Tree-less matches

[RobertaMarques]

I wonder what are people's motives when taking the Family Finder test. I did it in an attempt to find lost relatives of my "international" grandparent, find out about my ethnicity and to help with my family tree.

When I contact my matches (most of them) have long list of 'ancestors' surnames, which one would assume they collected from a tree. But no, they do not have family tree at all. Not even grandfather and grandmother. If one is adopted or only know one parent, it is fine. But several floating surnames?

On the other hand, I have those that have a suspicious family tree, where they are connected to nobles of some kind.

[LynCra]

My motives were to:
- confirm my paper trail findings
- investigate a known NPE and a possible NPE

[RobertaMarques]

What is NPE?

[dna]

What is NPE?

To most people it is a non-paternity event. In genetic genealogy sometimes generalized to include non-maternity events (becoming non-parental event).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-paternity_event Non-paternity event

P.S.
Please do not think that non-maternity events are only of theoretical interest, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-parent_baby Three-parent baby

Egg donation is a reality that leads to

a child can have a genetic and social (non-genetic, non-biologic) father, and a genetic, gestational, and social (non-biologic) mother, and any combinations thereof. Theoretically a child thus could have 5 parents

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_reproduction)

Also, back in history, when mothers often died during or after the childbirth, the paper work did not necessarily reflected the biological mother. Sometimes (as it was simple) it was written down that the current wife of the father was the biological mother. Out of necessity, men were marrying just after 30 days after becoming a widower.

[WCoaster]

Ask your matches if they have a tree on another site. Many of us prefer to avoid the new tree format here. We like the user-friendly pedigree views at Ancestry and Gedmatch.

[MoberlyDrake]

I removed the trees for all my kits when they introduced the new trees and I have no intention of uploading them again partly because, as I understand it, people can take branches of my tree and add it to theirs willy-nilly, just like at Ancestry. But also because the trees are so frustrating to navigate. However, I have a list of surnames with locations. If anyone is really interested they will read through the list and contact me and I can direct them to my website. If that's too much work, I'd say they really aren't interested.

[RobertaMarques]

I am not even talking about ftdna trees, but anywhere. They don't have it anywhere, not even on paper

I would not mind people getting branches of my tree, if the person is related to me. My plan is to give a copy to all my relatives when I get to the point I am happy with it.

[mixedkid]

After around 4 years here, I still don't have a tree on this site. I did not like the original tree set up here and I don't really care for the new one either. I do have a basic tree on 23 and Me and a more detailed one on Ancestry, however. I direct matches to the tree on Ancestry, mostly.

I get far more from listing of matches' ancestral names and when possible, the location origin of the family in parentheses. I really don't have time to maneuver through trees unless there is a definite clue I might be related. Especially when siblings are not listed, the tree loses its value to a distantly related relative (like me).

Edit: Overall all, I am far more interested in the broad evidence presented, like repeated ancestral surnames, familiar ancestral home locations and noticeable clusters of ethnicities of matches (examples: French-Canadian with a minority of Acadian matches or Norwegian with a noticeable minority of Danish matches).

[T E Peterman]

Most of the 50 kits that I manage have trees, but I don't use them or update them. I would prefer a sort of global tree, where I would link the kits of each FF participant to the appropriate person on the tree & then just maintain one tree.

Timothy Peterman

[WCoaster]

I am not even talking about ftdna trees, but anywhere. They don't have it anywhere, not even on paper

Sounds like they don’t understand the appropriate use of surname lists, or don’t care if they do. In genealogy, accuracy is everything - especially when posting data for others to see. "When in doubt, leave it out." Less is more, if less is honest!

[RobertaMarques]

Someone said something about surname is sufficient

It could be true in some cases. In case where you have Spanish ancestors, the surname is switched, so when looking at ydna surname, you just cant.

Antonio Guerrero + Francisca Lora
Juaquin Guerrero Lora

next generation

Juaquin Guerreiro Lora and Carmen Moreno Palacios
Miguel Lora Palacios

The last person is actually 'Guerrero' or whatever the older ancestors had. A tree helps you to see this changes.

Also many records in Portugal the ladies have no surname and you need to see her parents above her head to see her surname and check if match with you.

[khuebner]

Yes, trees are often essential (with locations) whereas surname lists can be misleading. I have Scottish Andersons (a real surname) and probably also Norwegian Andersons (a patronymic). I want to see trees with geographic locations.

Incidentally, what has become of the gedcom upload feature? I have a new kit and cannot find where to upload her gedcom to create the tree.

[pmac]

Incidentally, what has become of the gedcom upload feature? I have a new kit and cannot find where to upload her gedcom to create the tree.

If you click on the kit name at top right the personal profile screen comes up and there's an upload Gedcom link where the surnames list is... they did a good job hiding it.

[khuebner]

Thanks!I don't know if I would have found that.

[hazel_ion]

Also, back in history, when mothers often died during or after the childbirth, the paper work did not necessarily reflected the biological mother. Sometimes (as it was simple) it was written down that the current wife of the father was the biological mother. Out of necessity, men were marrying just after 30 days after becoming a widower.[/QUOTE]

This is very true and I found this in our tree. Took some digging but I did find the birth mother
She died 2 months after the child was born and the hubby took on a much younger healthy wife to care for his children.