GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-04 > 1303921846


From: Jim Bartlett <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Petition to improve ancestral information on "My FTDNAHome"
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:30:46 -0400
References: <6130533.1303916087399.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <6130533.1303916087399.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net>


I concur with Mary Alice, and would take it one step further. Remember, most matches are back 6 or more generations, and my experience indicates they usually match on only one of my ancestral lines. Therefore, they are looking through my documentation for the one line that matches. If they've done any genealogical research at all, I expect that they've already determined the Patriarch that most folks have in their trees if they have that line. With an entire tree to look at, you either have to look at the same surname in every generation (boring) or try to jump to the Patriarch/Matriarch at the tip, which means zig-zagging back and forth through the tree. That's why I like listing the Patriarchs only, along with some date/location info that most genealogists would recognize. It's a balance between too much info that puts some folks off, and too little info that may lead to missing a common ancestor when scanning a list.

My thoughts...

Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime!

On Apr 27, 2011, at 10:54 AM, "M. A. Farrell" <> wrote:

> I support some of these suggested changes, but....
> All we really need to know is brief, accurant information - given/surname[maiden only for women], born/died circa year only, place not just country. This simple information starting with generation 2 or closest member wants to start with (deceased), going BACK [have seen some from oldest to youngest] as far as available. So many are not familiar with genealogy form, call women by married surnames, put in tooo much information and omit important facts [dates, locations not just country], using town/community names and not County of Jurisdiction.
> In this day of copying unsourced info from 'family trees', majority of which is erroneous, too much information is a hindrance to actual identities or clues.
> My greatest complaint is with people who know no better than to copy/repeat bad lineage data. One of my own lines has 105 different versions on Ancestry's Family Trees, and only 2 are correct. I will have nothing to do with them!!! Too much to try to correct.. Mary Alice
>

This thread: