Author Topic: Test for husband  (Read 1087 times)

Offline pharmaT

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,343
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Test for husband
« on: Wednesday 19 July 17 11:52 BST (UK) »
My husband has very kindly bought me a DNA test for my birthday and he is going to do the test as I have already been tested.  I am now getting the jitters about having it done.  I have done a lot on my tree so have a fair number of people on it but my research into Hubby's tree is at a much earlier stage so have far fewer people in it atm.  I have read many comments on other forms saying really nasty things about people who have their DNA test attached to small trees.  Am I completely failing in DNA testing etiquette to do hubby's test.  I don't want to upset people.
Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others

Offline davidft

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,209
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Test for husband
« Reply #1 on: Wednesday 19 July 17 13:15 BST (UK) »
If you want to do the test (on your husband) then do it, your are not answerable to anyone but yourselves.

Yes attaching a DNA test to a small tree will not be as helpful as attaching it to a large tree but we all have to start somewhere. You have not said what type of DNA test you are considering and that in itself will effect its usefulness, and of course you do not have to attach the results to a tree if you do not want to.

I did a yDNA test about five years ago hoping it would help kick start my direct male line tree that comes to a halt in the middle of rural Northumberland around 1750. So far no progress but I live in hope. (I have since done the mtDNA and autosomnal tests but they were more for curiosity value rather than hoping to find relatives. That said I have had some success on that score).

So I guess what I am saying is if you think you will get something from it go for it and don't be put off by what others think.

Good luck.
James Stott c1775-1850. James was born in Yorkshire but where? He was a stonemason and married Elizabeth Archer (nee Nicholson) in 1794 at Ripon. They lived thereafter in Masham. If anyone has any suggestions or leads as to his birthplace I would be interested to know. I have searched for it for years without success. Thank you.

Offline pharmaT

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,343
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Test for husband
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday 19 July 17 13:31 BST (UK) »
It's the autosomal test we've ordered.  I intend to keep working on the tree and adding people as I manage to find them.  I did consider not attaching it to any tree but that appears to attract even more abuse.  I also don't want to add from other trees willy nilly I want to do it properly so can't grow it too fast either.  The nicest things I have seen people with small trees called are: Selfish, stupid, useless, idiotic, fun spoilers amongst other things I couldn't possibly repeat.  I don't want to spoil another persons hobby for them, but at the same time I AM selfish and have had hours of enjoyment from studying my results  and my mum's results.
Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others

Offline Ayashi

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,789
  • William Wood, who was your mother??
    • View Profile
Re: Test for husband
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 19 July 17 15:03 BST (UK) »
If you don't have more to add to your husband's tree then it is for the best that you try to roll those comments away because what else can you do? I admit I've said in the past that I wish there was an option in the DNA matches to hide matches with no tree whatsoever but that is simply because they cannot be used by me and there are large numbers of them not because I have any particular ill will towards the person themselves. Also, part of the whole point is advancing your tree. The DNA might have reasonably close cousins that come back as matches and the tree will blossom from there.

Good luck


Online Pheno

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,002
    • View Profile
Re: Test for husband
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 19 July 17 15:08 BST (UK) »
Who gives a hoot about what other people may say or think about attaching your dna to a small tree.

You've no more spoilt it for anybody by doing that than by not doing a test at all and you might even make some contact/progress and so might someone else but they have lost nothing if they don't.

DNA etiquette - what are we coming to!

Pheno
Austin/Austen - Sussex & London
Bond - Berkshire & London
Bishop - Sussex & Kent
Holland - Essex
Nevitt - Cheshire & Staffordshire
Wray - Yorkshire

Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,144
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: Test for husband
« Reply #5 on: Wednesday 19 July 17 15:37 BST (UK) »
I don't know much about DNA testing as it isn't something that interests me. However, are you saying that people are abusive because when they get a link to a tree they are disappointed because it is a small tree? I'd much rather find a link in a small, well researched tree than a large rambling one where names have been added because they look right.

How can you be spoiling other people's hobby, it's their choice whether or not to follow up results. Go ahead and do what you want and what you feel is right for you. If you get any negative comments ignore them and certainly don't take them personally.

My favourite quote at the moment (though not my favourite person  ;D ) is one from Margaret Thatcher

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

Just remove the word political and it can apply to most things.  :D

Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline RobertCasey

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 90
  • Irish research - specially R-L226 (Dal Cais)
    • View Profile
Re: Test for husband
« Reply #6 on: Wednesday 19 July 17 16:21 BST (UK) »
One of the biggest advantages of atDNA testing is that it is very good kick-starting your genealogical research on you husband's line. Sure, people may be disappointed they provide you with more information than they receive, but everyone has to start somewhere.

I really miss the letter writing days and long distance phone calls to fellow genealogists. Emails, the internet and DNA databases are great for productivity - but they lack personal interaction and allow trolls to make life miserable for others for own personal agendas or problems in life. Do not let the bad apples out there spoil your experience and your enjoyment of your passions in life. You are supposed to love all of your neighbors (real and electronic) - but you can limit your interaction with them if all they want to do is complain and make our lives as miserable as their lives may be.
Casey - Tipperary or Clare, Ireland
Kelly - Ireland
Brooks, Bryan, Shelton (2), Harper, Williamson - England
Tucker, Arrington, Stevenson, Shears, Jarvis - England
Hill (2), Reed, Olliff, Jackson, Potter, Cruse, Charlton - England
Davis. Martin, Ellison, Woodward, Alderson - England
Pace - Shropshire, England
Revier - Netherlands
Messer - Germany
Wininger - Switzerland

Offline pharmaT

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,343
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Test for husband
« Reply #7 on: Wednesday 19 July 17 20:09 BST (UK) »
I don't know much about DNA testing as it isn't something that interests me. However, are you saying that people are abusive because when they get a link to a tree they are disappointed because it is a small tree? I'd much rather find a link in a small, well researched tree than a large rambling one where names have been added because they look right.

Yes that's right, in another forum someone called people with trees with fewer than 100 people in them selfish ***** and people with fewer than 1000 not much better and questioning why they were allowed to do their DNA as it spoils it for all the decent DNA testers.

At the moment I only have hubby's parents, 2 grandparents 2 grt grandparents, 4 grt grts and 2 3xgrts.  I AM hoping to have some more by the time the results are in but won't be anywhere near 100 at that point. I do also intend to continue followng the paper trail even after I ahve the results.  his dad's line is going to be very difficult to do as there is noone left to ask on that line so starting blind.  Hubby's second cousin had made a start on their paternal grt grandmother's line but he died at Christmas.

Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others

Online shellyesq

  • RootsChat Moderator
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 13,633
    • View Profile
Re: Test for husband
« Reply #8 on: Wednesday 19 July 17 21:31 BST (UK) »
Don't listen to that random jerk.  Plenty of people test without much interest in genealogy, and I can't see complaining about their choices.  I certainly have some lines that aren't very long because the information just isn't there, despite 10+ years of research.  As an adoptee who found biological relatives through DNA testing, I am glad for anyone who tests and is willing to respond to inquiries.