New Tree Tool ???

[WCoaster]

"Non-matches" not "public"

Correction: Option mentioned above is to show profile info to "non-matches," not "public" - so it would be visible to other FTDNA customers (people who don't match us) only. This is probably to make us visible to NIC (not in common) matches of our matches (if we're added to their tree as a relative).

[John McCoy]

It is important to define what is meant by collaboration. To me, it means working together, and I understand that to mean discussion and agreement come before any conclusions (such as changes to a tree) are stated. From all I have seen in the present discussion, it seems to be possible for unknown parties to pin something on my tree arbitrarily. That's not collaboration! In any event, even if a process is developed to facilitate real collaboration and safeguard against unwanted changes, we still need a simple pedigree view in order to discover as easily as possible whether we share common ancestors, or have different opinions about a shared genealogy. The pedigree view is the most obvious place to start the collaboration, and that's why generations of genealogists have used pedigree charts.

[efgen]

Why doesn't the mtDNA matches have the 'distance' number like the Y-DNA? Why are they not in the order of closest matches first?

Hmmm, good question. HVR1 & HVR2 matches are always exact matches only. But FMS matches can go out to a genetic distance of 3. So not showing the genetic distance for FMS matches was probably an oversight. I'll report to IT, but can't tell you how long it'll take to get fixed -- my guess is that it'll be a while.

In regards to the purple link icon and how it works. Is there a way to undo a link once it is done?

Click the node, click View Profile, and you'll then see an Unlink option on the left.

Would it not be better to provide the contact information first and then once it is determined that there is a link between the family tree's that it could be completed?

You can get contact info from the Matches page. So just don't link people unless/until you know who they are and have determined that they belong in your tree

Elise

[efgen]

From all I have seen in the present discussion, it seems to be possible for unknown parties to pin something on my tree arbitrarily.

Only YOU can make changes to your tree.

Your matches can VIEW your tree, just like they could before, but they can't edit your tree or add anything to it.

Elise

[efgen]

The new options for sharing information - "matches only" or "public" (which I assume means non-matches in the FTDNA pool?)...

Public is anyone who isn't a match, not just FTDNA customers. You now have an option to share a link to your tree with anyone.

At the top right of your myFamilyTree page, next to the Search box, you should see a "Share this tree" option, which will give you a public link, such as this:

http://my.familytreedna.com/family-tree/?k=CRTpSxSAqtj%2f7mhjrSHe2g%3d%3d

Elise

[jkuehn8]

NOT in Common Match

What constitutes a 'NOT In Common' match?

[keigh]

While I can appreciate the effort that went into implementing fixes to the new tree as suggested by user feedback, it's still not a tool I find useful.

It really has to reduce the time and effort to scan someone's tree for common names/places... or I simply won't use it. It's hard to get "excited" about something that just doesn't measure up.

It's so much easier to delete the family tree than it is to deal with the mess they are.

[WCoaster]

What constitutes a 'NOT In Common' match?

Our matches' NIC matches would be the ones who match them but not us. I was thinking that (if we opted to share profile info with non-matches) they might be able to see our profiles if/when we're added to a match's tree. (I'm still not sure about that.) From what Elise says, though, the option to make profile info available to non-matches has to do with the ability to share a link to your tree with anyone you'd like to.

[WCoaster]

From what Elise says, though, the option to make profile info available to non-matches has to do with the ability to share a link to your tree with anyone you'd like to.

Correction: Not "anyone you'd like to," but "anyone," exactly as Elise stated. We have the ability to copy and paste the links provided for our matches' trees (first four generations only) into an e-mail, genealogy programs, etc., which enables sharing with third parties.

[AngeliaR]

Sharing the new tree

Sharing the new tree is an interesting function. I am having mixed emotions about it. Which strikes me as strange. I have a public tree on Ancestry, have several family gedcoms loaded to gedmatch, so am generally pretty open with this kind of data. I also *like* the idea that I can send a link to my tree at FTDNA to someone/anyone for viewing.

For some reason, allowing someone else to send a link to my tree to "anyone" is bothering me.

Then, there are the privacy settings which essentially allow me to control which parts of my tree are seen by who. Those now make more sense to me. Public really does mean public... anyone who has the link.

This is going to take some getting used to. For now, I have a 3 person tree posted to my family profiles. The parent's names are "email for" and "tree information". I have included a brief encouragement to email me in the "story" section since it can also be seen by shares. Each profile has a list of surnames back several generations.

I have a tree and am willing to share and collaborate, just taking some time deciding if I will be using the new tree function as presented in its current form at FTDNA. Note: I had full trees posted prior to this new FTDNA tree, but am REALLY wavering now.

[tommypeters]

Well, the tree now seems to have passed the threshold for "usable", even though it's still far from being perfect or even good.

* It's the Detail View that is this large step, the problem with it is that if you zoom out the tree to get some needed overview of the tree the text gets too small to read. That would be solved by showing the info in a larger pop-up when you hover over over the person. Something that doesn't need any re-design, just some coding (and actually not that much).

* What could make the three "good" would be the horisontal pedigree view, then one could actually get a decent overview of the tree.

* "You can't please everyone" - No, but to please as many as possible you will need to let the user configure his experince by using options, as there are a coule of now. There will probably be a need for a few more settings later on, so it would be nice if chosen settings were saved...

* What is actually good is that you can have/show not only direct ancestors but the whole family tree, but from what I have read on forums people don't understand why that is so useful so it needs to be explained and people encouraged to upload not only direct ancestors in their GEDCOMs but the whole tree. [Why is it so useful then? If you haven't both managed to research back to your common ancestors you won't get a chance to find a match with only direct ancestors in the tree. With full trees, your great grandfather may be a cousin to the other person's ancestor and the full tree will help you since that person is in both trees.]

* Getting the utility (close to) perfect would need a lot of work from FTDNA, more than I think a reasonable budget would allow. It should fill in info from all DNA tests done - not just Family Finder, have intelligent GEDCOM compare algorithm's (as on GEDMATCH, but with much less false positives), have great print-outs, have Family View > 4 generations...

I will have to check now how the corrected/improved tree does the matching, parish/place must be an important component for it to be a good help.

[tommypeters]

I just tried the Family Tree, entered the tree of my closest match which defaulted to "Too much zoomed in", "Not the Detail View I want" and "Family View".

I changed to "Ancestry View" and the Generation Depth was automatically set to 15. The Google Chrome tab the tree was in also started to use 30% of my (powerful) CPU, it wasn't possible to do anything with the Family Tree (including changing a setting...), the whole computer became extremely sluggish and after ten minutes I had to close the tab to make the computer usable.

If the routine intentionally did something and wasn't ready after ten minutes, I would have expected a Blue Circle of Patience...

So, still not really usable, at least not every try...

[efgen]

I changed to "Ancestry View" and the Generation Depth was automatically set to 15. The Google Chrome tab the tree was in also started to use 30% of my (powerful) CPU, it wasn't possible to do anything with the Family Tree (including changing a setting...), the whole computer became extremely sluggish and after ten minutes I had to close the tab to make the computer usable.

Hmm, this is the first I've heard that viewing a tree caused this type of sluggishness. Can you see what happens when you try this again with the same match and same exact steps as before? If this is reproducible on-demand, we can submit a report to IT with the specific details so they can troubleshoot.

Thanks,
Elise

[tommypeters]

Hmm, this is the first I've heard that viewing a tree caused this type of sluggishness. Can you see what happens when you try this again with the same match and same exact steps as before? If this is reproducible on-demand, we can submit a report to IT with the specific details so they can troubleshoot.

Thanks,
Elise

Yes, the same happens again with that match - though this time I couldn't let it slow down the machine and cripple Chrome for that long, I closed the tab after around 3 minutes.

[efgen]

Yes, the same happens again with that match - though this time I couldn't let it slow down the machine and cripple Chrome for that long, I closed the tab after around 3 minutes.

OK, please send me a private message with your kit number, the name of the match and the steps to reproduce this, and I'll report it.

Thanks!
Elise