Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Tree Tool ???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by larzus View Post
    As the manager of only two kits, I am finding the trees to be just as useful as the gedcoms, except for the ancestors being private.

    I am having one issue which I haven't seen referenced: I can't use them for X-matches because generally the parents are private (as they should be) and I don't know which one is the father and which one is the mother. A lot of trees I am viewing show the match person with the parents and the 'tree' symbol on each parent. Whichever I click to expand places that parent as a child on the right hand side of their spouse. If I click the spouse's tree icon to expand their tree the couple switch places and the newly selected spouse is where the other one was.

    So if I wish to look along the X-lines or the MTDNA line I don't know which one I am seeing if the first generations are private. The male/female silhouettes do not show.
    I have the same problem!!!! What was wrong with pink and blue used previously?

    Photos and silhouettes could have been optional.
    Last edited by dna; 24 September 2014, 06:01 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GST View Post
      I agree, and perhaps FTDNA can take a poll of customers and see how many find the photos useful for genealogy. It would be much better to display the key factual information, with the option of clicking on the person to see the photo.
      Oh, dear GST, we all have drawers full of family pictures from 19th century and earlier. The new Tree Tool just gave us an opportunity to share them with the fellow researches...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by dna View Post
        Oh, dear GST, we all have drawers full of family pictures from 19th century and earlier. The new Tree Tool just gave us an opportunity to share them with the fellow researches...
        There are very many genealogy sites and other sites where people can post pictures. In my opinion they do not belong on a DNA website!!!

        But, if we could see the place and date data without clicking, and click if we happened to want to see if there was a picture or story, etc., that would be OK.

        What a group administrator and most other people who really use DNA for research want to see quickly and without clicking a million times is surname, location and date!

        So, what we need is no clicking to see surname, date, and location. Click if you want to see pictures and stories, which are really outside a DNA companies realm and are extraneous.

        Are the trying to give us all Carpal Tunnel Syndrome???

        And we need a horizontal pedigree too.

        Comment


        • Family Tree

          I've been off FTDNA for awhile while working on my family tree over at Ancestry, and haven't even checked in much over here, and so came back to find the Gedcoms gone and the Family Tree view in place.

          All I can say is that I hate the family tree view over at Ancestry, and now I get to hate the family tree view here at FTDNA as well. It's big and awkward and clunky and slow to navigate and even with a 17" wide screen on my computer the tree is "too blasted" large. I don't give a hoot about other peoples' pictures, just their DNA. And it's amazing amount of space that your designers have wasted in giving it over to the blank/private spots for living people.

          Please at least give us a choice to use a pedigree tree rather than these idiotic family trees. Something you can get just names, dates and places on for a quick general match. Why would you think that handing us the information that the person we match to is attached to a black space and has had so many little blank spaces that have littered themselves into so many more little blank spaces is important? Get real.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by dna View Post
            Oh, dear GST, we all have drawers full of family pictures from 19th century and earlier. The new Tree Tool just gave us an opportunity to share them with the fellow researches...
            I think there should be a mechanism to share photos, but as a lower priority, for example, clicking on the person. The current design seem to be primarily a photo sharing tool with genealogy as an afterthought. Very few people have photos until the late 1800s or 1900s, so the the photos have new value at all before about 1850.

            Comment


            • Besides, photos will almost never help us find common ancestors, and that was the whole point of the Family Finder.

              Comment


              • Photography was in it's infancy in the 1840's, gaining momentum in the 1850's and common in the 1860's. Most of us have our trees back further than 1840, though few of us have photo's as far back as the 1860's.

                Which means that people are going to start uploading silly, useless images like they do on Ancestry. You really have to wonder what in the world FTDNA was thinking of when they came up with this tree! It certainly wasn't DNA!

                Comment


                • Blocking matches who have private trees or want link their DNA to a tree.

                  I want to keep my tree public and will but at the other site where I have my tree I have a growing number of matches that want share or post a tree. So I would like the option of blocking those who want share with others.

                  Comment


                  • I don't know whether to ask here or start a new thread, but my question is on the amount of information that comes with adding a match to your tree or my being added to someone else's tree. I'm really not sure how the whole drag and drop addition to a tree is done, but I certain don't like the idea that any one of my matches can just add me to their tree. If that can be done, I'll eliminate my tree entirely.

                    Comment


                    • I'm seriously thinking about deleting the trees for all my family members. It seems like the best thing to do. I'll leave my list of surnames and places.

                      Comment


                      • Frustrated

                        The current tree situation is frustrating, to be sure.

                        I hope the folks who will be attending the 2014 International Conference on Genetic Genealogy in October will take the opportunity to corner those who can make a difference and express in person the impact this ill-conceived change to the trees has made.

                        Anything that makes it more time consuming and awkward to search for common ancestors, especially without offering some alternative USEFUL feature, is discouraging.

                        My family is primarily here to research our mysteries and fill gaps using dna matching. This is... or rather should be... the strength of FTDNA, but the tools that support this kind of effort are more visible at third party sites instead.

                        Comment


                        • Deleting my Tree

                          I've decided that if this is the way FTDNA chooses to go, I will delete my tree and no longer participate. Using the former tree structure, I could scroll through posted trees of prospective matches and tell quickly if I could confirm a match. With a very large database of documented ancestors, I have the information necessary to push many matches back multiple generations. My data has been researched via wills, estate administrations, order books, parish registers, etc.

                          However, it is impossible to study the posted trees and I do NOT intend to have any of my trees copied. If people want data from me, I've been happy to share with serious genealogists. I'm not interested in working with people whose research consists of downloading undocumented trees from the internet.

                          Because I administer the pages of two other people, I will remove their trees as well.

                          I think the new changes are catastrophic to genealogical research and am terribly disappointed in FTDNA.

                          Comment


                          • It's a shame, but that position is entirely consistent with maintaining high standards for genealogical research. I haven't deleted my trees yet, because I don't expect anybody to figure out how to add unwanted, bogus branches to them. If that actually happens, I will have no choice but to delete them. The one functionality that would actually be helpful, a printable pedigree view including names, dates, and places, is lacking, and some of the functionalities that are included present serious risks for messing up the data.

                            Comment


                            • Yesterday I removed the trees for the 5 accounts I manage.

                              Would it make any impact if everyone who is unhappy removed their trees? Probably not, as most people who have tested don't read this forum and a very many never have posted trees and never will because they've never done any genealogy, are adopted, are only interested in ethnicity, etc.

                              Comment


                              • This is disturbing.

                                Are FTDNA senior management aware that people are removing trees and considering whether to remove their kits because concerns about the new tree functionality are not being appropriately addressed ?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X