Why Bother?

[loobster]

I just received another 10 new "matches" added to my roster: no surnames listed, no trees posted.
...

So why are they here?

I have ancestral surnames listed for my own Kit. I have also begged many relatives to take the Family Finder Test, which I ordered and paid for. I wanted them to take it, I wanted to be able to see the results. I was not willing to risk their co-operation by making any reference to giving out their ancestral history or etc. So I do not have any permission from most of them to list any of that information. Therefore for most it is not provided on their kits.

Also please realize - new matches have not yet had a chance to see what others list, to get a feel for the site and how safe or not it might be to share info, etc. So some of them may well add such later.

[Carpathian]

I have ancestral surnames listed for my own Kit. I have also begged many relatives to take the Family Finder Test, which I ordered and paid for. I wanted them to take it, I wanted to be able to see the results. I was not willing to risk their co-operation by making any reference to giving out their ancestral history or etc. So I do not have any permission from most of them to list any of that information. Therefore for most it is not provided on their kits.

You have listed all your surnames, (and locations I assume), and that is commendable - as that is the most essential key part of any genealogical search, although it reveals virtually no personal information by those providing it.

I understand that often there is one family represented by kits of multiple participants in that family. That is usually readily apparent to the experienced genealogist viewing the matches of the DNA profile of that family.

Also please realize - new matches have not yet had a chance to see what others list, to get a feel for the site and how safe or not it might be to share info, etc. So some of them may well add such later.

Unfortunately experience indicates otherwise. Often people lose interest or they never get around to doing it. That's my observation borne out over the years. I wish it were something other than which it is, but projecting optimism or rationalization won't change anything or make it happen.

I think we need to convince people that they aren't expected to post a tree, although all the GG sites exert some pressure and/or expectation that their subscribers do it. The result is that they often post a tree that reveals nothing, just to satisfy that which they see as an administrative requirement.

[loobster]

I understand that often there is one family represented by kits of multiple participants in that family. That is usually readily apparent to the experienced genealogist viewing the matches of the DNA profile of that family.

I have an Aunt, one first cousin, and then some second cousins, some second once removed [my parents' generation], and some third cousins - attempting to cover as many of my branches as possible.

To folks who match, for example, a 3rd cousin but apparently are not descended from ancestors I share with that 3rd Cousin, it is not necessarily obvious.

[Carpathian]

I have an Aunt, one first cousin, and then some second cousins, some second once removed [my parents' generation], and some third cousins - attempting to cover as many of my branches as possible.

To folks who match, for example, a 3rd cousin but apparently are not descended from ancestors I share with that 3rd Cousin, it is not necessarily obvious.

There are some who might be related to you through other family intermarriages or possibly undocumented "non-paternal events", but not through your direct (genetic) bloodline. But it is undeniable that if DNA tests show that you and the other person are related, then you ARE related somehow, even if in a distant way. The trick is in discovering how you are related, and that requires skill in genealogical research, proven through documentation.

When I speak of posting surnames and locations I am stressing the importance of providing ancestral villages of origin if known, not those places where the past generation or two may have lived in the past few recent decades. Unfortunately many people today might know little or nothing other than their parent's surnames, if even that. But since most of us usually do know that, we should at least provide that much. In other words, providing no information whatsoever shows a lack of interest or some deficiency in participation, and that does not elicit cooperation from other DNA relatives who might be willing to help.

[wmartell]

FTDNA should revamp their privacy settings to help guide people through setting it up. I am waiting on my DNA results but have found a couple of people that have a match several generations back but no way to contact them. If I can't contact them then there should be some sort of system to press a button so someone is notified of the match and they can agree to allow contact information to be shown or to open up the tree to be seen for x amount of time even. FTDNA could send out an email, and at log in present people with a new page outlining the security changes and give links to information about why it's beneficial to have the settings at each level available. Would love to see a mobile app that was clean and could give notifications and allow you to see/edit trees and put pictures in.

Don't know how much of a security risk it is to have a tree shown if that's what people are worried about. I'd figure though that anyone here is wanting to find family members and just doesn't understand how the settings work and what security issues there may or may not be.

I am beginning my journey on genealogy and don't yet know enough to search through documents and sites and am waiting to learn more before I fork out money to obtain documents.

[Carpathian]

Don't know how much of a security risk it is to have a tree shown if that's what people are worried about. I'd figure though that anyone here is wanting to find family members and just doesn't understand how the settings work and what security issues there may or may not be.

I can understand why some people don't want to post a tree. One reason is because trees often contain personal information. There are other legitimate concerns as well. But posting a tree is not a requirement. So posting a tree that has no information at all is not really a tree - it's just a waste of time for anyone who tries to view it.

There is no security risk in attaching surnames and locations to your profile. IMO this is a feature that FTDNA has that makes it superior to the other GG sites. It is very easy to use and is very useful. I can't think of any reason not to do it. Unfortunately less than half of FTDNA subscribers list their surnames.

I am beginning my journey on genealogy and don't yet know enough to search through documents and sites and am waiting to learn more before I fork out money to obtain documents.

Try LDS Family Search. It predates Ancestry.com and does not have as many records available, but it is free.

[loobster]

I am beginning my journey on genealogy and don't yet know enough to search through documents and sites and am waiting to learn more before I fork out money to obtain documents.

On Family Search, I usually choose Browse Records - then scroll thru to the State I am interested in, and look to see which categories of records it has for that state. For some it is great and I regularly use it, clicking on various specific categories.

Also - many Public Libraries have AncestryLibrary available for free.

I find a combination of AncestryLibrary and Family Search allows one to find quite a bit.

Also check to see if the Library has Proquest - and for which papers - depending on what they subscribe to, that can be quite helpful.

Lots and lots can be done without forking out money for Documents.

[mlcarson]

I don't buy the privacy arguments. If you're using mother's maiden name or something like that for security then you're doing it wrong. People need to post their trees. I care about your direct ancestors since this site is about DNA and genealogy. The trees aren't going to be huge if you just do this. Some people might not know a lot but post what you know. There are free genealogy tools out there that can produce a gedcom for import rather than using the tree maker on this site.

The surname lists are a step better than nothing but it's the actual family trees that really tell the story and it sucks finally getting matches which refuse to post anything and don't answer emails. If they just did a DNA test for the ethnicity estimate, I feel sorry for them with the latest my Origins.

[ltd-jean-pull]

A bit more info about your genealogy sure helps!

I have some closish matches for one of my kits that I just can not fathom. One had an ancestor from a part of the British Isles that fits with my kit's patrilineal line, so I'd assumed that was how they were connected but I couldn't work it out. The kit had no tree but five or six surnames and locations were listed.

Over at Gedmatch there was a man who was second on the leader board. His tree was elsewhere but I was given access.

After transfers from other companies resumed at FtDNA the man from Gedmatch appeared at FtDNA right at the top of page one, without surnames or a tree. There were too many steps for me to really be bothered looking at his tree elsewhere, and I had to remember a code to look him up.

They came up as ICWs to each other and all matched us at the same segment, so presumably they did as well.

Months later I decided to have a look again at the tree with the code I could never remember. I had a few screens open and noticed that the tree and the other person's surname list had a similar surname from the same region.

Long story short - the relationship between them has been worked out and it's not that distant. Their mutual relatives were born in the mid 18th century and the link is the other end of the country from our patrilineal line so I have NO idea whatsoever how they're related to us.

If any of them had put up even a SMALL tree up they'd probably have found each other ages ago.

[keigh]

After spending several hours tracing down a common ancestor over at Ancestry, I let the DNA match know what I was able to discover using the small bit of information on her tree. I started searching, using one of her grandparents names, that I recognized having a family name I had in my tree. I ran the name and death date, she gave through Ancestry's search census records and came up with info going several more generations back, linking our family together through my 4th great grandfather. Never did hear back on the connection. Oh, well.

[mlcarson]

I've done the same thing as Keigh on multiple occasions. There might have been as much information as grandparents but nothing else and went through the census records for multiple generations until I was able to find a link and then notified them. No response. Still better than the people who put everything private or just don't have a tree at all though.

[Carpathian]

After spending several hours tracing down a common ancestor over at Ancestry, I let the DNA match know what I was able to discover using the small bit of information on her tree. I started searching, using one of her grandparents names, that I recognized having a family name I had in my tree. I ran the name and death date, she gave through Ancestry's search census records and came up with info going several more generations back, linking our family together through my 4th great grandfather. Never did hear back on the connection. Oh, well.

Many of us have experienced that which you are describing. We might need to realize that many of those who subscribe to the GG sites are not on the same level as many of us who are experienced. Some might consider it intrusive that those of us who have genealogical experience can easily find records and prove their connections to us. I'm not defending their guarded mentality or a lack of appreciation for research that is offered or was given. But it is quite common, especially if our DNA relatives come from families having limited education or deficient social skills.

However it seems to me that if someone offers something of value to another (including extending a friendly outreach), the recipient could at least respond with an expression of thanks for having received it. Having a lack of money is one thing, and a lack of education is another, but a lack of gratitude is one of a different aspect. If the societal expectation is one that engenders a sense of entitlement, the unwillingness or inability on the part of the recipient to acknowledge or express gratitude becomes an impossibility, resulting in no response. Then ingratitude and lack of response becomes the societal norm.