Feature Request: Show only matches with family tree

[Germanica]

Has this ever been suggested before? We all know that matches without a family tree aren't very helpful so it seems to make sense that there should be a way to filter out the people who don't have one. I'm not saying it should be a default or permanent setting - just an option in one of the sorting drop down menus.

[dna]

Has this ever been suggested before? We all know that matches without a family tree aren't very helpful so it seems to make sense that there should be a way to filter out the people who don't have one. I'm not saying it should be a default or permanent setting - just an option in one of the sorting drop down menus.

• blank Ancestral Surnames
• blank Most Distant Ancestors
• no e-mail address
• X-match
• combinations AND / OR of conditions

W.

[KATM]

Has this ever been suggested before? We all know that matches without a family tree aren't very helpful so it seems to make sense that there should be a way to filter out the people who don't have one. I'm not saying it should be a default or permanent setting - just an option in one of the sorting drop down menus.

I had a tree under the "old style" FTDNA family tree system. I have tried the new version, and find it unsatisfactory to use (being kind), either for entering my own tree, or viewing others' trees. When I view a match's tree at FTDNA, it is not a good experience, very awkward to use.

This is why I do not have a tree now. I do have my most distant ancestors, all ancestral surnames and locations that I know of, and some dates, shown in my profile. I would like to reinstate a tree in the accounts I manage, but probably will not, unless or until they revise the current method. Perhaps we could have two choices of tree: basic (old style or something like it), and "new style."

I find it much more annoying when matches do not have anything in their profiles, especially some surnames and locations. But, we can always contact the match if we want to find out anything - provided they include their email address! So, I don't agree with filtering out matches without trees - why limit your matches? Someone without a tree may be just the match you need.

To me, trees are useful in visualizing a family, seeing where a possible common ancestor shows up. But if a profile shows information of interest to me, I will contact them, even if there is no tree. I don't need to see their tree if they have a surname and/or location of interest.

That's just my humble opinion.

[loobster]

I do not have a Tree, and it seems current problems with Tree are discouraging even those who did have a Tree -- BUT - I see the poster (Germanica) said "I'm not saying it should be a default or permanent setting - just an option in one of the sorting drop down menus." -- and that I have no problem with, and agree would be nice.

Ditto what I believe were meant as additional suggestions to search on only those who have ancestral surnames and etc. -- OR were those not additional search criterion, but modifications to this search criterion?

[royfarnol]

The suggestion is silly.

How can, just to give one example, an adopted person who knows little or nothing about their family history be expected to produce a family tree?

Do you want just those who know a lot about their family history to benefit from joining FTDNA?

There are many other reasons why family tree trees are not produced. In my case some years of document investigation have shown just how many flaws there are in the paper trail.

I have very little faith in family trees taht are not backed up by DNA evidence and there are not many of them.

[Germanica]

I had a tree under the "old style" FTDNA family tree system. I have tried the new version, and find it unsatisfactory to use (being kind), either for entering my own tree, or viewing others' trees. When I view a match's tree at FTDNA, it is not a good experience, very awkward to use.

This is why I do not have a tree now. I do have my most distant ancestors, all ancestral surnames and locations that I know of, and some dates, shown in my profile. I would like to reinstate a tree in the accounts I manage, but probably will not, unless or until they revise the current method. Perhaps we could have two choices of tree: basic (old style or something like it), and "new style."

I find it much more annoying when matches do not have anything in their profiles, especially some surnames and locations. But, we can always contact the match if we want to find out anything - provided they include their email address! So, I don't agree with filtering out matches without trees - why limit your matches? Someone without a tree may be just the match you need.

To me, trees are useful in visualizing a family, seeing where a possible common ancestor shows up. But if a profile shows information of interest to me, I will contact them, even if there is no tree. I don't need to see their tree if they have a surname and/or location of interest.

That's just my humble opinion.

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]

The suggestion is silly.

How rude.

I don't see how it's silly to make a suggestion in the Feature Request forum for a feature that will make my research easier at times.

Wow. Had I known I would get torn apart for making a suggestion which - again - wouldn't influence anyone who doesn't want to use it, I wouldn't have bothered.

How can, just to give one example, an adopted person who knows little or nothing about their family history be expected to produce a family tree?

I am NOT saying matches without trees are useless. I am NOT saying I want matches without trees to be removed from our lists or even listed last as a default. It would be an OPTION that SOME people could use on OCCASION if they wanted to. If you never wanted to use this option, NOTHING would change for you so I don't know why you feel the need to insult me just for making a suggestion. Jesus, you'd think I'd asked for the entire database to be wiped clean.

Do you want just those who know a lot about their family history to benefit from joining FTDNA?

I never said that and you are totally twisting my words.

[dna]

I can see that someone who gets his results today, and not years ago when the Family Finder just started, could be easily overwhelmed by hundreds of matches.

Selecting only those who have trees could be one of the ideas.

On the other hand, selecting only those who can be contacted (e-mail!) could be more practical. Please look around how many people are crying in the forums that their matches do not have e-mail addresses...

Combining both of them is possibly even better for those who have thousands of matches.

