Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1290637548

From: "Elise Friedman" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] FTDNA Join Requests
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:25:48 -0500

I may be one of the few, but I actually prefer FTDNA's new join request system. I get so much email that it gets very difficult for me to manage and keep track of everything. With the new system, join requests are fully documented in the GAP, separately for each of my projects, and all responses back and forth are also recorded and saved. The new system also documents the date and time when we first read a new message from a prospective member, as well as when the prospective member has read our response back to them!

There are 3 options for join requests now: approve, deny and "more information". When you send a "more information" response back, you can write whatever you want in your response. You can ask for more information and let the person respond through the website, or you can choose to include your email address in your response, and ask the person to write to you directly instead of through the website -- especially if you need the person to send you a pedigree, which they can't attach to their response through the FTDNA system. FTDNA has no problem with people doing this.

The main reason they set up the system the way it is now is because they probably *were* losing sales with the *old* system. They have admins who don't respond to join requests in a timely manner (and I admit that I've been guilty of this myself due to requests getting buried in my mountain of email). When it's an existing customer, a small delay isn't too detrimental because FTDNA isn't losing a sale. But when it's a person looking to order a kit for the first time, and the order can't be placed until the admin approves the join request, that's definitely a potential loss of sale. With the old system, FTDNA had no idea if admins were responding to join requests and waiting on info from the potential member, or if the join requests weren't getting responses at all. With the new system, they'll at least be able to see whether join requests are getting an initial response or not and when the final approve or deny message is sent -- even if the rest of the discussion betwe!
en admin and prospective member is conducted through private email.

So rather than look at this change as a detriment to your projects and sales, please try to embrace this change instead. The bottom line here is that you can choose to do all your communication through the web interface, or you can choose to provide your email address and encourage the requestor to contact you directly. The decision is completely up to you.


-----Original Message-----
Posted on: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:20 PM
Author: "Roberta Estes" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] FTDNA Join Requests

If people feel strongly about this, and I do, they should let Family Tree
DNA know. It won't change unless we are vocal and let them know how
difficult they have made it on us and how in the long run it will hurt their


-----Original Message-----
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Marleen Van Horne
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 12:16 AM
Subject: [DNA] FTDNA Join Requests

I know this has been discussed on the list, and the general opinion was
that not having the e-mail address of the potential subscriber on the
Join Request is a serious handicap to being able to manage our projects

I sent a Feedback message to FTDNA and this is the response I received:

I checked with the IT department and they have informed me that there
are no immediate plans to add in the email address to the join requests
so all correspondence will need to go initially through the Join Request
feature of the admin page.

I am finding it very difficult to approve new Join Requests, what about
the rest of you.

Marleen Van Horne

This thread: