New Tree Tool ???

[ERHill66]

OK Mr educated

First - learn the difference between "won't" and "want" if you want to be more easily understood (and do not want to be thought uneducated, etc).

Re: Blocking - 1)If you are simply going to block me from seeing your tree - fine, no problem. So far, have not found looking at a single Tree here the least bit useful. 2) Most places that allow blocking have it as a two-way process - which I would expect to be true at FTDNA also, if it ever does ever implement blocking (and so you will never know if/when they add a gorgeous tree) 3) If you mean blocking on individual level so they cannot see you at all - seems stupid. You prevent them from recognizing names in your surname list or your own name as a relative and contacting you, from seeing how you match themselves and other relatives whose kits they manage and contacting you, etc etc.

OK Mr educated sure I am Under educated but that is just a plan fact like you being a j a 's. 12 years of free schooling didn't seem to help me much or you but I'll keep posting here as log as FTDNA allows it.

Blocking I want as an option. With this option I would hope FTDNA would make it possible for those being blocked to see they are being blocked and be able to contact whomever is blocking them to see if they could become unblocked.

Reason for being blocked would be having a private tree, DNA not linked to a tree, or a tree with less than whatever number and never grows. Again I want the option to unblock if something changes like the tree is turn into public or DNA is linked to a tree or the tree grows.

I have heard every excuse for having Private Trees DNA not linked to a tree and so on. I don't care if you are scared to add to the amount of bad information or you are to uptight about your research or just a incompetent researcher.

Not able to find anything on any gedcom seem to be a lie or incompetent not sure which that is.

At what site does both parties have to agree to be blocked? Are you making things up seem so that makes no since.

I'll admit I could have done a better job explaining what I meant when I said blocking as I did above. So I want make a comment about seeing gergeous trees. I made comments about blocking elsewhere thought I had done it here too but thanks too you it made me think and now it is here.

I want the option to block private, DNA not linked to a tree, or a tree with small numbers that don't grow because if you want share with me don't expect me to share with you. Everone else is welcome too look over my tree.

[loobster]

re: "At what site does both parties have to agree to be blocked?" - Apparently you misread what I said -- Did not say both sides had to agree - said the blocking went both ways.
If you have blocked me from seeing you - then of course you should also not be able to see me.

Still do not know whether you mean just blocking me from seeing your tree or ??

[tommypeters]

Yes, that is common sense - though not always implemented... Like users at Ancestry with private trees can see public trees.

[ERHill66]

Well you wrote in the other post

re: "At what site does both parties have to agree to be blocked?" - Apparently you misread what I said -- Did not say both sides had to agree - said the blocking went both ways.
If you have blocked me from seeing you - then of course you should also not be able to see me.

Still do not know whether you mean just blocking me from seeing your tree or ??

Quote "2) Most places that allow blocking have it as a two-way process - which I would expect to be true at FTDNA also, if it ever does ever implement blocking (and so you will never know if/when they add a gorgeous tree)"

So what do you mean both parties agree to be blocked or both parties can have a private tree? Blocking is a term I made up also.

The point of blocking is to get people to share and stop hinding their information while felling that its ok to look at other work and give nothing in return. Old school researchers made all kinds of mistakes and I know I have been able to figure them out. Sharing allows others to exchange information and discuss possibilities was it this uncle that aunt or this other family. Private and DNA not linked to a tree doesn't allow that.

The bare minimum number to fell in five generation is 31 people it takes yourself and your parents and grandparents all the way back to the fifth generation to give you that number. If this number never grows its of no help to any one but allows those who have those trees to look at others work. I have been thinking about making all my tree's private but I don't want to because that is just adding to the problem and as of now I wont do that.

[keigh]

To ERHill66

"So what do you mean both parties agree to be blocked or both parties can have a private tree? Blocking is a term I made up also."

Actually blocking is a term commonly use to describe denying someone access to something for some reason. Ancestry has a whole FAQ answer on how you can block someone from contacting you through the Ancestry message system. It's not blocking the tree, just blocking messages. The only way to block people seeing your tree on Ancestry is by making it private.

"The point of blocking is to get people to share and stop hinding their information while felling that its ok to look at other work and give nothing in return. Old school researchers made all kinds of mistakes and I know I have been able to figure them out. Sharing allows others to exchange information and discuss possibilities was it this uncle that aunt or this other family. Private and DNA not linked to a tree doesn't allow that."

If you block someone from seeing your tree, more than likely they will simply skip over to the next match and not think about the match they have with you again. Especially if they have thousands of matches to get through, and you are only a 4th, 5th or remote cousin. The more distant you get the more likely a person is to be a fluke rather than IBD.

"The bare minimum number to fell in five generation is 31 people it takes yourself and your parents and grandparents all the way back to the fifth generation to give you that number. If this number never grows its of no help to any one but allows those who have those trees to look at others work. I have been thinking about making all my tree's private but I don't want to because that is just adding to the problem and as of now I wont do that.[/QUOTE]"

Since FTDNA isn't the primary source for many people's trees, I wouldn't expect them to grow. Those of us who came on before the "New Trees" were put into place are simply adding whatever information we gain through FTDNA matches to our regular trees. And unfortunately the new trees have some awkwardness in the format which makes it tedious for people to add to their previous GEDcom file. Which would be another reason for the trees not seeming to grow.

[rivergirl]

To ERHill66

"The bare minimum number to fell in five generation is 31 people it takes yourself and your parents and grandparents all the way back to the fifth generation to give you that number. If this number never grows its of no help to any one but allows those who have those trees to look at others work. I have been thinking about making all my tree's private but I don't want to because that is just adding to the problem and as of now I wont do that"


I have tested myself and 10 other family members for FF, yDNA and Full mtDNA, from 2006 onwards.
In all this time I have not been able to take my family tree back one generation on any line from a DNA result.
yDNA has not thrown up any close matches within the 5 surnames tested.
Out of 8 FF tests I have found one person who is related, but as we had already researched that line well enough we had much more information on the family line then they did. It just confirmed what we already knew.
The majority of our matches on FF cant link to anywhere in the UK/Europe and of those that can we just do not have the records available to find the connection.

I really don't care if you block me or someone like me, for having a tree that doesn't grow. I do not use or intend to use FTDNA as my genealogy program. I only list the surnames of my direct ancestors and the counties/regions they came from, which is not America, but the UK and Europe.

[ERHill66]

Blocking matches with Private trees

To ERHill66

"So what do you mean both parties agree to be blocked or both parties can have a private tree? Blocking is a term I made up also."

Actually blocking is a term commonly use to describe denying someone access to something for some reason. Ancestry has a whole FAQ answer on how you can block someone from contacting you through the Ancestry message system. It's not blocking the tree, just blocking messages. The only way to block people seeing your tree on Ancestry is by making it private.

Blocking is a term I made up for here for this site because it describes what I want done which is to keep matches who don't share from seeing my information if they wont let the rest of us see what they have.

"The point of blocking is to get people to share and stop hinding their information while felling that its ok to look at other work and give nothing in return. Old school researchers made all kinds of mistakes and I know I have been able to figure them out. Sharing allows others to exchange information and discuss possibilities was it this uncle that aunt or this other family. Private and DNA not linked to a tree doesn't allow that."

If you block someone from seeing your tree, more than likely they will simply skip over to the next match and not think about the match they have with you again. Especially if they have thousands of matches to get through, and you are only a 4th, 5th or remote cousin. The more distant you get the more likely a person is to be a fluke rather than IBD.

First off I have found lots of Common Ancestors in the 6th to 9th generation range with matches who are described a Low or Very Low. So when comes to those prediction ranges it doesn't stop me from looking into it more. Second the idea of blocking is to keep those who want share from seeing my information. So if they just move on I don't care they give nothing in return anyway.

"The bare minimum number to fell in five generation is 31 people it takes yourself and your parents and grandparents all the way back to the fifth generation to give you that number. If this number never grows its of no help to any one but allows those who have those trees to look at others work. I have been thinking about making all my tree's private but I don't want to because that is just adding to the problem and as of now I wont do that.

"

Since FTDNA isn't the primary source for many people's trees, I wouldn't expect them to grow. Those of us who came on before the "New Trees" were put into place are simply adding whatever information we gain through FTDNA matches to our regular trees. And unfortunately the new trees have some awkwardness in the format which makes it tedious for people to add to their previous GEDcom file. Which would be another reason for the trees not seeming to grow.

Yep the trees are a work in progress. Excuses there is a million of them. Maybe they are lazy or just don't want to share. What ever the excuse is I'm sure they all have one. I like to fallow the K. I. S. S. rule( Keep it Simple Stupid) and I'm not calling anyone stupid but whatever your excuse is doesn't matter, I can't see your information I don't want to let you see mine. [/QUOTE]

[ERHill66]

I don't expect anyone to do my work for me

QUOTE=rivergirl;393764]To ERHill66

"The bare minimum number to fell in five generation is 31 people it takes yourself and your parents and grandparents all the way back to the fifth generation to give you that number. If this number never grows its of no help to any one but allows those who have those trees to look at others work. I have been thinking about making all my tree's private but I don't want to because that is just adding to the problem and as of now I wont do that"


I have tested myself and 10 other family members for FF, yDNA and Full mtDNA, from 2006 onwards.

Must be nice to be able to test so many.

In all this time I have not been able to take my family tree back one generation on any line from a DNA result.
yDNA has not thrown up any close matches within the 5 surnames tested.

I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. I have done Y Chromosome, mtDNA and Autosomal test. I have tested at three different companies. I have a different surname than all my Y matches and figured out my connection to the family. I have matches from all over the world 4 American, 1 Welch, and 1 from Australia. Autosomal DNA has unlocked more clues than i could have imagine. It has help confirm my research and pointed me in the right direction when I was looking in the wrong place. mtDNA has not been as fruitful but I am now working with a adopted match to see if we can find clues to her family. I have had tons of luck thanks to DNA testing

Out of 8 FF tests I have found one person who is related, but as we had already researched that line well enough we had much more information on the family line then they did. It just confirmed what we already knew.

Thats what happen when the site you test at has some limitation. I hope the interest in Genealogy grows in Europe but with generation of wars there... there might not be any records there to find sad to say and the connection might not ever get found. That doesn't mean I wont look

The majority of our matches on FF cant link to anywhere in the UK/Europe and of those that can we just do not have the records available to find the connection.

I have been researching for years and only have a few line pushed back to the mother or father lands. I'm going to guess your European and your matches are Americans. If that right the matches have a link further back. My closest immigrant grandparent is in the seventh generation so if your matches are like me their families might have been here awhile and there is a lot of work ahead of them and the clue to your connection could be some time away from you.



I really don't care if you block me or someone like me, for having a tree that doesn't grow. I do not use or intend to use FTDNA as my genealogy program. I only list the surnames of my direct ancestors and the counties/regions they came from, which is not America, but the UK and Europe.[/QUOTE]

I don't expect any European Cousin or any other matches to do my work for me. I will push my lines back as far as i can and hope the lines meet up. When I delete matches at Ancestry because of numbers of people in matches trees its because its a number under 32. A tree thats has less than 32 people in it and never grows is no help to any match. Most people are not like me and have a Gedcom with just Grandparents in it. They have Aunts, Uncles, and cousins which makes the tree look bigger than the 30 possible Common Ancestors. To me a Common Ancestor is a parent or grandparent who has passed DNA on too me and my matches not Aunts' uncles, and cousins who share the DNA. i have had one match that though a Cousin was the Common Ancestor I explained that the cousin shares the DNA but didn't pass it onto us and a Common Ancestor is a Grandparent that has. A tree with a number larger than 31 I don't delete just because of the work load and the time it would take to see if the trees are growing or not and I would not block them unless I noticed its a number like 35 and I look a number of times to see if any worked been done on the tree because I think there is a connection or clue than I would deleted it if it does not grow or Block them here if I get my wish.

[efgen]

Folks,

Time to "agree to disagree" about this blocking topic and move on. The same points are just getting repeated over and over again.

This is not something that's currently on our radar, and some of the points seem to be about one of our competitors, so it's not even a relevant discussion to continue having on this forum.

Elise

[GenieLogical]

Family Tree Viewer - Terrible

I for one would like to voice my opinion about the 'new' tree viewer. It is awful. Was it designed by accountants or software engineers who have never tried to use it and know nothing about genealogy? It freezes. It truncates names and places. Anytime you try to go back or change the settings, it returns to this gigantic mode that you have to repeatedly make smaller to see anything. Navigation is pitiful. Just give me an ahnentafl file as an option. I never thought someone could come up with a family tree viewer that is as bad as 23andMe. But ftdna managed to. I'm very disappointed.

[ERHill66]

Folks,

Time to "agree to disagree" about this blocking topic and move on. The same points are just getting repeated over and over again.

This is not something that's currently on our radar, and some of the points seem to be about one of our competitors, so it's not even a relevant discussion to continue having on this forum.

Elise

I am an Ancestry user and my post are about what i don't like about Ancestry. the reason i post it here is because i hope something would be done about it here with your new tree. I was thinking avoid the problem before it starts but really didn't think it would happen because 2/3 of matches who don't share for one reason or another is still 2/3 customers who are paying for the test. Thanks for letting us know about the blocking I'm ready to move on.

[a shepherd]

new tree tool

In looking at the very few new matches with trees I find the new tree tool very cumbersome to navigate.

It would be nice if when a tree was opened it would default to ancestry view.
Also in the ancestry view I would like to see the number of generations default to a lower number such as 9 generations.

The old system served me well and took less time in searching for a common ancestor. Unless my new matches are close to 4th cousin range I doubt I will bother much with looking at the new trees.

[globalrcg]

A bug on my tree

I notice that where there is only a given name and no surname, the tree repeats the first 4 letters or so of the given name as if it were a surname.
Ex: Susan Susa; Mollie Molli; etc.
Not only confusing it is flat out incorrect. There is no surname on my original uploaded tree because it does not exist. So far I have not discovered a way to delete those false surnames.

[LynCra]

Is that why? I had seen it on a tree and just concluded that the owner did not know enough about genealogy to prepare a tree that was worth spending time on reviewing. This needs to be fixed. It makes the tree owners look incompetent.

[Katydid]

I've noticed something else strange going on. For a few trees, when I type a name in the search box, I get a tree portion that seems to be orphaned from the root. Has anyone else had this problem?