I HUGELY agree with the suggestion to make the whole name (including middle) dates and LOCATIONS available at a glance. At least on the old tree you could 'mouse over' and it would show. I'd rather see that info than little heads of men and women.

Agree!!! Location! Location! Location! - that is what is most important for me to quickly see. Full name, date, and place of birth and death would change the task from taking hours to perhaps minutes - if you just didn't have to click on every single person.

And a print function would be awesome so I can print the tree with ALL THREE parameters and mark it up with ink and colors and whatever, because 2 weeks later I find myself going over the same tree again! I experimented today with writing out a whole tree by hand and highlighting the closest locations and names and WOW what a chore. Won't be able to do that very often.

Happy Relations,
Karen

[Karen Eck]

Firefox whiteout

I mainly use Firefox. The trees now show up with 1/3 of the left side white space, pushing the already sprawling tree off to the 2/3 on the right. Works fine in Explorer and Chrome - just one more time consuming feature for me to have to switch browsers.

[georgian1950]

site uptime and poor performance

For the best three or four weeks, I have been having a very difficult time getting anything done with analyzing Family finder results on the FTDNA website. The site seems mostly down or slow. I rely a lot on filtering results by ancestral names, but most of the time now, such an operation seems just to hang up the site.

Are other users experiencing the same results? Very frustrating!

[Karen Eck]

And why are so many entries now "private" when they were not before? Sorry, but I don't have time to read all 20-some pages of this thread.

This is glitch where there is no death date entered and they are seen as "living." At the DNA-NEWBIE website some people have the inside track and they say that the word is this will be fixed. In the meantime, one by one you can mark them as deceased.