Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1267307084

From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] anonymity (was call to...)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:44:44 -0600
References: <6CA684698FBC4145B8434B57357D77F7@PC><527841C1016F451CA075C6726DCC54FB@HP> <><29BFF9C3098C41398D71F323ED3AD32E@HP>
In-Reply-To: <29BFF9C3098C41398D71F323ED3AD32E@HP>

I advise potential members of our surname project at Ancestry to test as an
individual and join the project after they receive their results and do a
database search. If an NPE seems likely, they have the option not to join
immediately. Of course, it would be necessary to review the paper trail and
the number of results relative to the surname frequency.

They can also consider whether they wish to supply a lineage. If not, their
results would just be clutter for the project, so we do not let them join.
However, I advise them that their results have little value unless compared
to those of others. I also advise them that we will research most of the
documentation, if they do not have it already. It is actually quicker for us
to research children b. ca.1830 to 1930 on and (beta), than to teach a non-genealogist how to do it.

We only show ancestors whose sons can be documented with direct or indirect
(genealogical definition) evidence. This avoids conflicts between those who
accept circumstantial proofs and those who don't. It is also a diplomatic
way of ridding the project of dubious lineages to which some people have
strong emotional attachments.

I use relationships based on circumstantial proofs in my analysis and share
with those who accept such proofs. However, I reviewed all of the evidence
first and found much new evidence not readily accessible to previous
researchers in transcripts of court orders.

Bob Stafford

This thread: