Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are the advantages to this new FF interface?

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

  • Darren
    replied
    People with only one person in their tree should no longer show up as having a tree. This appears to be corrected when I checked earlier. I have note heard any time table or ultimately if the old known relationship list will come back. I will let you know should I hear anything.

    -Darren
    Family Tree DNA

    Leave a comment:


  • clintonslayton76
    replied
    You said it! (er, wrote it)

    Originally posted by Bill_VT View Post
    1. It should be easy to fix not showing trees with only 1 person as a tree.

    6. Put back the old relationships. Let them be tied to the family tree in the family tree, not FF. It used to take seconds to select a relationship in FF and now I have to build a part of the tree outside my ancestors (that I don't want to post) just to be able to select a match relationship.
    I removed my GEDCOM in disgust with the new relationship "feature." No one was asked if they wanted the value of "phasing" over being able to establish relationships between kit managers, and who wants to look at a tree with one or two persons in it? If I wanted to be on Ancestry, that is where I would be.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill_VT
    replied
    Various Bugs

    1. It should be easy to fix not showing trees with only 1 person as a tree.
    2. The ICW and Not ICW should be part of the individual, not a button at top that needs to scrolled to and checked again.
    3. The Save (csv/excel) should only save the filtered folks, not all folks.
    4. The ICW of filtered folks should compare to the whole database, not just the the filtered list. The filter can be reapplied if desired, but not the normal use.
    5. It might be nice to add the matrix to the selection along with the Chr browser.
    6. Put back the old relationships. Let them be tied to the family tree in the family tree, not FF. It used to take seconds to select a relationship in FF and now I have to build a part of the tree outside my ancestors (that I don't want to post) just to be able to select a match relationship.

    I am sure I forgot a few of the bugs ('changes' in some cases) that are an issue. They really need a beta test group to look at some of these changes before they implement them for everyone. Some I like, but fix the bugs before you keep adding. Adding features by introducing bugs is not a good practice.
    Last edited by Bill_VT; 12 November 2016, 10:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Originally posted by loobster View Post
    re: 1-person trees that FTDNA created --


    Not sure. For some I may have accidentally clicked - or hovered and had it treated as if I chose it.
    In any case --
    Can they be deleted? And if so, how?
    Theoretically..., when viewing a tree there is an option Settings, after you click on it there is an option Delete Family Tree, then once again Delete.

    But it did not work for me...

    Mr W

    Leave a comment:


  • loobster
    replied
    re: 1-person trees that FTDNA created --
    Originally posted by dna View Post
    I have not seen them created automatically. I have seen them created because the kit owner clicked on myFamilyTree link.
    Mr W
    Not sure. For some I may have accidentally clicked - or hovered and had it treated as if I chose it.
    In any case --
    Can they be deleted? And if so, how?
    Last edited by loobster; 23 July 2016, 07:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mabrams
    replied
    Originally posted by Juanita View Post
    When I run the "People who match one or both kits" in GedMatch for 2 FTDNA results, there is a 'common' match from FTDNA that does not appear when I run the 'in common' utility in FTDNA.
    For those who are familiar with this GedMatch utility here are the results:

    Shared 11.7
    Largest 11.7
    Gen5.1
    Shared 16.5
    Largest 11.3
    Gen 4.9
    Gen Difference 0.2


    What's going on here?
    This match does not have a total of 20 cM so they may not be considered a match at FTDNA.

    I know FTDNA has now allows an alternate algorithm for a match if the largest segment is greater than 9 but maybe GedMatch to FTDNA does not recognize this.

    The other possibility is that your longest matches are both in the 11s. Maybe FTDNA has noted a break and divided them up into smaller segments. And now the longest segment is less than 9. To me, this seems the slightly more likely possibility.

    Most of my segments from FTDNA to GedMatch are transferred with high consistency, but I do have several that vary so its not an absolute.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Originally posted by loobster View Post
    So - what are we supposed to do about those 1-person trees that they created? Can we delete them? Why would they have created them without our permission?
    I have not seen them created automatically. I have seen them created because the kit owner clicked on myFamilyTree link.

    Mr W

    Leave a comment:


  • loobster
    replied
    So - what are we supposed to do about those 1-person trees that they created? Can we delete them? Why would they have created them without our permission?

    Leave a comment:


  • wombat
    replied
    It seems to be working pretty well now and they seem to have been really responsive, fixing and improving tons of stuff in just a few days.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juanita
    replied
    Not in synch with Gedmatch utility?

    When I run the "People who match one or both kits" in GedMatch for 2 FTDNA results, there is a 'common' match from FTDNA that does not appear when I run the 'in common' utility in FTDNA.
    For those who are familiar with this GedMatch utility here are the results:

    Shared 11.7
    Largest 11.7
    Gen5.1
    Shared 16.5
    Largest 11.3
    Gen 4.9
    Gen Difference 0.2


    What's going on here?

    Leave a comment:


  • MoberlyDrake
    replied
    I agree. It was bad enough when a match added a one person tree and you found it a waste of time to click on it. But now they've added one person trees to almost everybody, so you really waste time.

    I also agree that the Ancestry view of the tree should open to 15 generations as there's no reason I can see to only viewing 4. And I think we should be able to set our own default view, so we could always skip family view altogether. I never ever look at that. Does anybody? What I really want is a pedigree view!!!

    And I don't think they need to hide the second Search box under "Advanced" It doesn't take up that much room and I don't consider it advanced at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • cjm95
    replied
    Trees

    I find it very frustrating and a waste of time to click on what appears to be a family tree for a match and the only person shown in the tree is the person who tested. Nothing more so why make it appear that there is a tree listed for a match. Wasting so much time. Also I find that there is a bunch of needless clicking. Why not show the ancestry view of each tree first with the 15 generations view instead of 4 generations which there is hardly ever a match that close anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • loobster
    replied
    I think it is a plus to be able to have them simultaneously search for a surname in both the Name Field and the Ancestral Surnames Field -

    BUT I would have thought separately was the norm, combined the "Advanced".

    Think it would make more sense to have it start with the two separate lines - and under, have "Do combined Search" - which when you click, gets to what they now start with.

    I absolutely agree - when you find a person thru search, there should then be a way to be able to do "In Common With" for the whole database.

    I also agree with those who hate the Re-Load after 5 seconds if your search was not found. Think better to leave - let you look, see what you mistyped or know for sure it was not found.

    Leave a comment:


  • susan_dakin
    replied
    Originally posted by Jim Barrett View Post
    Click on "Advanced Search" under the search box and you'll see two search boxes. One for surname and one for ancestral names. These appear to work the same way the old searches worked.
    Yes, thanks. So it's just one more extra click. And what is so "advanced" about this function? Of course, the much bigger problem is that the search results still can't be used for viewing matches in common.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Barrett
    replied
    Originally posted by susan_dakin View Post
    Also, please go back to providing separate searches for match surnames and ancestral surnames! I often want to search for one or the other, but hardly ever both at once!
    Click on "Advanced Search" under the search box and you'll see two search boxes. One for surname and one for ancestral names. These appear to work the same way the old searches worked.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X