Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kits with no surnames listed as most common "surname"

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

  • MoberlyDrake
    replied
    At 23andMe, my top surnames are Henderson, Callaway, and Boone. Sounds like a Boonesborough roll call! I don't know of any connection, but my Hampton and Duncan ancestors lived a few miles from the fort. Hampton and Duncan are in the top 6 names at 23andMe. Here I have Taylor, Smith, and a blank.

    On the surface of it, it appears that there might be something to 23andMe's feature, which is based on the lists of ancestral surnames. But I have two colonial American 2nd great-grandparents lines, the Hampton in KY, and Calvin in NJ. Th northern surnames, Calvin and Griggs, which are at the same level of relationship don't appear in the list at all. A couple of more distant northern names appear a little further down the list. And several names look like they could back up some of my theories as to who my brick wall ancestors are.

    At 23andMe, the first surname on my mothers list is Gary, which is totally inexplicable. The second name is Duncan and the third name is Hampton. Boone and Henderson are a little further down, and Callaway doesn't appear at all (Don't look at my father, he was Italian). Again, the NJ surnames don't show up. Here her most common surnames are Smith, Taylor and Clark.

    Leave a comment:


  • BBA64
    replied
    Yeah, it is silly. It's not revealed anything here or at 23andMe for me at all. When assigning priorities for screen space for such an important page, it would rank fairly low in my mind, anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • EBHIII
    replied
    Dynamic Surname List

    I'd like the surname area to be dynamic -- and change to reflect the most common surnames when viewing a list of matches "in common with".

    Then it might be helpful.
    Last edited by EBHIII; 3 August 2015, 04:31 PM. Reason: Added "might be" to helpful.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caburn
    replied
    Originally posted by BBA64 View Post

    The primary issue is that for the Family Finder "Matches" page, the most common of the three surnames among the matches is a null value. It would appear that kits with no surnames are considered to have a valid value when calculating the top three surnames.
    Well spotted. I'd previously assumed it was a 'display' bug associated with particular browsers (and possibly related to the blank space where the 'Reset' button should be after doing an In Common With search) but your explanation is the most plausible and tests-out. ie: my '6 Blank' most-frequent surname display matches the number of public matches lacking a surname in my FF list.

    As MoberlyDrake says, it's pretty silly anyway, so the best way to fix it might be to remove the whole 'surname frequency' function to free-up some screen-estate; unless they want to keep it just for fun.
    Last edited by Caburn; 3 August 2015, 07:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MoberlyDrake
    replied
    I have one that's just a blank. I think the whole thing's silly anyway. It should be based on the ancestral surnames of your matches, like at 23andMe, not on the name of the matches. Women often use their married names and some people use an invented ID.

    For one of my kits, the most common surnames are the names of family members who tested, and one of those surnames is due to a name change, and another is the result of an NPE. Both meaningless, as he'll never get any DNA results related to those two surnames!

    Leave a comment:


  • BBA64
    started a topic Kits with no surnames listed as most common "surname"

    Kits with no surnames listed as most common "surname"

    I followed the link in how to report a bug, but when you click " Other a Topics", there is no "Tecnical" option any longer. Fix number 1.

    The primary issue is that for the Family Finder "Matches" page, the most common of the three surnames among the matches is a null value. It would appear that kits with no surnames are considered to have a valid value when calculating the top three surnames.

    I would suggest that actual content in the surname field be required when doing this calculation.

    Fell free to PM me if you would like a screenshot or further details.
Working...
X