Rob Jacobson

Ancestors

Problems/Questions Profile managers: Rob Jacobson [send private message], Marie Walen [send private message],

^{[1] [2]}

Biography

Life

...

Facts

Robert William Jacobson ^[2]

Given Name: Robert William

Surname: Jacobson

Prefers: Rob

FSFTID L2NH-56Q

AMTID 79022450097:1030:91084855

Residences

1951 ^[2]: Born in St Louis, Missouri ^[1]

1960: Tampa, Florida ^[1]

1980: 4109 W Bay View Ave, Tampa, FL, 33611 ^{[1] [2]}

1989: Montreal, Quebec, Canada ^[1]

1995: 1561 S Congress Ave # 227, Delray Beach, FL, 33445 ^[2]

1996: 848 Jeffery St, Boca Raton, FL, 33487 ^[2]

1998: Tequesta, Florida ^[1]

2002: Tampa, FL ^[1]

DNA Evidence

Note: permission has been requested and granted for the use of all names and GEDmatch ID's below

Please notify me (and the other descendants) if you find interesting comparison results!

My DNA info

• yDNA
  • FTDNA Kit # 670269 - 111 STR test, R-M269 Backbone Pack, Z18 Pack, Big Y-500, Big Y-700
    • Haplogroup: R-S23346
    • Haplogroup trail (notable SNP's highlighted):

      R1b->M207->M173->M343->L754->L389->P297->M269->L23->L51->L151->U106->Z18->Z17->Z372->S5695->L257->Z15->S23346

  • YFull Kit # YF14403 (Big-Y500), Kit # YF64075 (Big-Y700)
    • Haplogroups: R-L257, R-Z8185*
  • My page about yDNA Haplogroup R-S23346: YDNA Haplogroup R-S23346
• mtDNA
  • FTDNA Kit # 670269 - Full Sequence test
    • Haplogroup: K1c2
  • YFull Kit # YF14403
    • Haplogroup: K1c2*
  • My page about mtDNA Haplogroup K1c2: K1c2 mtDNA Haplogroup
• Autosomal DNA, my GEDmatch kits

  These are GEDmatch kits I use, with permission, and you are free to use and compare with any of these

  • Rob Jacobson - VS549640C1 (combined kit), A198741, T184936, NQ6881848
  • Marie (Jacobson) Walen - T050468 (MWalen)
  • Paul Jacobson - T979663 (PJake)

Pennsylvania German segments

• Two segments have been found numerous times within descendants of early Pennsylvania German communities or the Germanic region of Europe. They are not found in descendants without known ancestry from those regions.
• For full detail of the DNA evidence, see Small DNA Segments - Pennsylvania German
• How to test - using GEDmatch, compare with Rob (GEDmatch ID A198741), and look for either or both of the following segment matches:

  Note: FamilyFinder test does not have the right SNP's for PG16, so if your GEDmatch ID begins with T or F, you can only match PG6. Ancestry and 23andMe tests do work, don't know about others.

  • Rob Jacobson - A198741
  • PG6 --- Chromosome 6, start: 27,334,944, end: 33,491,952 (or a substantial part thereof)
  • PG16 - Chromosome 16, start: 1,478,465, end: 2,355,692 (or a substantial part thereof)

Nathaniel and Elizabeth Hood region

• Segment matches have been found between descendants of two different children of Nathaniel Hood and Elizabeth (Bullard) Hood.
  
  A descendant of their son Nathaniel Bullard Hood matches a descendant of his brother Simeon Maxey Hood, the best match being a DNA segment match of 28.9 cM on chromosome 7 from 140,018 to 18,984,230, between Paul and Tommy. Other segment matches within the region between other descendants are about 10.5 cM. This is not proof, but is good supporting evidence that the documented line of relatives between them is correct, up to their parents Nathaniel and Elizabeth Hood. Would like more matches on this region to confirm.
  
  For full detail of the DNA evidence, see Nathaniel Bullard Hood.

• How to test - using GEDmatch, compare with the descendants below, and look for a segment match within the match region:
  • Marie (Jacobson) Walen - T050468 (MWalen)
  • Paul Jacobson - T979663 (PJake)
  • Carol Carter - A132472
  • Tommy Carter - A785277
  • Current segment match region: Chromosome 7, start: 140,018, end: 18,984,230

Hoods of Massachusetts segments

• Possible segment matches have been found between descendants of two different lines of Hood's, those of early Lynn and Topsfield Massachusetts and those of early Fairfield County in South Carolina, indicating there may be a common ancestor.
  
  Two descendants of the South Carolina Hood's (Marie and Paul, descendants of Nathaniel Bullard Hood) match two descendants of the Massachusetts Hood's (TP and LSP, descendants of Nathan Hood) , with a DNA segment match of about 2 cM on chromosome 5 from 159,904,642 to 162,549,838, and 4 descendants with a DNA segment match of about 2 cM on chromosome 8 from 41,973,258 to 52,621,344. This is certainly not proof, but is evidence of a possible common parent. Need more matches on these segments to confirm.
  
  For full detail of the DNA evidence, see ???.

• How to test - using GEDmatch, compare with any descendant, and look for a rough segment match:
  • Marie (Jacobson) Walen - T050468 (MWalen)
  • Paul Jacobson - T979663 (PJake)
  • TP - A4***** (permission is being requested)
  • LSP - A8***** (permission is being requested)
  • SPM - A6***** (permission is being requested)
  • BC - T1***** (permission is being requested)
  • DNA segment match of about 2 cM on chromosome 5 from about 159,904,642 to about 162,549,838
  • DNA segment match of about 2 cM on chromosome 8 from about 41,973,258 to about 52,621,344

    Note: I've now discovered a number of others with this segment on 8. All appear to have originated in the early American colonies, but so far I cannot narrow the source down any further than that. Everyone has brick walls there. For sure, it's not limited to the Hood's. Our DNA Project leader Mags has it.

Hugh and Sarah Smith segment

• A segment match has been found between descendants of two different children of Hugh and Sarah Smith.
  
  A descendant of their daughter Rebecca (Smith) Lavender matches a descendant of her brother David Alexander Smith, with a DNA segment match of 13.6 cM on chromosome 1 from 35,145,961 to 47,254,227, between Marie and Donna. This is not proof, but is supporting evidence that the documented line of relatives between them is correct, up to their parents Hugh and Sarah Smith. Need another match on this segment to confirm.
  
  For full detail of the DNA evidence, see Rebecca's WikiTree profile.

• How to test - using GEDmatch, compare with either descendant, and look for a rough segment match:
  • Marie (Jacobson) Walen - GEDmatch ID: T050468
  • Donna C
  • DNA segment match of about 13.6 cM on chromosome 1 from about 35,145,961 to about 47,254,227

Sources

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6} First-hand information. Entered by Rob Jacobson.
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5} U.S. Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 1. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings.

My Research

• I and my sister entered the four generations of our immediate ancestry, and I've been very slowly trying to fix them (some are wrong), and fill them out, transferring sources and material from Ancestry, FamilySearch, and RootsMagic trees. Unfortunately, I constantly get sidetracked, and have made very little progress. I have so much to do :
  • Complete (and fix) the profiles already created, with sources, pictures, other info, and bio's
    • Utilize WikiTree-X and similar tools with Vivaldi
    • Find Carl Jacob Jacobsen's family of origin, Ohrstrom's?
    • Figure out Anna Olsdatter's family, one man or three? Sina?
    • Connect all the Lavender's and Smith's, flesh out their profiles, follow the DNA matching to all the Smith's through Hugh and Sarah Smith
    • Document the Mary Lavender/Mary Vaughn mystery
    • Add their family members and descendants with their sources and info
  • Finish the Daniel and Margaret Lynch family profiles - this is a side project I started because of a family Bible acquired by my mother, of an unknown family, the Lynch's. The O'Briens are driving me nuts, with 2 or 3 Patrick and Mary O'Brien families at the same time in Boston! And there are conflicting grandparents for Margaret...
  • Small segment, DNA pile-up, and IBS research
  • Create a family catalog of DNA segments from comparisons with others that match us, using Genome Mate Pro or DNA Painter or ???. GMP has proven to be VERY frustrating!
  • Learn about and attempt 'visual phasing', once one more DNA test is complete
  • Synchronizing profiles between WikiTree, FamilySearch, Geni, Ancestry, RootsMagic, and FindAGrave
  • Bringing over some of the enormous amount of info and people on Geni
  • Numerous other projects, some barely started ...

• Looking for your connection to my tree? Try checking my surname widget: https://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Jacobson-1250/10

• What links here
• What links to 'Connecting DNA...'
• What links to 'Making Family Bibles...'
• What links to 'Small PG Segments...'
• What links to 'Bannie ... Note'
• What links to 'K1c2 mtDNA Haplogroup'
• What links to 'Nathaniel Hood Study'
• What links to 'Miles Scarborough Study'

Things that hurt, things I don't understand

• Down votes

  Down votes really hurt, each and every one of them. They're completely anonymous, and are not accompanied by any explanatory comments, or any pointers to comments or answers you have written, so you have NO idea what you did wrong, what they disagree with, what you could correct, or who you could apologize to. I WANT to please everyone, I WANT to apologize and try to do better, but a down vote tells me nothing. If they told me what I could have done better, I'd try to do it. Instead, I feel slapped, with no idea why - hurt, and helpless to improve what ever bothered them.

• Squelching

  A few days ago, a well-respected WikiTree veteran felt the need to squelch me. He didn't even try to read the points I had tried to lay out, he simply miss-characterized them to an extreme, as if I wanted to harm Chris or WikiTree. He then ended it with a bit of sarcasm and disrespect. I've had a hard enough time not thinking that some of the veterans really do not welcome my input.

  more to come ... maybe ...

• Profiles without dates or places

  Unconscionable! How can so many profiles have been allowed to be created without any dates and/or any locations! It just seems inexcusable to me to allow the import or creation of a new record with not even an estimated date (if nothing else, a century), or an estimated country or continent. And I was really shocked when I looked at the Database Error lists that there are NO errors for either case (this has improved recently). There are errors for wrongly formatted places, such as wrong for the time period, but until very recently there was NO error for lack of place, which is a MUCH worse problem than an incorrect form of the place. And in the recent Clean-A-Thon (a worthy project), I noticed several occurrences (by individuals I won't name) where they moved the incorrect form of the place to the bio, then deleted the place! That left the record ten times worse than before! It is SO frustrating for many of us whenever we do a search or check a list of matches, to see how many have no dates or places. One example from the Clean-a-thon, a profile had the place of birth as "Tennessee or Georgia", which doesn't conform to WikiTree 'rules'. The cleaner moved that to the bio, then 'cleaned' the place field out, leaving anyone seeing the profile in a list wondering if it's possibly Europe or Australia. Most of us don't have time to inspect every empty looking profile, in hope it *might* have a clue. more to come ...

• Attitudes toward other sites

  It constantly hurts when I hear so much disrespect for Ancestry.com and its users, FindAGrave and its pages, FamilySearch and its errors and duplication, and many other sites. THEY ARE ALL OUR FELLOW COLLABORATORS! And each site has its pros and cons, not one is perfect. Every genealogical site has its great genealogists who are careful with sourcing, and every site has large numbers of new and untaught genealogists. Every site has profiles and pages full of errors or exceptionally empty, and every site has great pages, with verified information. Trying to do genealogy without ever using Ancestry.com is like trying to work with one hand tied behind your back. You're going to miss sources you can't get anywhere else. That doesn't excuse their policies, just recognizes reality. And any profile without a FindAGrave or similar link always seems incomplete. How can a profile be complete without the tombstone or memorial, a place for descendants and relatives to meet, leave flowers, and remember the person?

  The thing about new genealogists is that they have primary information about themselves and their near relatives. And whether they post it on Ancestry, FindAGrave, or somewhere else, it's valuable! And if it conflicts with your source, there's a good chance your source is wrong, and they are right, because they were there! What we generally judge them by is the stuff they copy from others, but that is usually their deeper ancestors. I wish more would read my little story below, not because I'm a good writer, but because it makes 2 important points. more to come ...

• Lack of Getting Started help for DNA users

  more to come ...

Writings

Why are they listed here? Because I'm not a real writer, and have no idea where to put them!

Family Bibles and Notes

• Making Family Bibles Available Online
  • J_M_Hood_Family_Bible
  • Green Bagley Family Bible
  • Daniel_J_Lynch_Family_Bible, formerly the David_J_Lynch_Family_Bible
  • Charles_A_Henderson_Family_Bible
  • Bannie_Marie_Jackson_Ancestral_Note

DNA Related

• Connecting_DNA_Test_Results_to_WikiTree_Profiles
• Small DNA Segments - Pennsylvania German
• K1c2 mtDNA Haplogroup
• YDNA Haplogroup R-S23346
• Mitochondrial STRs

Miscellaneous

• Cleaning_up_Ancestry_GEDCOM_imports_with_the_'References_First'_method
• Wrightman Bagley - Division of Land to Heirs

Studies

These are in depth collections of all the data concerning confusing people, and an attempt to 'un-confuse' and make sense of it all, figure out what data goes with what person

• Nathaniel_Hood_Study
• Miles_Scarborough_Study

Articles and Thoughts

• The article below - "Looking for gems in the mud"
• An article not available here yet, not finished - "The Future of Genealogy"
• Articles from my blog

  My writing always needs a good editor, but I've never found one. It's generally disjointed and awkwardly worded. I'd love to find the right person who could make them flow, make them communicate, without completely removing me.

  • "I could be you"
  • "Do you want to be more right?"
  • "Listening"
  • Lost in the Georgia mountains (not posted yet?)
  • Various others, and personal thoughts

Some posts

Since my memory is so bad, this index helps me find my own thoughts!

• Newest Ideas
  • Better ways to reward monthly contributions
  • GEDCOM import control - limit unsourced entries
  • The References First, Ultimate Solution method of sourcing; plus Ancestry cleanup
  • The Save a GEDCOM Project
• DNA
  • Guidelines for WikiTree and GEDmatch emails and alias
  • Why we also need your GEDmatch ID
    • Mags great post about it
  • About differing ethnicities from different DNA testing companies
  • Review of Living DNA
  • Desire for public SNP database for ethnicities
  • Fishing in every pool
  • Check for DNA matches against your siblings too
    • Get your siblings tested too! They will match people you don't
  • Y37 markers as proof
  • Promethease
  • Promethease and Ancestry, health and traits SNPs
• Miscellaneous
  • Thoughts on paywalls and the cost of sourcing
  • Can a genealogist be racist
  • Documenting the slaves of our ancestors
  • My thought on 'County' and 'USA'
  • Genesis one-to-one with Stacy
  • Virginia book, Leticia Elzey
• WikiTree improvements
  • Total collaboration and discrepancy checking
  • Multiple parents per profile, biological and non-biological
• Norway
  • Norwegian naming
  • Last names, corrected by Sigmund
  • Americanization of names
• Small segments
  • Introducing my paper on 2 small segments particular to the early Pennsylvania German community
  • More comments on small segments
  • Thoughts on IBC and statistical probability
  • Finding small segments when comparing with random testers, plus more small segment discussion
  • Thoughts on IBP segments, DNA detection (the meiosis blender), etc
• Ancestry.com and GEDCOM stuff, links
  • Help:Links_to_Ancestry
  • Handling other types of Ancestry.com links - a series of related posts
  • Cleaning_up_Ancestry_GEDCOM_imports_with_the_'References_First'_method

Articles

Why is this article here? Because I have no idea where it *should* go.

This article was inspired by a blog posting complaining about the rampant copying some do, the propagation of mistakes that occurs because of that, and the resultant low quality of many personal trees. It is NOT a defense of irresponsible copying, but a suggestion to dig deeper.

Looking for gems in the mud

by Rob Jacobson - 2017

When you are browsing trees, on Ancestry.com or elsewhere, you often find trees of low quality, poorly sourced, inconsistent in naming, dates, and place names, etc. And it's really easy to write them off, ignore them, and move along to what appear to you to be better quality trees, more reliable. Don't! It hurts me to read some of the derogatory comments I see once in awhile, about Ancestry.com trees, or other trees with obvious issues. It partly hurts because in the end we are ALL collaborators on the one big family tree, drawing from each other the knowledge we need for our own trees.

But more importantly, writing off an unimpressive tree may cause you to miss out on high quality data you actually need for your own tree! Take the time to examine some of these trees, and when you dig down far enough, you may be surprised to find some high quality data there. What is the typical scenario for a brand new genealogist? They enter what they know about their immediate family, and then enter what they can gather about older relatives, and with each generation back, the numbers are fewer and the data becomes less reliable. At some point, they search for more data to fill in these holes, and discover that others have more data in their trees about the very persons they were researching, and they begin copying others data! And you can make a tree much more impressive more quickly by wholesale copying than you can by original research! Generally, when we come across these trees, it's at an older generation level, where there's lots of copying, so all we see initially of their tree is what's been copied, what you have already seen elsewhere and recognize because of mistakes, spelling issues, capitalization issues, and non-standard names, dates, and place names. You're looking at the crust, and judging the pie by only what's on top. You have to drill down to see what is original to them, what is first hand and second hand knowledge they have that you don't have.

You may have a great grandmother, and you know she had a sister, and you know the sister's name and when she was born, but nothing else. She disappeared. You find a new tree, and you can see the tree author has been copying lots of stuff, nothing new to you, and they are clearly inexperienced. Then you take the time to dig deeper and discover they not only have that missing sister, they know where she moved, who she married, when she died, who her children were, and their vitals and spouses and families! Plus, there may be family stories and family Bible records. You just found a diamond in the rough, and your own tree will be much the better for it!

So don't be so quick to judge poor trees. Their author may be just where you were when you were just starting out! And even in their early days, they probably have good information to offer. Look for those gems. Then if you can, offer that new genealogist a guiding hand.