GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-11 > 1004911864
From: "Orin R. Wells" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] matching site
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 14:11:04 -0800
At 11:34 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Allan S. Gleason wrote:
>However, in my opinion you're being too inclusive and thorough. :>) <<
There is some utility in getting it close to right the first time.
"I'd like to suggest a simple table with alphabetized surnames vs markers
in numerical order without location or laboratory.<,
Discussion. Hopefully others will put their two bits (or pence) worth in.
My project alone will have hundreds of samples in the end. We are already
nearing 120. A single table will be much too long to view on it's own in
my opinion. I think displaying the search results in a table format has merit.
I can see the utility in the surname alphabetical order, but it might be
more useful to have the results in marker order since that is what people
are looking for.
Question: In the search would it be useful to provide an option to return
markers +/- some number (say 2 or selectable) and/or exact match?
The location, in my opinion, can be useful. I would like to know if the
sample that matches was from the US, Canada, Australia, England, Scotland,
Germany, etc. It may not mean much but let's say we get a sample from a
Dupuis in France and another from a Dupuis in Canada and they both match a
Wells in Mississippi and another Wells in Texas. It turns out we have a
theory present in at least two Wells families that their ancestors came
from France and were originally named Dupuis.
The laboratory may be of use because if something is seen in the samples
that is of interest it might be useful to be able to contact the laboratory
to find out if they have other matches.
>>If the marker is one of the self-serving 'cute' ones, a simple asterisk
and note that this is a 'non standardized' marker should suffice.<<
You mean like Loci 5* ?
>Keeps you out of business politics, too.<
I agree. I would not want any of the political tone included. Just show
the markers as reported period.
>If you feel location is important, then perhaps a national tag at the end
of each surname. We Earthlings move around too much to make finer location
I am not implying that the geographical location is going to necessarily
tell anyone something other than it appears they have some cousins
somewhere and it might be interesting to check it out to find out how they
got there or it may well tell you where your ancestors came from if you
find a concentration in another country. I have recently discovered
cousins living within a few miles of where my 17th century ancestor
settled. Their branch never moved. But, like you, I have been around
including California, Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, New York, Tennessee,
Germany and Switzerland.
>In order to avoid an impossibly large array of data, there would be no
duplication although mutations should be entered in close proximity so that
under any one surname which appears 'related', the range and locus of
mutations can be shown.<<
Again, we can avoid the "impossibly large" by filtering the displayed data.
Provide the search criteria and return only the records that come close to
matching. Set the mutation deviation too wide and you will be sorry.
>I don't think it is appropriate nor necessary to turn it into a
personalized dating service. That could turn into an overwhelming can of
worms for the operator with names, addresses, permissions and all of that
If people want to remain anonymous, they can opt to do that. Sort of
contrary to the basic reason for sharing the information, but it is a
personal thing. So we probably can give them the option of not showing the
>I think it is a great idea but don't bite off more than you can chew, Orin<<
that is the story of my life. <g>
>>keep it simple - or do you want to become a DNA version of Cindi's List?<<
No. It would be limited to a narrow specific purpose.
Orin R. Wells
Wells Family Research Association
P. O. Box 5427
Kent, Washington 98064-5427
Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb