Forcing the naming of profiles based on tree relationships means you have complete the tree down to that gedkit which may be premature if you are using the kit to determine that fact. I have kludged it by naming the kit for someone “in the line of” which i do know.
I would very much much like to see the profile inherit the gedkit name assuming there is no functional reason i am missing for forcing the tree to be complete. My kludging solution doesnt work so well if two such kits shate the same ancestor. Or when a kit shares two separate lines of descent.
Jen
Can you help me understand more about what you mean? Which profiles are you referring to? I thought DNA profiles are always named after the gedkit?
when you add a kit to graph it (ie. shared matches etc) you are forced to associate it with a person in the tree when the name associated with that kit (or optionally, even a name you add since other people name their kits ambiguously sometimes). This short circuits the “experimental” side of graphing, i.e. you don’t know where the segments are coming from until you graph it.
1 Like
I think this goes along with your other suggestion. Currently, the reason you must associate a DNA profile with someone in your tree is because that person becomes the “root” for the DNA profile views: the mini-fans and the colors of the matching kits are based upon that profile root. But if we give you the ability to change the root to be anyone in your tree (yourself for example), then it doesn’t matter if the DNA profile is associated with a specific person.
So I think what you’re asking for is the ability to set the root for the DNA views to be anyone in your tree, and then it doesn’t matter if the DNA profile is associated with someone in your tree, so allow you to not associate the DNA profile to someone in your tree?
INSIGHT: My problem would be solved simply by adding the gedkit person name associated with gedkit number or by letting user input a kit name. that way I won’t have 6 kits named Rachel Carlisle ;-). Plenty of room to add a third column. If I could see who the kit belongs to being constrained to use a name in the tree is not so bad. I took to parking dummy names in the descendency to get them on the right side in approximate position, but if one is using the tool to discover relationships, the lack of ability to support dual lines of descent remains a problem.
I have a 2 seg cousin who matches a key maternal line AND a paternal line of mine, researching both, if i didn’t have mom’s kit to park the first relationship the problem would be worse.
AND please single space rows soon, I already have more kits than fit on a page.
jen
Just to make sure I understand, simply adding an extra “name” field to the gedkit would work? That’s easy; I could add that on Saturday. I’ll reduce the spacing at the same time.
way better, although I was hoping to see the name field of the gedkit since that is how i recognize them)
You can put anything you want into the new field, so you could put the name in there.
