Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Tree Tool ???

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

  • salgo60
    replied
    Common surname useless in the part of the world that use patronymics

    People you need to understand that a surname is not the same in all parts of the world and my feeling is that people at FTDNA hasn't done their homework regarding writing Requirements and User cases bvefore trying to build the tools....

    I.e. we have something called Patronymicon that makes a surname function useless as the surname change with every child. The surname tells that this child was a daughter or son to a father with the first name as xxxx ==> the son will be called xxxson and a daughter xxxdaughter....

    http://www.genealogi.se/swedish-patr...-swedish-names

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronymic

    Leave a comment:


  • Auslander
    replied
    I too was one who thought the three most common surnames was useless. At least I was until I recieved my Y-111 results and discovered my surname wasn't what I thought it was. With literally dozens of matches to a certain surname at the various levels of testing, imagine my surprise when I noticed that same name was one of the three most common. Guess you could say I am now a believer in what FTDNA was doing with this.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Originally posted by susan_dakin View Post
    Why not just say it? The top 3 surnames of my matches is completely USELESS information that takes up valuable screen space. All it tells me are which very common surnames the largest number of my matches happen to share by chance. (Actually, only my top 2 are showing at the moment — Miller and Brown.) Anyone who thinks this is a good feature clearly doesn't understand how it works (sadly, that apparently includes the developers at FTDNA).
    The top 3 surnames could have been useful, if by clicking on them matches would be selected with only that family name

    W. (Mr.)

    P.S.
    I tried to click on the surnames being dead sure that it was their intended purpose

    Leave a comment:


  • susan_dakin
    replied
    Navigating Family Trees

    Originally posted by grahcom View Post
    I don't find getting around the family tree's on FTDNA any more difficult that on Ancestry or My Heritage.
    I guess it depends on what you are trying to use the trees for. For following up on matches for genealogical purposes, searching or just clicking around are useless. What we need to be able to do is start with the most recent generation and systematically follow back in time each line of descent that looks relevant (based on surname or location). This is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to do with the current tree format, especially with large trees. In contrast, Ancestry's pedigree view makes it very easy to do. If the FTDNA developers could watch me attempting to use the Family Tree feature on a tree in Ancestry view with 15 generations and hundreds of people, they would weep and swear off programming forever.

    Leave a comment:


  • susan_dakin
    replied
    It's a dumb feature

    Originally posted by keigh View Post
    They are our matches' names, I was just trying to say, "What's the point to the surnames" without actually saying it's a dumb feature.
    Why not just say it? The top 3 surnames of my matches is completely USELESS information that takes up valuable screen space. All it tells me are which very common surnames the largest number of my matches happen to share by chance. (Actually, only my top 2 are showing at the moment — Miller and Brown.) Anyone who thinks this is a good feature clearly doesn't understand how it works (sadly, that apparently includes the developers at FTDNA).

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    A side-note...

    Originally posted by keigh View Post
    [----] if it's the mother who is the key to the matching, her maiden name is probably something totally different.
    She, and not only she, should be listed by her family name at birth. That applies to both sexes.

    Otherwise with marriages and divorces the name would keep changing. And since males do take wife's family name, the argument holds for them too.

    In their profile, she or he not only can but is more than welcomed to list her or his last names, but in the world of genealogy they should present themselves with the surname at birth.

    W. (Mr.)

    Leave a comment:


  • keigh
    replied
    They are our matches' names, I was just trying to say, "What's the point to the surnames" without actually saying it's a dumb feature. If the surnames are simply the current last names of my matches and I have none of those names on my tree, what value is there to me to know that so many, Smiths, or Jones, or Whites, or Davis or what evers are the last name of my matches.


    They could all be from one family, a mother and her 5 kids, all of them sharing same last name, Webb. And all those tests match me. They could run up the total of Webbs on my list of surnames but if it's the mother who is the key to the matching, her maiden name is probably something totally different.

    Leave a comment:


  • k.martin
    replied
    I though the top three were our matches' surnames.

    Mine are Jones, Brown & M.

    I love the "M."

    Leave a comment:


  • keigh
    replied
    The 3 most common surname feature for the matches list is very strange. Mine are Davis, Webb, and White. My tree has no Davis, Webb, or White in it. LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • Serket
    replied
    Originally posted by WCoaster View Post
    Meanwhile, we're offered a dazzling new feature - a list of our matches' top three surnames (gee whiz! Smith, Jones, and Williams!).
    I think it's a cool feature and I hope they come up with more tidbits like that. My top three are: Johnson, Williams, and Davis.

    Leave a comment:


  • travers
    replied
    Originally posted by keigh View Post
    Did I get it cleared up?
    Yes, I gotcha.

    Leave a comment:


  • keigh
    replied
    Originally posted by travers View Post
    Of course there are many trees that are a genealogical mess, this would hold true no matter what site you go to. Wherever there are family trees there are going to laughable mistakes, untruths and trees with mistakes that were copied from somebody or somewhere else. This is not the point of the thread though.
    Travers, I realized when I re-read that part of my comment was unclear, I had tried to quote the section of a thread that commented on the "Ancestry Tree Rules" comment and it didn't come out.
    This was the comment that I was agreeing with:

    "travers Jim you are misunderstanding as I think they mean that Ancestry's trees are the easiest to navigate, and I would agree. FTDNA's trees are very difficult to navigate and they don't seem very willing to correct it.
    22nd February 2015 06:09 AM

    The above comment is the way I read and understood the "Ancestry Rules Comment". I simply added the comment about trees being a mess all over, in agreement with something Jim mentioned. I don't have a Family Tree here at FTDNA, because it is so danged hard to navigate it compared to the tree I have over at Ancestry. But trees are a mess genealogically all over, but some tree formats are simply easier to navigate through. Ancestry being one of those formats that moves well. Did I get it cleared up?

    Leave a comment:


  • WCoaster
    replied
    Agree with the above, and would only add that the old system of populating a surname list from each uploaded tree needs to be revived. Many tree owners don't add a surname list, or if they do, list only a handful of their ancestral surnames. Problem is, the surname search feature doesn't turn up names in trees - only the ones in surname lists.

    Meanwhile, we're offered a dazzling new feature - a list of our matches' top three surnames (gee whiz! Smith, Jones, and Williams!).

    Why? Just why??

    Leave a comment:


  • Tenn4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by travers View Post
    Of course there are many trees that are a genealogical mess, this would hold true no matter what site you go to. Wherever there are family trees there are going to laughable mistakes, untruths and trees with mistakes that were copied from somebody or somewhere else. This is not the point of the thread though.
    Correct. Yes, Ancestry's trees along with everyone else's trees can be a mess. Ancestry software does give a warning when a date of a child is entered and it is before that of the parent...also if the surname is different than the paternal surname a warning will flash. The warning can be ignored. On any tree the information has to be vetted by the researcher.


    I was specifically speaking of the layout and the information that can be accessed easily. To open a tree in the pedigree view on Ancestry is great and then to easily extend that pedigree all the way out and see it on the page is much better than other programs. To be able to click on any person to see their overview and records is the best.

    I don't like Ancestry's family view which opens first so I immediately change to the pedigree view. It's a much cleaner look and the big overall picture of the tree can be seen immediately.
    Last edited by Tenn4ever; 22 February 2015, 10:30 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • travers
    replied
    Originally posted by keigh View Post
    Jim, That's how I read the Ancestry Trees Rule comment too. Anyone who has looked at most trees know that generally speaking they are genealogically a mess. But Ancestry does have the easiest tree to navigate quickly through the mess for simply locating possible connections.

    FTDNA's tree is cumbersome even just using the Ancestry View (Pedigree View) and bring the icon size down to the smallest size possible. All that dragging and clicking.
    Of course there are many trees that are a genealogical mess, this would hold true no matter what site you go to. Wherever there are family trees there are going to laughable mistakes, untruths and trees with mistakes that were copied from somebody or somewhere else. This is not the point of the thread though.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X