GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1117933641


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Genographic Project guidance?
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 21:07:21 -0400 (EDT)
References: <REME20050604190832@alum.mit.edu> <d71f6c49e407f6a5c423b9587bd00eea@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <d71f6c49e407f6a5c423b9587bd00eea@earthlink.net> (message fromJohn Carr on Sat, 4 Jun 2005 17:17:14 -0700)


John wrote:
> According to that letter from Max, the Genographic Participants are
> given a list of appropriate Surname and Regional Projects to choose
> from based on their last name. You are right, given what is probably a
> sparse selection, 2000 + projects out of 100,000 + surnames, they may
> be hard pressed to decide what to choose.

I have the distinct impression that the choice is presented as part of
the registration process, but I have no idea whether this comes before
or after the participant is irrevocably committed. Also, it seems
clear to me that the list of "appropriate" projects is precisely the
list of those projects which include the exact spelling of the
participant's surname. In the case of "Smith", there are six
projects, four surname and two geographical. Only three of the
surname projects have thought to include "Smythe" however. "Johnson"
is an interesting case -- it has two surname projects, one of which is
"McCain", and also a geographic project, as David mentioned yesterday.
As David pointed out, it seems unlikely that a random Johnson would
choose the Shetland project without having a Shetland connection, but
you never know.

> I do not quite agree that project managers would be better able to find
> a 'correct' or better place for them.

True enough. In fact, I would go so far as to say that some people
would not have *any* suitable place in the system.

> There probably should be an unspecified project so people starting out
> who have no surname or regional project to join have a place to go.

That's an idea, but it wouldn't include an administrator who can be
presumed to have a specific interest in or knowledge about the type of
genealogical problems facing such a participant. If it weren't for
the group discount and the sample storage, there wouldn't be any
advantage to such a group. It would be better just to subscribe to
good ol' G-D-L and ask for advice here.

> If
> the word gets out that Surname Projects are a waste of time or a bad
> experience from Genographic participants who end up disappointed, that
> would be bad for all of us.

Good point.

John Chandler


This thread: