GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-11 > 1321030976


From: Jim Bartlett <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Problems with some surname project admins
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:02:56 -0500
References: <DEDCC72F374144CBA14F391D0350122D@RayHardyPC><0f3e01cca018$7b5f3c80$721db580$@org><201111110245.pAB2juDU014396@mail.rootsweb.com><REME20111110231520@alum.mit.edu><1321007892.32868.YahooMailNeo@web28207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><4EBD512B.4030606@jps.net>
In-Reply-To: <4EBD512B.4030606@jps.net>


If an FTDNA surname project has restricted membership, private data, or in some other way are not open to the public in general, then I believe they should be so noted, up front, perhaps with an asterisk after the name, and FTDNA should then allow someone to set up, and Admin, a public project for that surname. Win-win.

Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime!

On Nov 11, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Marleen Van Horne <> wrote:

> I realize that some of the projects are run by family associations, and
> the testing is done by FTDNA.
>
> However, in such cases, FTDNA should allow projects that do not require
> membership in a family association to see the test results. Requiring
> membership in a family association would be counter productive for
> FTDNA, because it limits the number of people who will be tested.
>
> I personally have identified between 50 and 100 surnames in my family
> tree, and I just plain could not afford to maintain that many memberships.
>
> In the beginning, FTDNA probably thought these family association
> projects were good for business, and in the short term, they probably
> were, but in the long term they could choke off business.
>
> Marleen Van Horne
>
>

This thread: