Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Most Common Surnames

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

  • LynCra
    replied
    Looks like you and I are pretty much in agreement with each other, dna.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Originally posted by LynCra View Post
    OK I see. You were asking us to confirm that there is a bug. I misunderstood to start with and thought you were trying to tell us about something new and useful.

    Bug confirmed. I ended up with the ridiculous Houston message which just adds to the irritation when something is wrong. I wish their programmers would stop being so juvenile and replace the Houston message and Eek with professional error messages.
    I am sorry. In my first post, I was trying to be sarcastic, but my juvenile humour did not come across

    What really bugs me, is a persistent lack of acknowledgement from FTDNA that the issue exist...

    More in the thread http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=36230 Houston... in the Features Requests & Bug Reports Area.

    W.
    Last edited by dna; 16 November 2014, 11:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • andreastill.gen
    replied
    Originally posted by dna View Post
    Seeing three most popular family names in the hundreds matches is perfect for me. (Especially that some kits have thousands of matches.)

    I think I am not alone in hoping that the "three name bar" evolves into a hotlink to some advanced statistics about the matches.

    And if you think that those three names are not useful to you. They are . If you want search by name and then execute In Common With with anybody from the search results, their family name has to be one of the three... Try it...
    I like using the In Common With feature. I find that far more helpful in my family than the Most Common Surname feature. Both sides of my family are German with the exception of one line which is Austrian. We don't get a lot of matches on either side and many fewer on my dad's side of the family. The Most Common Surname feature generates a list of names for my paternal grandmother and her half-first cousin for single numbers with a last name. Not even two people sharing the last name. I think this would be a more helpful feature for those with a lot more matches to sift through. When the kits you administer range between 100 and 140 matches each that really isn't an issue.

    The one very interesting thing I did notice with the Most Common Surname feature in my maternal grandmother's account is that the top two surnames on her match list occur three times each and they appear to be Ashkenazi Jewish matches. Not that I didn't already see something interesting going on with her matches based on the surnames and trees her matches posted but at least in her case the Most Common Surname turned up something interesting.

    I would love to see this feature expanded to include names in trees especially when those trees are really extensive. Location match lists would also be really helpful but I think I'm pushing my luck in hoping for that one.

    Leave a comment:


  • WCoaster
    replied
    I've kept track of all of my matches' surnames from the beginning, and haven't found it as useful as I'd hoped. The more information you have to work with, the better, because depending on surnames can be tricky. Some names are uncommon in the general population, but not within ethnic and regional subsets; and some families are better-documented than others. In making comparisons, it's hard to correct for those factors.

    There's also the need to exclude in-laws (collateral lines). I've wondered if this isn't the reason we're not seeing surname lists generated from the new trees.
    Last edited by WCoaster; 16 November 2014, 07:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LynCra
    replied
    OK I see. You were asking us to confirm that there is a bug. I misunderstood to start with and thought you were trying to tell us about something new and useful.

    Bug confirmed. I ended up with the ridiculous Houston message which just adds to the irritation when something is wrong. I wish their programmers would stop being so juvenile and replace the Houston message and Eek with professional error messages.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Let's say, there is a list of FF matches.

    For any of them, you can display In Common With (ICW).

    For example, you are interested only in matches having the family name Ample. In the dialog box for Name: one needs to enter Ample and press Apply. Then a list of people whose last name is matching Ample is displayed.

    On that list you would be able to display ICW only for those with a family name that is on the list of three most popular family names. Otherwise, you get a Houston error upon attempting to display ICW.

    Ample matches both Example and Sample. And ICW would only work for any o the matches if their last name (Example or Sample) were listed at the top of the original matches page.

    P.S.
    A bug was reported...
    Last edited by dna; 16 November 2014, 04:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • S9 H9
    replied
    I've not seen an explanation of this feature so it would be useful if FTDNA decided to write up what they are trying to do.

    If one merely counts occurrences of surnames than what will happen is that you will just recreate the list of most common surnames for whatever society your ancestors have been in for the past few generations. Since most FTDNA customers will have American colonial ancestry, the most common English names - Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, etc., will be what you get.

    What is needed is a way to evaluate frequency of names in matches' pedigrees and then compare that data to frequency of those surnames in the population at large, to see what names are occurring more frequently than expected.

    But as for me, since Family Finder is almost impossible to use, and out the browsers Chrome, Safari, and Firefox only Safari I can use, and that often goes wrong, I really don't like trying to use Family Finder, which makes the whole exercise futile anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • LynCra
    replied
    Originally posted by dna View Post
    If you want search by name and then execute In Common With with anybody from the search results, their family name has to be one of the three... Try it...
    Tried to try it, but cannot see what you are asking us to try. Do you mean that we should search by name on one of the three names or on any name?

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Originally posted by keigh View Post
    Since I'm still only getting the surnames of matches rather than names of people on my tree [----]
    Seeing three most popular family names in the hundreds matches is perfect for me. (Especially that some kits have thousands of matches.)

    I think I am not alone in hoping that the "three name bar" evolves into a hotlink to some advanced statistics about the matches.

    And if you think that those three names are not useful to you. They are . If you want search by name and then execute In Common With with anybody from the search results, their family name has to be one of the three... Try it...

    Leave a comment:


  • keigh
    replied
    Originally posted by larzus View Post
    I have now noticed that if I select a match and view 'In Common Withs', the names at the top change so it only applies to the specific selection. If it applied to my match's ancestor surnames rather than my match's own surnames, this could be rather useful.

    I believe there was talk of populating the surname list from the family trees. If this is done, and this name count was applied to those names, it could be useful as a hint to a common name between the matches which could then be researched to find a link to my own tree. Hopefully this is where FtDNA are eventually going with this feature?
    Since I'm still only getting the surnames of matches rather than names of people on my tree, I'm still wondering where FTDNA is going with this feature? Can anyone tell us what's it's point or purpose??? Last time I tried to figure out what was going on with it, the site placed a call to "Houston, we have a problem."

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
    I had better hide the above military-related post before the left-wingers come after me. Now that I've (temporarily?) settled on a Covington ancestral line for my direct maternal ancestress, I poked a bit more into Sarah Newman (c.1720-c.1760), her mother. It's basically a brick wall there in colonial eastern shore Maryland. But I've (temporarily?) settled on a Virginia origin, and not the other Newman in the wider area. A possible grandmother of Sarah was Mary Bull from England; that is if she married John Newman of Buckinghamshire.
    I'll wrap my two cents worth up by making a correction. Firstly, I still don't know for sure if I'm on the right track with the Covington line. But in case it's the right line, for my direct maternal line, I'll share a discovery. Sarah Newman apparently is really Sarah Newnam. I haven't found her father, but she has a sister on record, born 1718, as marrying William Calvin. From what I can glean from online, that Calvin tribe is at least partly Huguenot, via Ireland. I don't know about the Newnam line, except I saw online a Newnam in London around the same time frame.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    I had better hide the above military-related post before the left-wingers come after me. Now that I've (temporarily?) settled on a Covington ancestral line for my direct maternal ancestress, I poked a bit more into Sarah Newman (c.1720-c.1760), her mother. It's basically a brick wall there in colonial eastern shore Maryland. But I've (temporarily?) settled on a Virginia origin, and not the other Newman in the wider area. A possible grandmother of Sarah was Mary Bull from England; that is if she married John Newman of Buckinghamshire.
    Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 14 November 2014, 03:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    On this Veterans Day I might mention some glorious/glamorous military names show up in surname lists given by some of my FF matches. I forget some of them, but I do recall Patton and Wainwright.
    Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 12 November 2014, 01:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • larzus
    replied
    Most Common Surnames

    I have now noticed that if I select a match and view 'In Common Withs', the names at the top change so it only applies to the specific selection. If it applied to my match's ancestor surnames rather than my match's own surnames, this could be rather useful.

    I believe there was talk of populating the surname list from the family trees. If this is done, and this name count was applied to those names, it could be useful as a hint to a common name between the matches which could then be researched to find a link to my own tree. Hopefully this is where FtDNA are eventually going with this feature?

    Leave a comment:


  • mollyblum
    replied
    I just noticed it showed up on my 2 accounts as well. However, I know it is not correct as I have over 1000 matches with a lot of Cohen's and my tope matches say "5 Smiths, 7 Friedman's (interesting as I have no Friedman's in my surnames that I know if) and 7 Grossman's ( Very interesting as my great- uncle married a Grossman from the same small shtetl that my family is from so maybe we are actually related by blood). But I know that I have many Brown's and Brookers and Barkers, etc listed in surnames so I wonder if it is just not picking them up?

    My mom's list also has Friedman listed but in a higher amount than mine and she has Cohen which makes sense since my ggrandmother's family were "ha Cohen's"- and it is a common name. She also has the name Kaplan which we do not have in our tree.

    I am curious what other Jewish folks have listed as their top surnames ? I imagine Cohen is a top contender but besides that....?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X