Author Topic: Uploading trees to FTDNA  (Read 592 times)

Offline helvissa

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Uploading trees to FTDNA
« on: Wednesday 07 August 13 11:52 BST (UK) »
I have done my genealogy research with 2 trees on Ancestry - one for my mum and one for my dad (basically because, seeing as they're divorced, it could've been awkward showing my research to them if it was all in one tree).

I was going to upload my trees to FTDNA but then I saw that you can't upload one tree for each parent - they must be combined.

I've started making a combined tree, with me as the starter person, but there's so much stuff. Do I just do a direct tree - no siblings? If the Family Finder test goes back 5 or 6 generations, is there any point putting my most distant folk in the tree? Obviously it's fairly simple to add everyone as I can add the info from pre-existing trees, but I don't want to upload an enormous file if it's not going to be useful.

Anyone have any thoughts?


Offline lizdb

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,307
    • View Profile
Re: Uploading trees to FTDNA
« Reply #1 on: Wednesday 07 August 13 11:58 BST (UK) »
Do you really want my thoughts?

I am not a great fan of trees on the internet, so I cant see any reason for wanting to put your trees on for a second time!
Already the website is ceasing to become a 'tool' to aid you, but a 'master' dictating how you can and cant set your trees out. It is your tree, your family, your research, your choice how you want to set out the info, and of course your choice whether to use their website - so if they aren't letting you do it your way, I wouldnt bother.
Edmonds/Edmunds - mainly Sussex
DeBoo - London
Green - Suffolk
Parker - Sussex
Kemp - Essex
Farrington - Essex
Boniface - West Sussex

census information is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline helvissa

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Uploading trees to FTDNA
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday 07 August 13 12:09 BST (UK) »
I'd like to upload it in case someone finds a match from my test. As my results haven't gone up yet, I don't know what you see of other people's trees, so I'm not really sure how thorough the upload needs to be. It shouldn't be a massive drama to do the combined tree. Just a bit annoying! But then again, the trees on Ancestry are so vast and contain all sorts of step-families so it gets beyond usefulness for actual direct lineage.

Offline DevonCruwys

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
    • View Profile
Re: Uploading trees to FTDNA
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 07 August 13 12:27 BST (UK) »
The trees on FTDNA only display your direct ancestral lines and do not go back beyond nine generations. The trees also only display information on births and deaths so if you've entered baptisms and burials they won't be displayed. Other details like marriage dates and census dates won't show up.

I've found it easiest to create a completely new GEDCOM for my FTDNA account with just the skeleton information on all my ancestors.
Researching: Ayshford, Berryman, Bodger, Boundy, Cruse, Cruwys, Dillon, Faithfull, Kennett, Keynes, Ratty, Tidbury, Trask, Westcott, Wiggins, Woolfenden.


Offline helvissa

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Uploading trees to FTDNA
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 07 August 13 12:35 BST (UK) »
Ok, so just direct line, no siblings, no extra details, births, deaths, that's your lot.

Offline DevonCruwys

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
    • View Profile
Re: Uploading trees to FTDNA
« Reply #5 on: Wednesday 07 August 13 12:43 BST (UK) »
Ok, so just direct line, no siblings, no extra details, births, deaths, that's your lot.

That's exactly right.
Researching: Ayshford, Berryman, Bodger, Boundy, Cruse, Cruwys, Dillon, Faithfull, Kennett, Keynes, Ratty, Tidbury, Trask, Westcott, Wiggins, Woolfenden.

Offline helvissa

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Uploading trees to FTDNA
« Reply #6 on: Wednesday 07 August 13 12:55 BST (UK) »
Cool, thanks! That's just what I wanted to check. :)