Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Check your myDashboard!

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

  • GoofusBroadway
    replied
    Originally posted by travers View Post
    Meh. 90% of the trees that do show are listed as a "Private Member's Tree", so you don't know who submitted the tree....
    It's been my experience that the person's name is sometimes visible if you click on "private member's tree" to view the tree. It still seems to be dependent on their privacy settings, but I saw several names this way yesterday. Look at the top of the screen when you view the tree.

    kathy

    Leave a comment:


  • larzus
    replied
    I edited my profile information and made it public, and I have been contacted already by two non-DNA Match cousins (one 3rd, one 4th) who I did not know of.

    By taking our details to Gedmatch in each instance I have discovered a match which is below the FtDNA threshold but a high enough SNP and cM count to seem valid, based on the common family tree.

    Latest news on one is a triangulation with a third party and a common ancestor has been confirmed. The third party is an FtDNA match with each of us, be we were not with each other.

    So I'm more pleased than ever with this feature. I did have to take the rather unsettling step of making my profile public, but I've received no spam and I'm now comfortable with it. Living people in my trees remain private.

    Leave a comment:


  • mmparker
    replied
    Global Search

    I think it is a very helpful feature. Thank you. Yes, it would be nice to be able to get in touch with some of these people who have their trees marked private but perhaps in time. Appreciate the improvement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Time Traveler
    replied
    Need Information on the New Feature

    I received an email with a somewhat blurry screen shot announcing this new feature. I did a surname search for LaJoie on my home page matches and came up with 0. Yet, when I search in the new feature there are 5 pages of LaJoie matches. I do not have any matches that are shown as private. Where are these purported matches coming from?

    Leave a comment:


  • Katydid
    replied
    I'm not sure I understand your comment. Yes, I received an email late in the afternoon announcing the new Global search. My point is that I think people should have been given an opportunity to know about this change and adjust their privacy settings beforehand.

    I'm a competent, experienced FTDNA customer, but I did not realize that some of my trees had various levels set to public. I like for my trees to be freely viewable to DNA matches, but I definitely never changed the settings to make the data public, so that was either a default or some side effect.

    I don't understand the utility of this feature for non-customers. Even if you want your tree to be public, there's no way for anyone to contact you. All it allows people to do is lift tree information with no sources given. That is not good genealogical practice.

    For logged-in matches, it's also of limited usefulness. In many cases, the tree owner is shown as "Private Member Tree" and if they're not visible at the root, I have no way of knowing who they are, especially if the match is female and listed on the FF page under her married name. Why is this set so that your matches' trees are not listed under their names?

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Originally posted by Katydid View Post
    I suspect that there are quite a few people who have no idea that their family trees, with them at the root, are now fully on display to the general public.

    I thought I had all my trees private to non-matches, but I guess I missed a setting at some point. I've fixed that now. However, an email should have been sent out to all kit owners about this upcoming change (with instructions about setting tree privacy settings) before this went live.
    My project members had received e-mail notifications after 15:00 (3PM) Houston time. That is at least six hours before your post.

    Originally posted by Darren View Post
    Let me check with management regarding this, I agree some kind of announcement is needed.
    -Darren
    Family Tree DNA
    As a project administrator, I got an email notification one hour before your post Darren.

    W. (Mr.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Katydid
    replied
    Thanks, Darren.

    Originally posted by Darren View Post
    Let me check with management regarding this, I agree some kind of announcement is needed.
    -Darren
    Family Tree DNA

    Leave a comment:


  • Darren
    replied
    Let me check with management regarding this, I agree some kind of announcement is needed.
    -Darren
    Family Tree DNA

    Leave a comment:


  • Katydid
    replied
    I suspect that there are quite a few people who have no idea that their family trees, with them at the root, are now fully on display to the general public.

    I thought I had all my trees private to non-matches, but I guess I missed a setting at some point. I've fixed that now. However, an email should have been sent out to all kit owners about this upcoming change (with instructions about setting tree privacy settings) before this went live.

    Leave a comment:


  • WCoaster
    replied
    Thanks, larzus. That's good news!

    Leave a comment:


  • larzus
    replied
    Private trees are still private. In the search results, every so often I am finding one that says: Private Family Tree - You need to be a DNA match to see this result.

    I can't see anything at all about these trees and I don't even know if my search surname is an exact hit or a similar name.

    The ones we can see are the ones set to allow viewing. A few different levels of privacy are evident even among these. Some show the name of the tree owner, for instance, whereas some have that tree name set to 'Private Member's Tree' while still having a tree available to view.

    When we can view a tree, the original privacy settings still apply so living people are private, people deceased within the last 100 years are private - all the same as before.

    Leave a comment:


  • WCoaster
    replied
    On second thought, I hope I've misunderstood. Does the "matches only" option under the Genealogy tab in Account Settings still work under the new search system? I hope so!

    Leave a comment:


  • WCoaster
    replied
    Tree privacy: all or nothing?

    No warning was issued that trees would be made searchable to non-matches, with no way to opt out. Profiles can be private, but trees can't? Seems to me the reverse would make more sense.

    I just hope this isn't going to have the unintended consequence of discouraging the few people who have been willing to post trees from doing so.
    Last edited by WCoaster; 14 April 2015, 09:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • travers
    replied
    Meh. 90% of the trees that do show are listed as a "Private Member's Tree", so you don't know who submitted the tree. This is because FTDNA has the default profile set to "Private: Do not show any information" even though they recommend this setting "Basic profile: Only show my name, picture and birth year (recommended)." If they recommend the basic profile setting why isn't it the default? What is the point of this new feature if we don't know who submitted any of these trees and there is no way to contact?

    Leave a comment:


  • larzus
    replied
    New Family Search Option

    I love it! I've found second cousins for my mother who we had completely lost contact with. Unfortunately they haven't come up as matches so I can't get in touch. But so nice to know that my great grandfather's sister lived to adulthood, got married and had a whole lot of descendants.

    I've edited my own profile by reducing information and have set it to public to see if anyone wants to contact me. This option is still showing as 'not recommended' so maybe I'm about to get spam, but it's worth it if a long lost relative gets in touch .

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X