Trees are not everything (see for example earlier KATM's post). So I would like to be able to do, as a starting point for my testers:
* display only those who have trees OR have non-blank Ancestral Surnames OR have non-blank Most Distant Ancestors;
* AND limit display only to those who posted their e-mail address.

Anyway, that is not my way of researching the Family Finder results. I am looking at the Longest Block. Regardless of anything (trees, surnames, ancestors) I would love to be able to get in touch with everybody who has the Longest Block greater than 20, thus to me a valid e-mail address is a must!

I am not forgetting about adoptees. However, I think that under most of the circumstances, it would be them who would be initiating the contact.

W.

P.S.
Quality of information is very often too low to be usable.
London? England? Ontario? There are ten more to choose from...
Springfield? You must be joking
San Francisco? Hundreds of those..., and if the last name associated with that place is García...
Berlin? No, that is nowadays Kitchener...
Aleksandrovka or Ivanovka? Good transliteration, but there are hundreds of those! And may be it is one of places named Aleksandrówka in Poland (as in the part of Poland occupied by Russia throughout the 19th century, the official names were written in the Cyrillic script).

[Tenn4ever]

For me the DNA tools are what I'm interested in. I have nine kits on here and the matching tools and their results guide me on who I contact....not family trees. I prefer a list of surnames and their locations. Most family trees are only pipe dreams no matter how much documentation you have unless the DNA backs it up. A name is only a name...no one knows what went on under the covers 100, 200, 300 years ago

[T E Peterman]

If a match has no email, no known ancestors, no tree, a pseudonym, etc., you can still do an ICW with that person & get an idea of how he or she fits into your family, especially if you have multiple relatives tested.

Regarding the tree, I represent over 50 kits & I'm not going to update each one if there is a change. I would prefer to just have one tree & to link my participants to that tree. This would be OK, as long as the mere linking doesn't overwrite data in the tree, or data in the participant's kit. Why does this matter? Some participants are identified by maiden name & some by married name. If the correct name in the tree forces a name change at the kit level, every match of that participant who downloads data in a spreadsheet form will be perplexed by the name change; might not be obvious that a match was shared, depending on when the data was downloaded. I would actually prefer an identification key OTHER than name; participants could then modify their name whenever & it wouldn't impact the lists that matches generate.

Timothy Peterman

[gilbertdh]

The initial request is a good one.

There are a lot of really terrible family trees both here on FT DNA and on Ancestry (like 90% of them).

Genealogy requires both a documented family tree and DNA testing. There is no way to recover the past with DNA alone.

I believe the purpose of the FT DNA tree thing is not to show a documented family tree but information about whether you might match someone or not. It's more useful than the surname list since it's multidimensional, showing time and relationship.

But, a system is only as good as the data put into it.

[Germanica]

I can see that someone who gets his results today, and not years ago when the Family Finder just started, could be easily overwhelmed by hundreds of matches.

Selecting only those who have trees could be one of the ideas.

On the other hand, selecting only those who can be contacted (e-mail!) could be more practical. Please look around how many people are crying in the forums that their matches do not have e-mail addresses...

I support that suggestion too. I really don't see how an option to sort by family trees or emails is any different to any of the other sort by options. The more sorting options, the better, if you ask me - it doesn't mean everyone has to use every single option.

Combining both of them is possibly even better for those who have thousands of matches.

Agreed, that would be even better.

Trees are not everything (see for example earlier KATM's post).

No, there not, but they are useful.

[MikeP]

Another reason

I am in process of reconstructing my family tree (an early version was lost, plus I've come across more original documentation since then) and will not post it here at FTDna until it's decently complete. My father's father's line is complete back as far as we can go, but I have much to work on and enter from my father's mother's side and my mother's side. I would hate to lose contact with possible matches in the meantime, just because I don't have a tree up yet. It might help find more extensions than the one's I'm presently adding.

[dna]

I am in process of reconstructing my family tree (an early version was lost, plus I've come across more original documentation since then) and will not post it here at FTDna until it's decently complete. My father's father's line is complete back as far as we can go, but I have much to work on and enter from my father's mother's side and my mother's side. I would hate to lose contact with possible matches in the meantime, just because I don't have a tree up yet. It might help find more extensions than the one's I'm presently adding.

Actually, somebody had already suggested a trees updated since date option.

W.

[Germanica]

I am in process of reconstructing my family tree (an early version was lost, plus I've come across more original documentation since then) and will not post it here at FTDna until it's decently complete. My father's father's line is complete back as far as we can go, but I have much to work on and enter from my father's mother's side and my mother's side. I would hate to lose contact with possible matches in the meantime, just because I don't have a tree up yet. It might help find more extensions than the one's I'm presently adding.

There's no reason you would lose contact with people because of this.

What I'm suggesting is simply that in the "Sort by" drop down menu where the default is "Relationship range", there would be an option to sort by tree. It would NOT be the default and if you didn't click on the drop down menu and select the tree option, you might not even know it's there.

Think of it this way... currently, in the sort by menu you have to option to view matches by name or match date. If one selects these options on occasion, does it mean that one is ignoring older matches or matches at the end of the alphabet? Of course not! People can make use of ALL the sorting options, not just those. It wouldn't be any different with a sort by tree option. And since I don't see anyone objecting to the option to sort the list by name or match date, I don't see why anyone would object to the option of sorting by tree.