GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1116965548


From: "Earl Beaty" <>
Subject: Posting at Y-search and Y-base
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:12:28 -0600
References: <NGECJOFCABPEOGMJNBMFIEIPDOAA.terry@bartonsite.org>


Terry and Bob have two creative and somewhat different solutions to the
problem of YSEARCH data entry. FTDNA encourages every testee to enter his
data and they make it easy. But the fact that some do and some don't creates
a problem.

I have considered adopting a practice similar to Terry's. It would mean
getting those who have already entered data to delete it. My guess is that
most of them have forgotton their passwords. Entering haplotyypes which
represent groups does seem functional, but rather distant from what FTDNA
had in mind. Different users of the database have different needs and it
looks difficult to find an adequate compromise.

--Earl

Bob Stafford wrote:
> I see no need to enter everyone's haplotype in the databases. Using modern
haplotypes only confuses the search for a matching family. The ones needed
are ancestral haplotypes. I would only enter those that have been verified
as occurring before 1850 or some other earlier date. They should be listed
under the name of that ancestor. They should be noted as ancestral in the
comments section. This way you don't have to get people's permission to do
it. The contact should be the project manager or someone else who knows the
family genealogy.

Terry Barton wrote:

> Earl, some time back, I posted each of the 14 Barton Lineages (using the
> Lineage Haplotype), plus each individual who matched no one. (One Lineage
> represents 66 men, others much less.) I set them all up as a batch load
and
> placed them at both y-search and y-base. I also included my Hodges
project,
> which was only a few men at the time. I didn't provide personal info and
> every contact comes to me. As I deal with the queries for matches, I
bring
> in the individual (or Lineage Leader) and give them the choice to persue
it
> or not.
>
> I have found a number of my men have incorrectly posted their results - in
> those cases, I suggest that they delete theirs and take over the one I set
> up. Usually, the problem is H4 - as many of my men were tested at RG and
> the FTDNA result is one smaller. Most queries have come through Y-search
> and aren't a high resolution - as a result of RG26 and FTDNA 25 only
having
> 16 common markers. We have a sponsorship set up where we will pay a part
of
> the cost to upgrade a prior RG26 test with the FTDNA37 to give these men
> with a non-surname match 42 markers to compare with.
>
> So far, we have made several interesting connections and had a few that
went
> nowhere. The most exciting is now a 41/42 match between men of two
surnames
> who had ancestors living on adjacent land 250 years ago in Virginia. The
> two families then moved together for two or three migrations. Additional
> testing is underway to see if they can figure out which surname had
> paternity.
>
> The biggest problem that I face by posting all the results is figuring out
> which one of my men someone has been matched to. Often, I have to go to
my
> spreadsheet.
>
> Terry



This thread: