Feature Request: Show only matches with family tree

[keigh]

Perhaps the option could be to sort by number of people on a pedigree view. It could eliminate the need to look at trees that had only 1 to 10 individuals for someone shown as a 4th to 6th cousin.

[Germanica]

That would also be beneficial.

[KATM]

I don't love the Family Tree Viewer either but it's better than nothing. I think you should reconsider adding a tree because after all, you're not the one who has to view your own tree so it really should be no skin off your back to have one uploaded. If other members hate it as much as you do, they don't have to use it but at least your tree will be there for the people who are willing to deal with the viewer and might find it beneficial to their research.

But this topic isn't really about why people have a tree or not - just adding an option to view those that do. I'm not saying I would never look at the matches that don't have a tree so I'm not limiting myself at all - but sometimes, I just want to see a list of who does. Again, I'm not asking to make it a default, just an option. So if you choose not to use it, it's existence isn't going to make a difference for you but it might for other people - so why oppose or disagree with it?

Germanica, you make good points. I'm glad you expanded your reasons. And I didn't really absorb what you were suggesting in your first post. Upon reflection, I'm not against having the option you suggested, or others.

Actually, I did reconsider, and tried using the myFamilyTree feature again a while ago. At that point, my tree showed me that someone had "added" me to their tree as a DNA relative, based on the surname I suppose. They never contacted me, so I didn't know how or if they're really related; what is the connection, where is the proof? This is something I don't like, but guess it's not anything I can control, other than the draconion option of no tree. Shades of dodgy Ancestry.com trees! Right now I am not using myFamilyTree, but I will revisit it and reconsider at a later time.

I don't actually hate the current FTDNA trees (it's a strong word), but I dislike some of the way it's implemented. I've submitted my opinions to FTDNA, just to have my 2 cents noted.

BTW, Rebekah Canada contacted me about my comments in this thread, and additionally asked me to let forum members know that although she may be silent, she's not absent on the forums.

[larzus]

I think the sort by family tree is a good idea too. While scrolling through the pages of matches I recently noticed that some people have no ancestral surnames but do have trees. We can sort by a specific surname but if nothing is listed there we completely miss that there may be available details in their provided tree, especially if they are twenty pages in with no 'In Common Withs'.

I was not aware that if someone added me to their tree I would be notified via my tree. Do you see their actual match details or is it just the purple icon hint? It might be another way to nudge an unresponsive match - maybe even a match with no contact details if they are still logging in!