Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-07 > 1183901640

Subject: Re: [DNA] Surnames Projects - June 30, 2007 - Part 2 of 3
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 09:34:00 EDT

I am wondering if we do not define the term "goal" to broadly. Like
genealogy the work of a DNA surname project is never really completed. Maybe what
each surname project needs is a "mission statement" followed by more short range

In a message dated 7/8/2007 8:25:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,

(My second attempt at this message also did not go through properly. I'll
try one more time)
The below list of largest FTDNA projects reminded me of the measure of
success that I believe is important. Many projects include a goal such as "to find
how all Linkerbachs (made up) are related." The question then arises, "am I
done yet?" In my view, it is desirable to achieve the goal quickly and with
as few participants as possible. This frees up time to move on to the next
goal. I believe that measuring a goal is as important as setting it. I decided
to split my measurement between the U.S. and British Isles since the level of
participation in the project is vastly different between these two areas. In
theGoff/Gough project, many of the families in the U.S. today descend from
Goff/Gough families that were in the U.S. by 1800. As such, I chose the 1850
census as the devise to measure success since it was the first census to list
all household members. From the census I extracted all males with the
phonetic equivalent surname of Goff or Gough born before 1813. I chose th!
is cutoff
The above method is not a perfect measure: some Goff families arrived after
1850, others had no representation in the extract (men born after 1812 who
died before 1850), not all lineages in the 1850 subset abstract are known, and
new Goff families may have arisen through adoption after 1850. Despite these
known shortcomings, I believe is is an effective tool to answer the question,
"am I done yet?" Thanks,
Phil Goff

************************************** See what's free at

This thread: