Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When PA's are unresponsive.

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

  • #16
    Surname projects do follow the DNA. There are other projects available too if somebody doesn't agree with an administrator's decision, there are haplogroup projects, Family Finder projects or the person can start their own project. The wrong way (localnative) to handle things is to come on a public message board and call out a particular person making multiple posts that they are trying to have that person removed. I doubt that administrator even knows they are being written about here, seems pretty cowardly to me.

    Comment


    • #17
      I agree with your comments about removing project admins. They are volunteers all said and done.

      Perhaps I should have been clearer; groups should be following the DNA rather than just following the literal surname.

      Haplogroup projects, Family Finder projects or trying to set up alternative projects would not help people like localnative or myself. I know I am related to the particular surname as I link at GD3 at 111 and GD5 at 111 to two families of that surname each traceable to the 1720s. What alternative project would you have me set up, given this situation? Call it "People that are related to these people" project?
      I genuinely believe that the guidelines can be often unnecessarily restrictive and a disservice to NPE's and adoptives in particular and the rest of the project members in general. Surely the whole idea is sharing information to enrich everyone's knowledge and just because people like me have no useful paper trail at this stage doesn't mean that my results are therefore a sideshow. I'm far more active in my DNA and genealogical research than any of the other people I match, including he that is displayed on the project. What's more, I have local knowledge of the area that their families reside in that they have not got.

      I can only think that localnative's frustration has boiled over in his frequent posts, but I think his general point is a very valid one.

      Comment


      • #18
        Rare markers aspect vital to extended NPE research

        Thank you all for your posts. The discussion is helpful. I have been at this for a long, long time and I am an elderly adoptee who has begun to think I may not live to find correct surname for certain. Let me explain I have several very rare markers in my 111 markers YDNA results which as a combination are practically not found in R1b. The truth is for several years I had only one match, in contact with him, 107/111 and we researched the genealogy to a brick wall seemingly indicating an NPE. We then have been pointed to the Brown Group 36 which is the ONLY other known place in R1b where this combination of rare markers exists at this time. So, although the 3 Brown surname matches I have are not exact matches, the key point is that the combination of rare markers match. To deny me being listed in this group with my step matches means anyone browsing who has the rare markers in any combination is denied seeing the diversity of rare marker phenomena. My best hope of progress is additional matches. Many factors come into play, not the least of which is the privacy matters which are so in focus lately. The truth is a lot of folks do not catch on to the privacy settings for some time. So you may not be able to contact or even know about all of your matches. As I said before, in this case, I have no other place to turn with my research, and although the step matches are not exact matches, they are my only lead and the combination of rare markers is a key point and it is a very rare matter. A key matter in this case. I also am the only one connected with this matter who is tested to terminal SNP and shown on The Big Tree. All the others display red ink. So in this case, this admin., with his restrictive policys, is running what amounts to a private group for identified family members, which has no value to anyone else for research. I am not the only one with problems with this Brown project, as the long, long list of ungrouped folks, many tested to terminal SNP is obvious. The other website they have referring folks to has a last post in 2011! Admin. is unresponsive.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by localnative View Post
          Thank you all for your posts. The discussion is helpful. I have been at this for a long, long time and I am an elderly adoptee who has begun to think I may not live to find correct surname for certain. Let me explain I have several very rare markers in my 111 markers YDNA results which as a combination are practically not found in R1b. The truth is for several years I had only one match, in contact with him, 107/111 and we researched the genealogy to a brick wall seemingly indicating an NPE. We then have been pointed to the Brown Group 36 which is the ONLY other known place in R1b where this combination of rare markers exists at this time. So, although the 3 Brown surname matches I have are not exact matches, the key point is that the combination of rare markers match. To deny me being listed in this group with my step matches means anyone browsing who has the rare markers in any combination is denied seeing the diversity of rare marker phenomena. My best hope of progress is additional matches. Many factors come into play, not the least of which is the privacy matters which are so in focus lately. The truth is a lot of folks do not catch on to the privacy settings for some time. So you may not be able to contact or even know about all of your matches. As I said before, in this case, I have no other place to turn with my research, and although the step matches are not exact matches, they are my only lead and the combination of rare markers is a key point and it is a very rare matter. A key matter in this case. I also am the only one connected with this matter who is tested to terminal SNP and shown on The Big Tree. All the others display red ink. So in this case, this admin., with his restrictive policys, is running what amounts to a private group for identified family members, which has no value to anyone else for research. I am not the only one with problems with this Brown project, as the long, long list of ungrouped folks, many tested to terminal SNP is obvious. The other website they have referring folks to has a last post in 2011! Admin. is unresponsive.
          Surname projects don't group men by terminal SNPs because terminal SNPs can be thousands of years old. Most projects like Brown will have half it's members or more ungrouped as many of the men in the project won't have STR matches to those in the project.

          Join the haplogroup project associated with your SNP and have that administrator guide you. If you are searching for family info and haven't already take an autosomal DNA test at Ancestry and then transfer your data to FTDNA so you will be in two databases.

          Comment


          • #20
            Admin. refused any compromise with brick wall

            In my detailed for you case of Group 36 of the Brown project which refused to add me to the Group as an adoptee not an exact match and no GEDCOM file, I formally requested a compromise. I asked the admin of the project to please create a Group 36A as the next Group shown below Group 36 in order to preserve his rules of exact matches shown in Group 36. This would allow myself, and the several others who are not Brown surname folks proven, to display our step matches directly below the exact matched folks in Group 36. This allows anyone browsing the project to identify with the combination of rare markers and SNP data in direct proximity of the Group 36 without compromising the set forth goals of the project to have only exact genealogy 100% matches shown in the established groups. This was met with no reply and stone wall just like all my other requests. There are several tests known and involved (3) including me, who are not exact step matches with Group 36 but display the combination of rare markers. Another clue we have is that in this one project, across to I haplogroup, there are several folks in Group 135 who are Brown surname folks showing the rare markers to some degree. The SNP data we do have is also a big clue that we are on the right track. The 107/111 YDNA match I have in another project is also a confirmed DF27 type person. While in that project over 99% of the other folks in the large project are NOT DF27 type and most are L21 types. (DF27 and L21 widely used as a parting point for male lines). So, when an admin. for a project has rules set in concrete for groups in the project, the question is, can this be a productive strategy? What is gained by having all groups in a project 100% matching folks ONLY? And with NO REFERENCE OR CARE ABOUT SNP DATA AND DEPTH OF TESTING OTHERS??? As I said before, in my opinion Brown surname project is just plain ignoring the viabililty and purpose of DNA testing. We all have expectation of being able to join a project and be added to the Group where our best step matches are. That is reasonable and fair. Limiting that aspect is just nonproductive because anyone browsing looking for those rare marker combinations WANTS TO SEE ALL OF THE MATCHES WITH THOSE RARE MARKERS.....not just the exact matches with proven genealogy. This is my opinion. I am not screaming.....just pointing out the obvious.

            Comment


            • #21
              You are right about it being dumb that the admin won't allow members that are uncertain about their potential link to the Brown surname. FTDNA won't do anything because they can't control (don't want to more like it) what volunteers do with the projects they administer unless they are breaking a guideline set by FTDNA.

              So there are 3 options that I see for you. Option 1, ask the admin (if he won't accept you, or if there aren't any other admins that can help you in that group) to send a message you prepare yourself to those members you suspect could give you leads. That way maybe they reply to you and help you out, if they are active. Not all project members are active, only a few tend to be. Make sure to include your email in that message. Don't make it too long either. Something short and to the point will be best to increase the odds of them replying even to say they can't help.

              Option 2, see if you can find those Brown members in whatever other projects they might be like their haplogroup project. You can then contact them there. Though judging by what you have said, you probably have already tried this to some extent.

              Option 3, start your own Brown surname project! I know it sounds somewhat hopeless, but there could be a chance some Brown's joins your project. FTDNA has a policy, well a question they ask when you request to start a project. They ask if the project overlaps with another. Since the Brown project is for those who have no doubts on their Brown connection, you can start one that has no such restriction. A worldwide Brown surname project. Then advertise it to places where other people with that surname or potential leads to it can read about it. The people you wish to talk to might not realize it exists but if you could get one Brown to join that is also eligible to join the other more restricted one, you could ask them to help you out.

              Option 4, even though I only said 3 earlier, you could keep looking for a paper trail. If you find possible leads, you just need to ask them to test with you willing to pay for the test.

              Comment


              • #22
                best option is FTDNA intervention in Brown matter

                The options mentioned have all been tried and worked on for some time to great degree except for option 3, starting a new project. The only reason that has not been tried is the overlap problem. It remains a possibility if FTDNA will approve it at some point. The comments on the situation have been helpful. Perhaps we have accomplished getting the matter out there. Perhaps that is productive. I have no idea what the comments of me being a coward could be about as they make no sense. This forum is a last resort on the matter after the admin. has refused comment to multiple attempts of the resolution of the issue and in fact, is unresponsive. The truth is just the opposite, confronting a big problem as an adoptee who has seen nothing but a long lifetime of brick walls and did not expect a brick wall of this kind. The central issue remains, has been around, and will be around. Setting genealogy as a requirement for being admitted to a Group in a project discriminates against adoptees and others not fortunate enough to have that paternal GEDCOM the genealogists are requiring. The whole reason we tested and paid our money was to break down a brick wall and erecting another makes no sense to us. We expect to be displayed with our step matches. I disagree that displaying all step matches together makes a mess and many projects already do that. I disagree that setting up groups with green ink terminal SNP is a bad thing. It is a good thing as it points folks in the right direction. In my opinion, which I realize differs from many, is that any admin. Group tool we can use to group folks in a productive manner conducive to understanding and getting that light bulb to come on, is a good productive pursuit for Groups and FTDNA needs to support that with guidelines to prevent the mess I face in the Brown project. The issue the rare markers and the need to see them arranged in this instance with all step matches displayed happens only rarely. Perhaps this is a rare matter in Group 36. Hopefully, this Brown Admin. will finally read all that has been said and understand the intellectual intent and ultimate frustration which has generated my comments. In closing I just thank everyone for listening and commenting and remain hopeful of resolution and addition of my test data to Group 36 along with the other step matches. The old saying of, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Was never more apt. This time it is broke in the Brown project and it needs fixin'. LOCALNATIVE

                Comment


                • #23
                  You would have difficulty creating another surname project for Brown and I doubt FTDNA would approve it. Aside from mentioning your rare markers you haven't mentioned or maybe I missed it as just glanced how many markers out of the 111 you match these Brown men on. I too think it is not fair to be calling out a specific administrator here and calling decisions made by them "dumb" isn't fair either as most surname projects are set up like this. I would start a Family Finder project and invite your Brown matches (do they even show in your Y matches list?) and you can group them how you would like on your Y-DNA page for your project. Your entire focus seems to be against one person and your energies would be better spent elsewhere focusing on your DNA connections not how one administrator chooses to group you. Less and less DNA results are showing up in the surname projects because of FTDNA privacy guidelines so you should be thankful for even the ones that are visible as this is a thing of the past now.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The best option is the one that works. Not the one that you think should work but is not an actual option. FTDNA won't intervene because it goes against the very idea of letting people manage their own groups.

                    Some groups already do overlap. I haven't seen one for surnames specifically, but geographical and haplogroup projects already do. For example if one project is for a country but another one is for a specific region of that same country.

                    I went looking for that Brown surname project. Being allowed to join won't help you. What do you think happens when you join that project? It doesn't have an Activity Feed like others where you can chat with the other members. So being allowed in will just list your results there. Nothing else. No contact options.

                    As others have said, you are better off focusing your attention to other things rather than being angry at this one admin that has rules you don't like. Also, there are 2 admin emails, which implies there are 2 admins. Maybe you could have talked to the other admin and asked for advice on the matter.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Repeated attempts to contact fail with Brown project

                      All of the suggestions have been tried and all the contacts have failed response. As I said, the other web site they have listed for contact has not been updated with genealogy data since 2011 it appears. Today I received word officially from FTDNA that I have been turned down and the Brown project will remain as it is, so I have no options. The only reason I turned to the forum was a last resort. This is a true dead end, unable to start a new project as Brown surname is covered by the existing project and the guidelines of the existing project, in spite of matching rare markers combination and being the only one connected with the matter tested to terminal SNP, I have no other place to turn and all the suggestions have been done folks. I have been at this matter for many years and I am not a newby to this. Many, many projects would welcome this situation and find me an asset but my only matches are on BROWN and my research directs me to Group 36. I have Match the entire project at least at 9 steps. However, all the rare markers match. I match test 471309, whom I referred to the project at 2/25 and 6/37 which is as far as they tested. It appears the criteria used to add that test indicates to me I would have been far better off had I only been tested to 25 markers, then my match would have been closer. However, one of the other two tests I wanted to add matches Group 36 better than I do and I am a 107/111 with him, test 92672.

                      This is a failed effort to see change in Brown project. Those of you who object to having Brown project admin. mentioned........I find amazing folks. That is what the gripes area is for..........and I have had no other place to turn.

                      I suppose I made you happy since I have failed to get admitted to Group 36!! SO at least I accomplished SOMETHING! localnative

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by localnative View Post
                        I suppose I made you happy since I have failed to get admitted to Group 36!! SO at least I accomplished SOMETHING! localnative
                        I would support you if you belonged, but you DON'T! You do not match the men in the Brown project, you are not a Brown (unless it is a completely different Brown family than those in group 36).

                        I looked at your data and you do not match and I don't know why you would think you should be.

                        You match that group up to 67 markers at:
                        31/37
                        22/25
                        31/37
                        59/67
                        59/67
                        29/37

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by mattn View Post
                          I would support you if you belonged, but you DON'T! You do not match the men in the Brown project, you are not a Brown (unless it is a completely different Brown family than those in group 36).

                          I looked at your data and you do not match and I don't know why you would think you should be.

                          You match that group up to 67 markers at:
                          31/37
                          22/25
                          31/37
                          59/67
                          59/67
                          29/37

                          Based on what Y DNA results mattn just posted, I have to agree with the Brown project Admins that you do not fit the criteria of that project.

                          I will give the Admin(s) the benefit of the doubt and believe that they have responded at least once to your emails. Once an Admin has responded via email, there is no further obligation on their part to keep replying to your unsolicited emails.

                          Resorting to public shaming those Admins is pointless, not their fault you refuse to take NO as an answer.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by localnative View Post
                            This is a failed effort to see change in Brown project. Those of you who object to having Brown project admin. mentioned........I find amazing folks. That is what the gripes area is for..........and I have had no other place to turn.
                            Well this isn't the Gripes subforum. This is a Group Admins subforum. People can disagree on the topic of calling out a group admin. I'm on the fence about it as there could be situations where it makes more sense to do so. But either way, nothing states that people can't disagree with your gripe.

                            Originally posted by localnative View Post
                            I suppose I made you happy since I have failed to get admitted to Group 36!! SO at least I accomplished SOMETHING!
                            No one is happy just because you failed. I still don't know what you think would have happened if you were allowed to join that project and that subgroup. There is no contact options, so your results would just be there and add nothing to your research.

                            One last option is that you could take the Big Y and submit the data to YFull. If any of these people you call matches, did the same (and they probably did not), they could show up on your YFull STR or SNP match lists. Even if they don't match you but were on YFull, you have a contact option. No guarantee they would notice the message though.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X