GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-11 > 1320728454


From: Marleen Van Horne <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Problems with some surname project admins
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:00:54 -0800
References: <7D5059FA-BDE8-4C45-B20B-032C71750578@ftdna.com><5B17701C-6E64-4CF7-AFD6-0C7A098772E9@gmail.com><569BA674-BF6D-47D4-A658-D76253182DEC@earthlink.net><AF8BF365-19DA-47DC-92EB-8B42677CE849@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AF8BF365-19DA-47DC-92EB-8B42677CE849@gmail.com>


Attention: Max,

In my opinion, the most telling sign that a project, surname or
otherwise, is not being properly managed, is when all of the project
members are left in the ungrouped catagory.

It would not be too difficult to run a report that goes to each project
admin, on say a monthly basis, telling the project admin as well as the
management of FTDNA how many project members are left in the ungrouped
catagory.

A while back I had occasion to visit a project, the surname I do not
remember, which had perhaps 20 individuals listed under two separate
ancestors, and maybe as many as 200 dumped in the ungrouped catagory.
It seemed apparent to me that the two groups with ancestors were
connected to the project admin, and the rest of the subscribers were on
their own.

At first I though a solution might be for FTDNA to list new results in
the tables by haplogroup, but in my White project, that would not work,
because I have unique rather than generic sub-group headings, and FTDNA
cannot expect to code for every project admins sub-grouping peccadilloes.

I definitely think the report would give FTDNA a basic idea as to which
projects are getting little or no attention from their admins. This of
course would only work for those projects on the FTDNA website, leaving
the off site projects twisting in the wind.

Marleen Van Horne


This thread: