Instead of giving the answer straight away, try it again. Verify that the file you are actually uploading actually ends with .zip Don't assume you've been doing it right all this time Assume you've been doing it wrong -----Original Message----- From: Genealice <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 10:05 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem Hi, Thanks again for your interest. I've already done it several times so I can give the answer straightaway: "The specified file 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for Family Finder <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> or download the file and try again." Unless the following thread on Family Tree DNA is misleading, there does seem to be a problem with the Ancestry file. The size of the file I am trying to upload is also 17,184 kb. I have downloaded it several times and it is always the same size. According to this thread, the file should be bigger. http://66.249.108.88/showthread.php?t=41783&highlight=problem+Ancestry+autos omal+transfer&page=14 -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wjhonson Sent: 10 October 2017 17:32 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem Try the upload again, use the file that ends in .zip and report what error it gives you -----Original Message----- From: Genealice <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 9:24 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem Hi, That's what I've been uploading ... I do have both - a zip file and a text file from a separate zip file which I download. I've tried both the zip and the text, downloading again from Ancestry. And I've just checked in my Mozilla browser which I usually use and it is set on ask to unzip. Kind Regards, Alice -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wjhonson Sent: 10 October 2017 16:58 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem You should have a version of the same file name on your computer somewhere without the ".txt" ending. It should have the ".zip" ending Have you tried a search on your computer? -----Original Message----- From: Genealice <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 8:55 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem Hi, Thanks for the response. I've tried it in both Mozilla and Internet Explorer. How do I stop the browser unzipping it as text if that's what it is|? I did manage to upload it to My Heritage without a problem. I have is|to say this does seem to be a problem for plenty of others as another participant in this thread has indicated, but if there is a simpler explanation which can be fixed, that would of course work for me! Kind Regards, Alice -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wjhonson Sent: 10 October 2017 16:47 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem It is likely that your browser or some software addin is *unzipping* the file for you When you go to do the upload, look carefully at the file name that it is attempting to upload It should *not* be the file that ends in ".txt" that is not the file you want -----Original Message----- From: Genealice <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 6:06 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem I don't seem to have cracked this one. Just to make clear, I have downloaded the zip file from Ancestry and left it untouched. It won't upload and I get the same error message. 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> Family Finder or download the file and try again." I unzip and upload the file. I get the same error message. I have changed the headers I still get the same message. I think it would be logical to deduce, since other people have the same problem and others have not, that there might be something wrong with the particular Ancestry file as regards Family Tree DNA? I upload to Gedmatch and My Heritage without a problem. Can anyone can shed light on the matter? Kind Regards, Alice From: Genealice [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 October 2017 21:02 To: '[email protected]' Subject: Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem Hi, OK, I fully admit I joined this list because a problem has cropped up and I'm posting straightaway. But I hope it will be of interest to the mailing list and thank you for having me! I am trying to do an autosomal transfer, uploading an Ancestry.com raw data file to Family Tree DNA. However I keep on getting the following message "The specified file 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for Family Finder <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> or download the file and try again." Looking on the FTDNA message boards this seems to be a common problem. There seem to a number of different theories over this: that is on FTDNA's side. That it is Ancestry.com and the files are smaller than they should be. That it is to do with the header. I have tried replacing the header with that suggested on the message board but it made no difference. I have posted it on Gedmatch with no problem at all but I understand it allows for more variations in the raw data. The header on the Ancestry data I have is as follows: #AncestryDNA raw data download #This file was generated by AncestryDNA at: 10/07/2017 01:20:13 UTC #Data was collected using AncestryDNA array version: V2.0 #Data is formatted using AncestryDNA converter version: V1.0 #Below is a text version of your DNA file from Ancestry.com DNA, LLC. THIS #INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND IS INTENDED FOR GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH #ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, OR HEALTH PURPOSES. THE EXPORTED DATA IS #SUBJECT TO THE AncestryDNA TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BUT PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE #DOWNLOADED DATA WILL NO LONGER BE PROTECTED BY OUR SECURITY MEASURES. #WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD YOUR RAW DNA DATA, YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF STORING, #SECURING AND PROTECTING YOUR DATA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE ANCESTRYDNA FAQS. # #Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns. Each line #corresponds to a SNP. Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID where #possible). Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair position #of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates. Columns four and five #contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype). The genotype is reported #on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference. rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2 I am not a tekkie and just want to get on Family Tree DNA. Can anyone help me with this? Thank you so much! Alice ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Try the upload again, use the file that ends in .zip and report what error it gives you -----Original Message----- From: Genealice <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 9:24 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem Hi, That's what I've been uploading ... I do have both - a zip file and a text file from a separate zip file which I download. I've tried both the zip and the text, downloading again from Ancestry. And I've just checked in my Mozilla browser which I usually use and it is set on ask to unzip. Kind Regards, Alice -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wjhonson Sent: 10 October 2017 16:58 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem You should have a version of the same file name on your computer somewhere without the ".txt" ending. It should have the ".zip" ending Have you tried a search on your computer? -----Original Message----- From: Genealice <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 8:55 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem Hi, Thanks for the response. I've tried it in both Mozilla and Internet Explorer. How do I stop the browser unzipping it as text if that's what it is|? I did manage to upload it to My Heritage without a problem. I have is|to say this does seem to be a problem for plenty of others as another participant in this thread has indicated, but if there is a simpler explanation which can be fixed, that would of course work for me! Kind Regards, Alice -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wjhonson Sent: 10 October 2017 16:47 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem It is likely that your browser or some software addin is *unzipping* the file for you When you go to do the upload, look carefully at the file name that it is attempting to upload It should *not* be the file that ends in ".txt" that is not the file you want -----Original Message----- From: Genealice <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 6:06 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem I don't seem to have cracked this one. Just to make clear, I have downloaded the zip file from Ancestry and left it untouched. It won't upload and I get the same error message. 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> Family Finder or download the file and try again." I unzip and upload the file. I get the same error message. I have changed the headers I still get the same message. I think it would be logical to deduce, since other people have the same problem and others have not, that there might be something wrong with the particular Ancestry file as regards Family Tree DNA? I upload to Gedmatch and My Heritage without a problem. Can anyone can shed light on the matter? Kind Regards, Alice From: Genealice [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 October 2017 21:02 To: '[email protected]' Subject: Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem Hi, OK, I fully admit I joined this list because a problem has cropped up and I'm posting straightaway. But I hope it will be of interest to the mailing list and thank you for having me! I am trying to do an autosomal transfer, uploading an Ancestry.com raw data file to Family Tree DNA. However I keep on getting the following message "The specified file 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for Family Finder <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> or download the file and try again." Looking on the FTDNA message boards this seems to be a common problem. There seem to a number of different theories over this: that is on FTDNA's side. That it is Ancestry.com and the files are smaller than they should be. That it is to do with the header. I have tried replacing the header with that suggested on the message board but it made no difference. I have posted it on Gedmatch with no problem at all but I understand it allows for more variations in the raw data. The header on the Ancestry data I have is as follows: #AncestryDNA raw data download #This file was generated by AncestryDNA at: 10/07/2017 01:20:13 UTC #Data was collected using AncestryDNA array version: V2.0 #Data is formatted using AncestryDNA converter version: V1.0 #Below is a text version of your DNA file from Ancestry.com DNA, LLC. THIS #INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND IS INTENDED FOR GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH #ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, OR HEALTH PURPOSES. THE EXPORTED DATA IS #SUBJECT TO THE AncestryDNA TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BUT PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE #DOWNLOADED DATA WILL NO LONGER BE PROTECTED BY OUR SECURITY MEASURES. #WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD YOUR RAW DNA DATA, YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF STORING, #SECURING AND PROTECTING YOUR DATA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE ANCESTRYDNA FAQS. # #Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns. Each line #corresponds to a SNP. Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID where #possible). Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair position #of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates. Columns four and five #contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype). The genotype is reported #on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference. rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2 I am not a tekkie and just want to get on Family Tree DNA. Can anyone help me with this? Thank you so much! Alice ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You should have a version of the same file name on your computer somewhere without the ".txt" ending. It should have the ".zip" ending Have you tried a search on your computer? -----Original Message----- From: Genealice <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 8:55 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem Hi, Thanks for the response. I've tried it in both Mozilla and Internet Explorer. How do I stop the browser unzipping it as text if that's what it is|? I did manage to upload it to My Heritage without a problem. I have to say this does seem to be a problem for plenty of others as another participant in this thread has indicated, but if there is a simpler explanation which can be fixed, that would of course work for me! Kind Regards, Alice -----Original Message----- From: GENEALOGY-DNA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wjhonson Sent: 10 October 2017 16:47 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem It is likely that your browser or some software addin is *unzipping* the file for you When you go to do the upload, look carefully at the file name that it is attempting to upload It should *not* be the file that ends in ".txt" that is not the file you want -----Original Message----- From: Genealice <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 6:06 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem I don't seem to have cracked this one. Just to make clear, I have downloaded the zip file from Ancestry and left it untouched. It won't upload and I get the same error message. 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> Family Finder or download the file and try again." I unzip and upload the file. I get the same error message. I have changed the headers I still get the same message. I think it would be logical to deduce, since other people have the same problem and others have not, that there might be something wrong with the particular Ancestry file as regards Family Tree DNA? I upload to Gedmatch and My Heritage without a problem. Can anyone can shed light on the matter? Kind Regards, Alice From: Genealice [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 October 2017 21:02 To: '[email protected]' Subject: Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem Hi, OK, I fully admit I joined this list because a problem has cropped up and I'm posting straightaway. But I hope it will be of interest to the mailing list and thank you for having me! I am trying to do an autosomal transfer, uploading an Ancestry.com raw data file to Family Tree DNA. However I keep on getting the following message "The specified file 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for Family Finder <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> or download the file and try again." Looking on the FTDNA message boards this seems to be a common problem. There seem to a number of different theories over this: that is on FTDNA's side. That it is Ancestry.com and the files are smaller than they should be. That it is to do with the header. I have tried replacing the header with that suggested on the message board but it made no difference. I have posted it on Gedmatch with no problem at all but I understand it allows for more variations in the raw data. The header on the Ancestry data I have is as follows: #AncestryDNA raw data download #This file was generated by AncestryDNA at: 10/07/2017 01:20:13 UTC #Data was collected using AncestryDNA array version: V2.0 #Data is formatted using AncestryDNA converter version: V1.0 #Below is a text version of your DNA file from Ancestry.com DNA, LLC. THIS #INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND IS INTENDED FOR GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH #ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, OR HEALTH PURPOSES. THE EXPORTED DATA IS #SUBJECT TO THE AncestryDNA TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BUT PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE #DOWNLOADED DATA WILL NO LONGER BE PROTECTED BY OUR SECURITY MEASURES. #WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD YOUR RAW DNA DATA, YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF STORING, #SECURING AND PROTECTING YOUR DATA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE ANCESTRYDNA FAQS. # #Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns. Each line #corresponds to a SNP. Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID where #possible). Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair position #of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates. Columns four and five #contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype). The genotype is reported #on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference. rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2 I am not a tekkie and just want to get on Family Tree DNA. Can anyone help me with this? Thank you so much! Alice ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It is likely that your browser or some software addin is *unzipping* the file for you When you go to do the upload, look carefully at the file name that it is attempting to upload It should *not* be the file that ends in ".txt" that is not the file you want -----Original Message----- From: Genealice <[email protected]> To: genealogy-dna <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 6:06 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem I don't seem to have cracked this one. Just to make clear, I have downloaded the zip file from Ancestry and left it untouched. It won't upload and I get the same error message. 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> Family Finder or download the file and try again." I unzip and upload the file. I get the same error message. I have changed the headers I still get the same message. I think it would be logical to deduce, since other people have the same problem and others have not, that there might be something wrong with the particular Ancestry file as regards Family Tree DNA? I upload to Gedmatch and My Heritage without a problem. Can anyone can shed light on the matter? Kind Regards, Alice From: Genealice [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 October 2017 21:02 To: '[email protected]' Subject: Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem Hi, OK, I fully admit I joined this list because a problem has cropped up and I'm posting straightaway. But I hope it will be of interest to the mailing list and thank you for having me! I am trying to do an autosomal transfer, uploading an Ancestry.com raw data file to Family Tree DNA. However I keep on getting the following message "The specified file 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for Family Finder <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> or download the file and try again." Looking on the FTDNA message boards this seems to be a common problem. There seem to a number of different theories over this: that is on FTDNA's side. That it is Ancestry.com and the files are smaller than they should be. That it is to do with the header. I have tried replacing the header with that suggested on the message board but it made no difference. I have posted it on Gedmatch with no problem at all but I understand it allows for more variations in the raw data. The header on the Ancestry data I have is as follows: #AncestryDNA raw data download #This file was generated by AncestryDNA at: 10/07/2017 01:20:13 UTC #Data was collected using AncestryDNA array version: V2.0 #Data is formatted using AncestryDNA converter version: V1.0 #Below is a text version of your DNA file from Ancestry.com DNA, LLC. THIS #INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND IS INTENDED FOR GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH #ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, OR HEALTH PURPOSES. THE EXPORTED DATA IS #SUBJECT TO THE AncestryDNA TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BUT PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE #DOWNLOADED DATA WILL NO LONGER BE PROTECTED BY OUR SECURITY MEASURES. #WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD YOUR RAW DNA DATA, YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF STORING, #SECURING AND PROTECTING YOUR DATA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE ANCESTRYDNA FAQS. # #Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns. Each line #corresponds to a SNP. Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID where #possible). Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair position #of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates. Columns four and five #contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype). The genotype is reported #on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference. rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2 I am not a tekkie and just want to get on Family Tree DNA. Can anyone help me with this? Thank you so much! Alice ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Nope, not even close, pretty normal in fact Angie Bush's daughter has an entire Chromosome 7 from a great grandparent, See http://blog.kittycooper.com/2014/09/using-the-chromosome-mapper-to-make-a-four-generation-inheritance-picture/ And I have many segments larger than 10 from ancestors in the 1600s, as I am sure others do On Oct 10, 2017 9:42 AM, "John Fletcher" <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a 10cM segment passed down through 4 generations (father of subject > to gdaughter of subject) unchanged. Is that a record? > John Fletcher > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I have a 10cM segment passed down through 4 generations (father of subject to gdaughter of subject) unchanged. Is that a record? John Fletcher

Alice, The ".txt" extension means the file is unzipped. Do you have a Mac? There are special instructions for that - or borrow a PC. Jim Bartlett - atDNA blog: www.segmentology.org > On Oct 10, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Genealice <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't seem to have cracked this one. Just to make clear, I have downloaded > the zip file from Ancestry and left it untouched. It won't upload and I get > the same error message. > > > > 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported version > or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for > <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> Family Finder or > download the file and try again." > > > > I unzip and upload the file. I get the same error message. I have changed > the headers I still get the same message. I think it would be logical to > deduce, since other people have the same problem and others have not, that > there might be something wrong with the particular Ancestry file as regards > Family Tree DNA? I upload to Gedmatch and My Heritage without a problem. > > > > Can anyone can shed light on the matter? > > > > Kind Regards, > > Alice > > >

The underlying problem appears to be that FTDNA is rejecting files that don't meet some (overly) specific requirement about the contents. We have not been able to deduce what that is, since the uploads work perfectly well at other sites, but it may have something to do with the exact number of rows of data. I think you'll have to wait until the IT department at FTDNA relaxes their requirements. There is a very long thread on the FTDNA forums about this problem. If you follow that thread, you'll probably see an announcement when the issue is fixed. http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=41783&highlight=ancestrydna&page=14 On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Genealice <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't seem to have cracked this one. Just to make clear, I have > downloaded > the zip file from Ancestry and left it untouched. It won't upload and I get > the same error message. > > > > 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported > version > or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for > <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> Family Finder or > download the file and try again." > > > > I unzip and upload the file. I get the same error message. I have changed > the headers I still get the same message. I think it would be logical to > deduce, since other people have the same problem and others have not, that > there might be something wrong with the particular Ancestry file as regards > Family Tree DNA? I upload to Gedmatch and My Heritage without a problem. > > > > Can anyone can shed light on the matter? > > > > Kind Regards, > > Alice >

I received a note off-list reminding me about the LiftOver tool at the UCSC Genome Browser website: https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgLiftOver There has been some discussion on the mailing list for the ISOGG tree about whether there are some "gotchas" in that method, though. Dennis, could you review that method and see if it comes up with the same results? Ann Turner On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:06 AM, Ann Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > For step 3, do you mean that you (as a human being) are scanning the > adjustment table and doing a copy-and-paste? It seems like there could be > some formulas to automate that. > > Ann Turner > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Dennis Wright <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> For those that have a spreadsheet with a large number of SNPs presently >> showing hg19 positions, you are probably wondering what is involved in >> producing hg38 positions. Here is how I went about it. >> >> I have been able to organise my SNP positions with the help of the >> mutation page produced by Alex Williamson, http://www.ytree.net/hg19tohg3 >> 8.html. >> >> 1. I took the list of my 695 SNPs and pasted the hg19 positions into >> column A of a new spreadsheet. >> >> 2. Copy this list into Column D >> >> 2. Sort Column D from smallest to largest >> >> 3. In column E insert the adjustment specified in Alex's listing. As >> these are ranges, copying in the adjustments is quite quick, and this is >> the worst part of the whole procedure. >> >> 4. Calculate the new position in column F with a formula that adds or >> subtracts column E from column D as appropriate. >> >> 5. In column B, Cell B1, insert the formula =VLOOKUP(A1,D:F, 3,FALSE) >> and copy this formula to the bottom of your list of positions. >> >> 6. Column B now holds the hg38 positions of your SNPs in the order of >> your original list. Copy this Column, >> >> 7. 'Paste Special' choosing 'Values' to your original SNP listing >> spreadsheet and job is done! >> >> I hope this helps others do their conversions (Thanks Alex) >> >> Kind regards all! >> >> *Dennis Wright* >> Donnchadh Mac an tSaoir >> Irish Type III R-L226 > FGC12290 >> /"We are merely the present-day custodians of our Ancestors genes." >> >> >> / >> >> On 10/10/2017 9:09 AM, McDonald, J Douglas wrote: >> >>> I got a reply to a question about this. Its pretty clear. >>> >>> It says: >>> >>> >>> "Remapped vcf and BED files will be generated from the remapped BAM >>> files, though it may take a few days after the re-run is complete for them >>> to be available. >>> >>> A remapped downloadable BAM file will be available on request at some >>> point after the re-run. We do not yet know when that will be. >>> Those who have a hg19 BAM file will have to request a hg38 BAM file. We >>> won't automatically replace them. " >>> >>> That means that all the raw data, if you re-download all of it, will be >>> coherent. This is very good news >>> if its accurate. >>> >>> Doug McDonald >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: GENEALOGY-DNA >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Earlier today I received an e-mail from FTDNA that they will be moving >>> from >>> Build 37 to Build 38 for the BigY. >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > >

For step 3, do you mean that you (as a human being) are scanning the adjustment table and doing a copy-and-paste? It seems like there could be some formulas to automate that. Ann Turner On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Dennis Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > For those that have a spreadsheet with a large number of SNPs presently > showing hg19 positions, you are probably wondering what is involved in > producing hg38 positions. Here is how I went about it. > > I have been able to organise my SNP positions with the help of the > mutation page produced by Alex Williamson, http://www.ytree.net/hg19tohg3 > 8.html. > > 1. I took the list of my 695 SNPs and pasted the hg19 positions into > column A of a new spreadsheet. > > 2. Copy this list into Column D > > 2. Sort Column D from smallest to largest > > 3. In column E insert the adjustment specified in Alex's listing. As > these are ranges, copying in the adjustments is quite quick, and this is > the worst part of the whole procedure. > > 4. Calculate the new position in column F with a formula that adds or > subtracts column E from column D as appropriate. > > 5. In column B, Cell B1, insert the formula =VLOOKUP(A1,D:F, 3,FALSE) > and copy this formula to the bottom of your list of positions. > > 6. Column B now holds the hg38 positions of your SNPs in the order of > your original list. Copy this Column, > > 7. 'Paste Special' choosing 'Values' to your original SNP listing > spreadsheet and job is done! > > I hope this helps others do their conversions (Thanks Alex) > > Kind regards all! > > *Dennis Wright* > Donnchadh Mac an tSaoir > Irish Type III R-L226 > FGC12290 > /"We are merely the present-day custodians of our Ancestors genes." > > > / > > On 10/10/2017 9:09 AM, McDonald, J Douglas wrote: > >> I got a reply to a question about this. Its pretty clear. >> >> It says: >> >> >> "Remapped vcf and BED files will be generated from the remapped BAM >> files, though it may take a few days after the re-run is complete for them >> to be available. >> >> A remapped downloadable BAM file will be available on request at some >> point after the re-run. We do not yet know when that will be. >> Those who have a hg19 BAM file will have to request a hg38 BAM file. We >> won't automatically replace them. " >> >> That means that all the raw data, if you re-download all of it, will be >> coherent. This is very good news >> if its accurate. >> >> Doug McDonald >> ________________________________________ >> From: GENEALOGY-DNA >> Dear All, >> >> Earlier today I received an e-mail from FTDNA that they will be moving >> from >> Build 37 to Build 38 for the BigY. >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I got a reply to a question about this. Its pretty clear. It says: "Remapped vcf and BED files will be generated from the remapped BAM files, though it may take a few days after the re-run is complete for them to be available. A remapped downloadable BAM file will be available on request at some point after the re-run. We do not yet know when that will be. Those who have a hg19 BAM file will have to request a hg38 BAM file. We won't automatically replace them. " That means that all the raw data, if you re-download all of it, will be coherent. This is very good news if its accurate. Doug McDonald ________________________________________ From: GENEALOGY-DNA Dear All, Earlier today I received an e-mail from FTDNA that they will be moving from Build 37 to Build 38 for the BigY.

>From Nature News: https://www.nature.com/news/navajo-nation-reconsiders-ban-on-genetic-research-1.22780 When the Navajo Nation opens its first oncology centre next year in Tuba City, Arizona, clinicians there may be able to offer a service that has been banned on tribal lands for 15 years: analyzing the DNA of Navajo tribe members to guide treatments and study the genetic roots of disease. That's because the Navajo, the second-largest Native American group in the United States, are considering whether to lift their longstanding moratorium on genetic research. The tribal government banned DNA studies in 2002 to prevent the misuse of its members' genetic material. Although there is still some apprehension about the risk of allowing researchers access to Navajo DNA, the tribe's leaders increasingly see genetic research as a tool to improve medical care for the 174,000 residents of their sprawling reservation, which is roughly the size of Scotland. *Continued at link above.* -- Steven C. Perkins [email protected] http://stevencperkins.com/ Indigenous Peoples' Rights http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html Indigenous & Ethnic Minority Legal News http://iemlnews.blogspot.com/ Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/ S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Page http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog http://scpgen.blogspot.com/

Ann, that's exactly my point.  In my experience, almost all autosomal matches reported by the One-to-Many tool for females, using the default criteria and for segment lengths greater than 10 cM, can be confirmed by the One-to-One (autosomal) comparison tool.  On the other hand, the vast majority of X matches for females, again using the default criteria and for segment lengths greater than 10 cM, are NOT confirmed by the X One-to-One comparison tool.  The discrepancy is extreme, something like 90 percent or more confirmable for autosomal matches, versus something like 1 percent confirmable for X matches.  Phasing has something to do with it, but I'm fairly sure phasing does not eliminate 90 percent of female autosomal matches reported by the One-to-Many tool!  Hence I suspect that the X matching algorithm used by the One-to-Many tool is doing something different from the algorithm used for autosomal matching in the same tool.   John McCoy ([email protected])   In a message dated 10/9/2017 2:42:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:   I agree that phasing reduces the number of matches enormously, for the autosomes as well as the X in females. I did think the length of the segment reported by Wesley should have been long enough to show up in the one-to-one. Ann Turner

https://medium.com/@johnhawks/what-weve-learned-from-the-rising-star-cave-system-this-month-251dcca8ce31?source=userActivityShare-112d402330a3-1507316084 Andreas

The FTDNA error message is saying that they received a .txt file. Try downloading again from Ancestry. Do not open the file; just send it directly to FTDNA as you received it. Good luck! Doris On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Jan Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > I had the same problem, neither the zipped or txt file from ancestryDNA > worked. > > Any solutions? > > Jan > > Janeth A Campbell > > Retired Researcher and Educator > PO Box 13877 > Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3877 > > *J*[email protected] <[email protected]> > > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 4:41 PM, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Send GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list submissions to > > [email protected] > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists3.rootsweb.ancestry.com/mailman/listinfo/ > genealogy-dna > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [email protected] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [email protected] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of GENEALOGY-DNA digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Working with high largest X-matches on GEDmatch (Wesley Johnston) > > 2. Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem (Genealice) > > 3. Re: Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem (Nancy Custer) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 12:54:56 +0000 (UTC) > > From: Wesley Johnston <[email protected]> > > To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List <[email protected]> > > Subject: [DNA] Working with high largest X-matches on GEDmatch > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > I am looking to see just what a high X-match that has no shared atDNA can > > tell us about shared ancestral lines. Clearly this is pushing back very > far > > in time. I am using a female kit that is of pure Czech ancestry as far > back > > as we know (roughly in the late 1600's and early 1700's). On her 6-gen > > X-inheritance chart, we know at least the name of 9 of the 13 X-ancestors > > and know the spouse's surname in all 13. So the challenge of finding a > > matching line is narrowed to Czech or Slavic lines. > > > > But that is not the problem that I am running into on GEDmatch. The > > problem is that different GEDmatch tools are presenting conflicting > > results. The kits come from different test companies, so that I am not > sure > > if this is a factor. > > > > To allow anyone wanting to repeat this to do so, I am going to include > kit > > numbers. The kit of the focus person is T685302. > > > > Here are the steps that I have done. > > 1 - Identify X-DNA matches, sorted by largest X-DNA cM. > > I used the free one-to-many and then sort descending on largest X-DNA cM. > > Setting aside immediate family members, the top 10 matches range from 16 > to > > 21 largest X-DNA cMs, and all but the top one show zero total atDNA cMs > > (the top one M052745 has 5.1). > > 2 - Do a one-to-one X-DNA comparison of some of the top 10. > > Clicking on the X in the X-DNA Details column, you would expect to see > the > > same information shown in the one-to-one comparison as in the sorted > > one-to-many. And in some cases, the X 1:1 does show about the same (an > 18.8 > > largest X-DNA A916434 on the 1:many shows as 18.7 on the X 1:1). But in > > some cases, the X-DNA 1:1 shows zero shared X-DNA (an 18.3 largest X-DNA > > M131017 on the 1:many shows as no match at all on the X 1:1). > > So I tried dropping the SNP threshold with M131017 on the X 1:1 to 100 > > SNPs and the minimum cMs to 1 (which should not be necessary if there is > > indeed a largest X shared 18.3 cM as the 1:many list shows). And this > does > > generate a list of shared ranges on the X, the largest of which is 5.4 cM > > (162 SNPs) by cMs or by SNPs 3.5 cM (295 SNPs). So clearly this is a > > radical difference from what the 1:many list is showing when it reports a > > largest shared X of 18.3 cM). > > 3 - Create a Tag Group for the highest matches. > > I used the Tier1 1 1:many tool to create the group, setting the option to > > filter by X (instead of autosomal) with offset 0, limit 500 (the minimum > > allowed) and cM size 3 (the minimum allowed. This gives a completely > > different (from step 1) top 10 list. Where the free 1:many had largest > cMs > > of 16 or more for the top 10, the Tier1 1:many showed no one (other than > > close family) with a largest cM of more than 11.2. > > > > So I then tried the Tier1 1:1 on autosomal and setting to the minima and > > sorting on the largest X (trying to re-create the list in step 1. But > since > > the Tier1 1:1 does not include atDNA matches of zero, neither one of > these > > methods was able to find the same high largest X but low atDNA matches > that > > the free 1:1 tool found. > > Nevertheless, I created a tag group of those X-matches (from the atDNA > > version of the Tier1 1:1) who had the highest total X cMS (20.0 and > above, > > minus immediate family). This tag group has 20 members. > > 4 - Run the X-DNA Matrix Comparison for this tag group. > > This was a real shock. Since the tag group had been specifically created > > from a 1:many list of the X-DNA matches of T685302 who had 20.0 or more > > total cMs, you would expect to see a number in every cell of T685302's > > row/column. But 8 of the 19 cells are empty. Going back to the Tier1 1:1 > > list used to create this tag group, one of these empty cells is the > second > > highest total cMs (40.8), but the largest for this match is just 6.4 and > > thus under the threshold of 7 cM for the matrix, which explains the empty > > cell. > > > > > > The bottom line seems to me to be implicit and explicit threshold > > differences among the tools. I really would like to work with the top 10 > > from the free 1:many, but even the free X 1:1 conflicts with some of the > > ones shown in that list. And the Tier1 1:many does not even discover > these > > matches (apparently because the Tier1, even when choosing the X option) > > still has some implicit atDNA threshold). > > Choosing these low-autosomal / high largest X matches as a target is a > > challenge in the first place. But the GEDmatch tools make it extremely > more > > challenging when they do not allow exploration of those matches. > > Clearly having more ability to twist the knobs on GEDmatch would help. > But > > the fact that (step 1 and step 2) there are very significant conflicts > > between one GEDmatch tool showing? 18.3 cM of a largest shared X and > > another showing nothing more than 5.4 cM for the same two people seems to > > be more than just finding the right settings of the knobs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 21:02:08 +0100 > > From: Genealice <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Subject: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > OK, I fully admit I joined this list because a problem has cropped up and > > I'm posting straightaway. But I hope it will be of interest to the > mailing > > list and thank you for having me! > > > > > > > > I am trying to do an autosomal transfer, uploading an Ancestry.com raw > data > > file to Family Tree DNA. However I keep on getting the following message > > > > > > > > "The specified file 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is > > an > > unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an > order > > for Family Finder <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> > > or > > download the file and try again." > > > > > > > > Looking on the FTDNA message boards this seems to be a common problem. > > There > > seem to a number of different theories over this: that is on FTDNA's > side. > > That it is Ancestry.com and the files are smaller than they should be. > That > > it is to do with the header. I have tried replacing the header with that > > suggested on the message board but it made no difference. > > > > > > > > I have posted it on Gedmatch with no problem at all but I understand it > > allows for more variations in the raw data. > > > > > > > > The header on the Ancestry data I have is as follows: > > > > > > > > #AncestryDNA raw data download > > > > #This file was generated by AncestryDNA at: 10/07/2017 01:20:13 UTC > > > > #Data was collected using AncestryDNA array version: V2.0 > > > > #Data is formatted using AncestryDNA converter version: V1.0 > > > > #Below is a text version of your DNA file from Ancestry.com DNA, LLC. > THIS > > > > #INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND IS INTENDED FOR GENEALOGICAL > > RESEARCH > > > > #ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, OR HEALTH PURPOSES. > > THE > > EXPORTED DATA IS > > > > #SUBJECT TO THE AncestryDNA TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BUT PLEASE BE AWARE > THAT > > THE > > > > #DOWNLOADED DATA WILL NO LONGER BE PROTECTED BY OUR SECURITY MEASURES. > > > > #WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD YOUR RAW DNA DATA, YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF STORING, > > > > #SECURING AND PROTECTING YOUR DATA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE > ANCESTRYDNA > > FAQS. > > > > # > > > > #Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns. Each line > > > > #corresponds to a SNP. Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID > where > > > > #possible). Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair > > position > > > > #of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates. Columns four > and > > five > > > > #contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype). The genotype > is > > reported > > > > #on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference. > > > > rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2 > > > > > > > > I am not a tekkie and just want to get on Family Tree DNA. Can anyone > help > > me with this? > > > > > > > > Thank you so much! > > > > > > > > Alice > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:41:39 -0500 > > From: Nancy Custer <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > You will need the zipped file for upload not the txt file. Some browsers > > will unzip your file and put the txt file in your download folder and the > > original zip file in the trash. > > > > Look in your trash file for the zipped file and choose that for upload to > > FTDNA. Of course, move the zipped file out of the trash first?? > > > > If you don't find the zip file in your trash folder, you can set your > > browser not to open/unzip files on download. Then download again. In > > Safari, that option is under Preferences in the first screen. I leave > mine > > set that way all the time. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Oct 8, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Genealice <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, I fully admit I joined this list because a problem has cropped up > and > > > I'm posting straightaway. But I hope it will be of interest to the > > mailing > > > list and thank you for having me! > > > > > > > > > > > > I am trying to do an autosomal transfer, uploading an Ancestry.com raw > > data > > > file to Family Tree DNA. However I keep on getting the following > message > > > > > > > > > > > > "The specified file 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file > > is an > > > unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an > > order > > > for Family Finder <https://www.familytreedna. > com/products/family-finder> > > or > > > download the file and try again." > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking on the FTDNA message boards this seems to be a common problem. > > There > > > seem to a number of different theories over this: that is on FTDNA's > > side. > > > That it is Ancestry.com and the files are smaller than they should be. > > That > > > it is to do with the header. I have tried replacing the header with > that > > > suggested on the message board but it made no difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have posted it on Gedmatch with no problem at all but I understand it > > > allows for more variations in the raw data. > > > > > > > > > > > > The header on the Ancestry data I have is as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > #AncestryDNA raw data download > > > > > > #This file was generated by AncestryDNA at: 10/07/2017 01:20:13 UTC > > > > > > #Data was collected using AncestryDNA array version: V2.0 > > > > > > #Data is formatted using AncestryDNA converter version: V1.0 > > > > > > #Below is a text version of your DNA file from Ancestry.com DNA, LLC. > > THIS > > > > > > #INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND IS INTENDED FOR GENEALOGICAL > > > RESEARCH > > > > > > #ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, OR HEALTH PURPOSES. > > THE > > > EXPORTED DATA IS > > > > > > #SUBJECT TO THE AncestryDNA TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BUT PLEASE BE AWARE > > THAT > > > THE > > > > > > #DOWNLOADED DATA WILL NO LONGER BE PROTECTED BY OUR SECURITY MEASURES. > > > > > > #WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD YOUR RAW DNA DATA, YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF STORING, > > > > > > #SECURING AND PROTECTING YOUR DATA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE > > ANCESTRYDNA > > > FAQS. > > > > > > # > > > > > > #Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns. Each > line > > > > > > #corresponds to a SNP. Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID > > where > > > > > > #possible). Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair > > > position > > > > > > #of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates. Columns four > > and > > > five > > > > > > #contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype). The genotype > > is > > > reported > > > > > > #on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference. > > > > > > rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2 > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not a tekkie and just want to get on Family Tree DNA. Can anyone > > help > > > me with this? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you so much! > > > > > > > > > > > > Alice > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > To contact the GENEALOGY-DNA list administrator, send an email to > > [email protected] > > > > To post a message to the GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list, send an email to > > [email protected] > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] > > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the > body > > of the > > email with no additional text. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 12, Issue 668 > > ********************************************** > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I agree that phasing reduces the number of matches enormously, for the autosomes as well as the X in females. I did think the length of the segment reported by Wesley should have been long enough to show up in the one-to-one. Ann Turner On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:41 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > The vast majority of matches for unphased female samples on the > One-to-Many X comparison tool are NOT verifiable using the X One-to-One > comparison tool. Using the statistics at the bottom of the X One-to-Many > tool, it appears that female samples generally end up with around 20,000 > such matches. Males, however, end up with only one or two hundred. And, > in my experience, so do phased female kits. This result is of course > illogical, and it points in the direction of a very significant problem > with the X comparison algorithm used in the One-to-Many tool. Whatever the > differences in the algorithms used in these tools, I fail to see any way > that the differences can be useful! > > John McCoy > ([email protected]) > > In a message dated 10/8/2017 7:29:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > I'm wondering if there's some sort of database error here. I'd suggest > sending your findings to [email protected] > > Ann Turner > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Wesley Johnston <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I am looking to see just what a high X-match that has no shared atDNA can > > tell us about shared ancestral lines. Clearly this is pushing back very > far > > in time. I am using a female kit that is of pure Czech ancestry as far > back > > as we know (roughly in the late 1600's and early 1700's). On her 6-gen > > X-inheritance chart, we know at least the name of 9 of the 13 X-ancestors > > and know the spouse's surname in all 13. So the challenge of finding a > > matching line is narrowed to Czech or Slavic lines. > > > > But that is not the problem that I am running into on GEDmatch. The > > problem is that different GEDmatch tools are presenting conflicting > > results. The kits come from different test companies, so that I am not > sure > > if this is a factor. > > > > To allow anyone wanting to repeat this to do so, I am going to include > kit > > numbers. The kit of the focus person is T685302. > > > > Here are the steps that I have done. > > 1 - Identify X-DNA matches, sorted by largest X-DNA cM. > > I used the free one-to-many and then sort descending on largest X-DNA cM. > > Setting aside immediate family members, the top 10 matches range from 16 > to > > 21 largest X-DNA cMs, and all but the top one show zero total atDNA cMs > > (the top one M052745 has 5.1). > > 2 - Do a one-to-one X-DNA comparison of some of the top 10. > > Clicking on the X in the X-DNA Details column, you would expect to see > the > > same information shown in the one-to-one comparison as in the sorted > > one-to-many. And in some cases, the X 1:1 does show about the same (an > 18.8 > > largest X-DNA A916434 on the 1:many shows as 18.7 on the X 1:1). But in > > some cases, the X-DNA 1:1 shows zero shared X-DNA (an 18.3 largest X-DNA > > M131017 on the 1:many shows as no match at all on the X 1:1). > > So I tried dropping the SNP threshold with M131017 on the X 1:1 to 100 > > SNPs and the minimum cMs to 1 (which should not be necessary if there is > > indeed a largest X shared 18.3 cM as the 1:many list shows). And this > does > > generate a list of shared ranges on the X, the largest of which is 5.4 cM > > (162 SNPs) by cMs or by SNPs 3.5 cM (295 SNPs). So clearly this is a > > radical difference from what the 1:many list is showing when it reports a > > largest shared X of 18.3 cM). > > 3 - Create a Tag Group for the highest matches. > > I used the Tier1 1 1:many tool to create the group, setting the option to > > filter by X (instead of autosomal) with offset 0, limit 500 (the minimum > > allowed) and cM size 3 (the minimum allowed. This gives a completely > > different (from step 1) top 10 list. Where the free 1:many had largest > cMs > > of 16 or more for the top 10, the Tier1 1:many showed no one (other than > > close family) with a largest cM of more than 11.2. > > > > So I then tried the Tier1 1:1 on autosomal and setting to the minima and > > sorting on the largest X (trying to re-create the list in step 1. But > since > > the Tier1 1:1 does not include atDNA matches of zero, neither one of > these > > methods was able to find the same high largest X but low atDNA matches > that > > the free 1:1 tool found. > > Nevertheless, I created a tag group of those X-matches (from the atDNA > > version of the Tier1 1:1) who had the highest total X cMS (20.0 and > above, > > minus immediate family). This tag group has 20 members. > > 4 - Run the X-DNA Matrix Comparison for this tag group. > > This was a real shock. Since the tag group had been specifically created > > from a 1:many list of the X-DNA matches of T685302 who had 20.0 or more > > total cMs, you would expect to see a number in every cell of T685302's > > row/column. But 8 of the 19 cells are empty. Going back to the Tier1 1:1 > > list used to create this tag group, one of these empty cells is the > second > > highest total cMs (40.8), but the largest for this match is just 6.4 and > > thus under the threshold of 7 cM for the matrix, which explains the empty > > cell. > > > > > > The bottom line seems to me to be implicit and explicit threshold > > differences among the tools. I really would like to work with the top 10 > > from the free 1:many, but even the free X 1:1 conflicts with some of the > > ones shown in that list. And the Tier1 1:many does not even discover > these > > matches (apparently because the Tier1, even when choosing the X option) > > still has some implicit atDNA threshold). > > Choosing these low-autosomal / high largest X matches as a target is a > > challenge in the first place. But the GEDmatch tools make it extremely > more > > challenging when they do not allow exploration of those matches. > > Clearly having more ability to twist the knobs on GEDmatch would help. > But > > the fact that (step 1 and step 2) there are very significant conflicts > > between one GEDmatch tool showing 18.3 cM of a largest shared X and > > another showing nothing more than 5.4 cM for the same two people seems to > > be more than just finding the right settings of the knobs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The vast majority of matches for unphased female samples on the One-to-Many X comparison tool are NOT verifiable using the X One-to-One comparison tool.  Using the statistics at the bottom of the X One-to-Many tool, it appears that female samples generally end up with around 20,000 such matches.  Males, however, end up with only one or two hundred.  And, in my experience, so do phased female kits.  This result is of course illogical, and it points in the direction of a very significant problem with the X comparison algorithm used in the One-to-Many tool.  Whatever the differences in the algorithms used in these tools, I fail to see any way that the differences can be useful!   John McCoy ([email protected])   In a message dated 10/8/2017 7:29:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:   I'm wondering if there's some sort of database error here. I'd suggest sending your findings to [email protected] Ann Turner On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Wesley Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > I am looking to see just what a high X-match that has no shared atDNA can > tell us about shared ancestral lines. Clearly this is pushing back very far > in time. I am using a female kit that is of pure Czech ancestry as far back > as we know (roughly in the late 1600's and early 1700's). On her 6-gen > X-inheritance chart, we know at least the name of 9 of the 13 X-ancestors > and know the spouse's surname in all 13. So the challenge of finding a > matching line is narrowed to Czech or Slavic lines. > > But that is not the problem that I am running into on GEDmatch. The > problem is that different GEDmatch tools are presenting conflicting > results. The kits come from different test companies, so that I am not sure > if this is a factor. > > To allow anyone wanting to repeat this to do so, I am going to include kit > numbers. The kit of the focus person is T685302. > > Here are the steps that I have done. > 1 - Identify X-DNA matches, sorted by largest X-DNA cM. > I used the free one-to-many and then sort descending on largest X-DNA cM. > Setting aside immediate family members, the top 10 matches range from 16 to > 21 largest X-DNA cMs, and all but the top one show zero total atDNA cMs > (the top one M052745 has 5.1). > 2 - Do a one-to-one X-DNA comparison of some of the top 10. > Clicking on the X in the X-DNA Details column, you would expect to see the > same information shown in the one-to-one comparison as in the sorted > one-to-many. And in some cases, the X 1:1 does show about the same (an 18.8 > largest X-DNA A916434 on the 1:many shows as 18.7 on the X 1:1). But in > some cases, the X-DNA 1:1 shows zero shared X-DNA (an 18.3 largest X-DNA > M131017 on the 1:many shows as no match at all on the X 1:1). > So I tried dropping the SNP threshold with M131017 on the X 1:1 to 100 > SNPs and the minimum cMs to 1 (which should not be necessary if there is > indeed a largest X shared 18.3 cM as the 1:many list shows). And this does > generate a list of shared ranges on the X, the largest of which is 5.4 cM > (162 SNPs) by cMs or by SNPs 3.5 cM (295 SNPs). So clearly this is a > radical difference from what the 1:many list is showing when it reports a > largest shared X of 18.3 cM). > 3 - Create a Tag Group for the highest matches. > I used the Tier1 1 1:many tool to create the group, setting the option to > filter by X (instead of autosomal) with offset 0, limit 500 (the minimum > allowed) and cM size 3 (the minimum allowed. This gives a completely > different (from step 1) top 10 list. Where the free 1:many had largest cMs > of 16 or more for the top 10, the Tier1 1:many showed no one (other than > close family) with a largest cM of more than 11.2. > > So I then tried the Tier1 1:1 on autosomal and setting to the minima and > sorting on the largest X (trying to re-create the list in step 1. But since > the Tier1 1:1 does not include atDNA matches of zero, neither one of these > methods was able to find the same high largest X but low atDNA matches that > the free 1:1 tool found. > Nevertheless, I created a tag group of those X-matches (from the atDNA > version of the Tier1 1:1) who had the highest total X cMS (20.0 and above, > minus immediate family). This tag group has 20 members. > 4 - Run the X-DNA Matrix Comparison for this tag group. > This was a real shock. Since the tag group had been specifically created > from a 1:many list of the X-DNA matches of T685302 who had 20.0 or more > total cMs, you would expect to see a number in every cell of T685302's > row/column. But 8 of the 19 cells are empty. Going back to the Tier1 1:1 > list used to create this tag group, one of these empty cells is the second > highest total cMs (40.8), but the largest for this match is just 6.4 and > thus under the threshold of 7 cM for the matrix, which explains the empty > cell. > > > The bottom line seems to me to be implicit and explicit threshold > differences among the tools. I really would like to work with the top 10 > from the free 1:many, but even the free X 1:1 conflicts with some of the > ones shown in that list. And the Tier1 1:many does not even discover these > matches (apparently because the Tier1, even when choosing the X option) > still has some implicit atDNA threshold). > Choosing these low-autosomal / high largest X matches as a target is a > challenge in the first place. But the GEDmatch tools make it extremely more > challenging when they do not allow exploration of those matches. > Clearly having more ability to twist the knobs on GEDmatch would help. But > the fact that (step 1 and step 2) there are very significant conflicts > between one GEDmatch tool showing 18.3 cM of a largest shared X and > another showing nothing more than 5.4 cM for the same two people seems to > be more than just finding the right settings of the knobs. > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, OK, I fully admit I joined this list because a problem has cropped up and I'm posting straightaway. But I hope it will be of interest to the mailing list and thank you for having me! I am trying to do an autosomal transfer, uploading an Ancestry.com raw data file to Family Tree DNA. However I keep on getting the following message "The specified file 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is an unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order for Family Finder <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> or download the file and try again." Looking on the FTDNA message boards this seems to be a common problem. There seem to a number of different theories over this: that is on FTDNA's side. That it is Ancestry.com and the files are smaller than they should be. That it is to do with the header. I have tried replacing the header with that suggested on the message board but it made no difference. I have posted it on Gedmatch with no problem at all but I understand it allows for more variations in the raw data. The header on the Ancestry data I have is as follows: #AncestryDNA raw data download #This file was generated by AncestryDNA at: 10/07/2017 01:20:13 UTC #Data was collected using AncestryDNA array version: V2.0 #Data is formatted using AncestryDNA converter version: V1.0 #Below is a text version of your DNA file from Ancestry.com DNA, LLC. THIS #INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND IS INTENDED FOR GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH #ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, OR HEALTH PURPOSES. THE EXPORTED DATA IS #SUBJECT TO THE AncestryDNA TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BUT PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE #DOWNLOADED DATA WILL NO LONGER BE PROTECTED BY OUR SECURITY MEASURES. #WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD YOUR RAW DNA DATA, YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF STORING, #SECURING AND PROTECTING YOUR DATA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE ANCESTRYDNA FAQS. # #Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns. Each line #corresponds to a SNP. Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID where #possible). Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair position #of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates. Columns four and five #contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype). The genotype is reported #on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference. rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2 I am not a tekkie and just want to get on Family Tree DNA. Can anyone help me with this? Thank you so much! Alice

I'm wondering if there's some sort of database error here. I'd suggest sending your findings to [email protected] Ann Turner On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Wesley Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > I am looking to see just what a high X-match that has no shared atDNA can > tell us about shared ancestral lines. Clearly this is pushing back very far > in time. I am using a female kit that is of pure Czech ancestry as far back > as we know (roughly in the late 1600's and early 1700's). On her 6-gen > X-inheritance chart, we know at least the name of 9 of the 13 X-ancestors > and know the spouse's surname in all 13. So the challenge of finding a > matching line is narrowed to Czech or Slavic lines. > > But that is not the problem that I am running into on GEDmatch. The > problem is that different GEDmatch tools are presenting conflicting > results. The kits come from different test companies, so that I am not sure > if this is a factor. > > To allow anyone wanting to repeat this to do so, I am going to include kit > numbers. The kit of the focus person is T685302. > > Here are the steps that I have done. > 1 - Identify X-DNA matches, sorted by largest X-DNA cM. > I used the free one-to-many and then sort descending on largest X-DNA cM. > Setting aside immediate family members, the top 10 matches range from 16 to > 21 largest X-DNA cMs, and all but the top one show zero total atDNA cMs > (the top one M052745 has 5.1). > 2 - Do a one-to-one X-DNA comparison of some of the top 10. > Clicking on the X in the X-DNA Details column, you would expect to see the > same information shown in the one-to-one comparison as in the sorted > one-to-many. And in some cases, the X 1:1 does show about the same (an 18.8 > largest X-DNA A916434 on the 1:many shows as 18.7 on the X 1:1). But in > some cases, the X-DNA 1:1 shows zero shared X-DNA (an 18.3 largest X-DNA > M131017 on the 1:many shows as no match at all on the X 1:1). > So I tried dropping the SNP threshold with M131017 on the X 1:1 to 100 > SNPs and the minimum cMs to 1 (which should not be necessary if there is > indeed a largest X shared 18.3 cM as the 1:many list shows). And this does > generate a list of shared ranges on the X, the largest of which is 5.4 cM > (162 SNPs) by cMs or by SNPs 3.5 cM (295 SNPs). So clearly this is a > radical difference from what the 1:many list is showing when it reports a > largest shared X of 18.3 cM). > 3 - Create a Tag Group for the highest matches. > I used the Tier1 1 1:many tool to create the group, setting the option to > filter by X (instead of autosomal) with offset 0, limit 500 (the minimum > allowed) and cM size 3 (the minimum allowed. This gives a completely > different (from step 1) top 10 list. Where the free 1:many had largest cMs > of 16 or more for the top 10, the Tier1 1:many showed no one (other than > close family) with a largest cM of more than 11.2. > > So I then tried the Tier1 1:1 on autosomal and setting to the minima and > sorting on the largest X (trying to re-create the list in step 1. But since > the Tier1 1:1 does not include atDNA matches of zero, neither one of these > methods was able to find the same high largest X but low atDNA matches that > the free 1:1 tool found. > Nevertheless, I created a tag group of those X-matches (from the atDNA > version of the Tier1 1:1) who had the highest total X cMS (20.0 and above, > minus immediate family). This tag group has 20 members. > 4 - Run the X-DNA Matrix Comparison for this tag group. > This was a real shock. Since the tag group had been specifically created > from a 1:many list of the X-DNA matches of T685302 who had 20.0 or more > total cMs, you would expect to see a number in every cell of T685302's > row/column. But 8 of the 19 cells are empty. Going back to the Tier1 1:1 > list used to create this tag group, one of these empty cells is the second > highest total cMs (40.8), but the largest for this match is just 6.4 and > thus under the threshold of 7 cM for the matrix, which explains the empty > cell. > > > The bottom line seems to me to be implicit and explicit threshold > differences among the tools. I really would like to work with the top 10 > from the free 1:many, but even the free X 1:1 conflicts with some of the > ones shown in that list. And the Tier1 1:many does not even discover these > matches (apparently because the Tier1, even when choosing the X option) > still has some implicit atDNA threshold). > Choosing these low-autosomal / high largest X matches as a target is a > challenge in the first place. But the GEDmatch tools make it extremely more > challenging when they do not allow exploration of those matches. > Clearly having more ability to twist the knobs on GEDmatch would help. But > the fact that (step 1 and step 2) there are very significant conflicts > between one GEDmatch tool showing 18.3 cM of a largest shared X and > another showing nothing more than 5.4 cM for the same two people seems to > be more than just finding the right settings of the knobs. > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I had the same problem, neither the zipped or txt file from ancestryDNA worked. Any solutions? Jan Janeth A Campbell Retired Researcher and Educator PO Box 13877 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3877 *J*[email protected] <[email protected]> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 4:41 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists3.rootsweb.ancestry.com/mailman/listinfo/genealogy-dna > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of GENEALOGY-DNA digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Working with high largest X-matches on GEDmatch (Wesley Johnston) > 2. Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem (Genealice) > 3. Re: Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem (Nancy Custer) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 12:54:56 +0000 (UTC) > From: Wesley Johnston <[email protected]> > To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: [DNA] Working with high largest X-matches on GEDmatch > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I am looking to see just what a high X-match that has no shared atDNA can > tell us about shared ancestral lines. Clearly this is pushing back very far > in time. I am using a female kit that is of pure Czech ancestry as far back > as we know (roughly in the late 1600's and early 1700's). On her 6-gen > X-inheritance chart, we know at least the name of 9 of the 13 X-ancestors > and know the spouse's surname in all 13. So the challenge of finding a > matching line is narrowed to Czech or Slavic lines. > > But that is not the problem that I am running into on GEDmatch. The > problem is that different GEDmatch tools are presenting conflicting > results. The kits come from different test companies, so that I am not sure > if this is a factor. > > To allow anyone wanting to repeat this to do so, I am going to include kit > numbers. The kit of the focus person is T685302. > > Here are the steps that I have done. > 1 - Identify X-DNA matches, sorted by largest X-DNA cM. > I used the free one-to-many and then sort descending on largest X-DNA cM. > Setting aside immediate family members, the top 10 matches range from 16 to > 21 largest X-DNA cMs, and all but the top one show zero total atDNA cMs > (the top one M052745 has 5.1). > 2 - Do a one-to-one X-DNA comparison of some of the top 10. > Clicking on the X in the X-DNA Details column, you would expect to see the > same information shown in the one-to-one comparison as in the sorted > one-to-many. And in some cases, the X 1:1 does show about the same (an 18.8 > largest X-DNA A916434 on the 1:many shows as 18.7 on the X 1:1). But in > some cases, the X-DNA 1:1 shows zero shared X-DNA (an 18.3 largest X-DNA > M131017 on the 1:many shows as no match at all on the X 1:1). > So I tried dropping the SNP threshold with M131017 on the X 1:1 to 100 > SNPs and the minimum cMs to 1 (which should not be necessary if there is > indeed a largest X shared 18.3 cM as the 1:many list shows). And this does > generate a list of shared ranges on the X, the largest of which is 5.4 cM > (162 SNPs) by cMs or by SNPs 3.5 cM (295 SNPs). So clearly this is a > radical difference from what the 1:many list is showing when it reports a > largest shared X of 18.3 cM). > 3 - Create a Tag Group for the highest matches. > I used the Tier1 1 1:many tool to create the group, setting the option to > filter by X (instead of autosomal) with offset 0, limit 500 (the minimum > allowed) and cM size 3 (the minimum allowed. This gives a completely > different (from step 1) top 10 list. Where the free 1:many had largest cMs > of 16 or more for the top 10, the Tier1 1:many showed no one (other than > close family) with a largest cM of more than 11.2. > > So I then tried the Tier1 1:1 on autosomal and setting to the minima and > sorting on the largest X (trying to re-create the list in step 1. But since > the Tier1 1:1 does not include atDNA matches of zero, neither one of these > methods was able to find the same high largest X but low atDNA matches that > the free 1:1 tool found. > Nevertheless, I created a tag group of those X-matches (from the atDNA > version of the Tier1 1:1) who had the highest total X cMS (20.0 and above, > minus immediate family). This tag group has 20 members. > 4 - Run the X-DNA Matrix Comparison for this tag group. > This was a real shock. Since the tag group had been specifically created > from a 1:many list of the X-DNA matches of T685302 who had 20.0 or more > total cMs, you would expect to see a number in every cell of T685302's > row/column. But 8 of the 19 cells are empty. Going back to the Tier1 1:1 > list used to create this tag group, one of these empty cells is the second > highest total cMs (40.8), but the largest for this match is just 6.4 and > thus under the threshold of 7 cM for the matrix, which explains the empty > cell. > > > The bottom line seems to me to be implicit and explicit threshold > differences among the tools. I really would like to work with the top 10 > from the free 1:many, but even the free X 1:1 conflicts with some of the > ones shown in that list. And the Tier1 1:many does not even discover these > matches (apparently because the Tier1, even when choosing the X option) > still has some implicit atDNA threshold). > Choosing these low-autosomal / high largest X matches as a target is a > challenge in the first place. But the GEDmatch tools make it extremely more > challenging when they do not allow exploration of those matches. > Clearly having more ability to twist the knobs on GEDmatch would help. But > the fact that (step 1 and step 2) there are very significant conflicts > between one GEDmatch tool showing? 18.3 cM of a largest shared X and > another showing nothing more than 5.4 cM for the same two people seems to > be more than just finding the right settings of the knobs. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 21:02:08 +0100 > From: Genealice <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi, > > > > OK, I fully admit I joined this list because a problem has cropped up and > I'm posting straightaway. But I hope it will be of interest to the mailing > list and thank you for having me! > > > > I am trying to do an autosomal transfer, uploading an Ancestry.com raw data > file to Family Tree DNA. However I keep on getting the following message > > > > "The specified file 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file is > an > unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an order > for Family Finder <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> > or > download the file and try again." > > > > Looking on the FTDNA message boards this seems to be a common problem. > There > seem to a number of different theories over this: that is on FTDNA's side. > That it is Ancestry.com and the files are smaller than they should be. That > it is to do with the header. I have tried replacing the header with that > suggested on the message board but it made no difference. > > > > I have posted it on Gedmatch with no problem at all but I understand it > allows for more variations in the raw data. > > > > The header on the Ancestry data I have is as follows: > > > > #AncestryDNA raw data download > > #This file was generated by AncestryDNA at: 10/07/2017 01:20:13 UTC > > #Data was collected using AncestryDNA array version: V2.0 > > #Data is formatted using AncestryDNA converter version: V1.0 > > #Below is a text version of your DNA file from Ancestry.com DNA, LLC. THIS > > #INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND IS INTENDED FOR GENEALOGICAL > RESEARCH > > #ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, OR HEALTH PURPOSES. > THE > EXPORTED DATA IS > > #SUBJECT TO THE AncestryDNA TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BUT PLEASE BE AWARE THAT > THE > > #DOWNLOADED DATA WILL NO LONGER BE PROTECTED BY OUR SECURITY MEASURES. > > #WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD YOUR RAW DNA DATA, YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF STORING, > > #SECURING AND PROTECTING YOUR DATA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE ANCESTRYDNA > FAQS. > > # > > #Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns. Each line > > #corresponds to a SNP. Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID where > > #possible). Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair > position > > #of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates. Columns four and > five > > #contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype). The genotype is > reported > > #on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference. > > rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2 > > > > I am not a tekkie and just want to get on Family Tree DNA. Can anyone help > me with this? > > > > Thank you so much! > > > > Alice > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:41:39 -0500 > From: Nancy Custer <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry upload to Family Tree DNA - problem > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > You will need the zipped file for upload not the txt file. Some browsers > will unzip your file and put the txt file in your download folder and the > original zip file in the trash. > > Look in your trash file for the zipped file and choose that for upload to > FTDNA. Of course, move the zipped file out of the trash first?? > > If you don't find the zip file in your trash folder, you can set your > browser not to open/unzip files on download. Then download again. In > Safari, that option is under Preferences in the first screen. I leave mine > set that way all the time. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Oct 8, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Genealice <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > OK, I fully admit I joined this list because a problem has cropped up and > > I'm posting straightaway. But I hope it will be of interest to the > mailing > > list and thank you for having me! > > > > > > > > I am trying to do an autosomal transfer, uploading an Ancestry.com raw > data > > file to Family Tree DNA. However I keep on getting the following message > > > > > > > > "The specified file 'Ancestry dna.txt' could not be uploaded. The file > is an > > unsupported version or in a corrupt/malformed format. Please place an > order > > for Family Finder <https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder> > or > > download the file and try again." > > > > > > > > Looking on the FTDNA message boards this seems to be a common problem. > There > > seem to a number of different theories over this: that is on FTDNA's > side. > > That it is Ancestry.com and the files are smaller than they should be. > That > > it is to do with the header. I have tried replacing the header with that > > suggested on the message board but it made no difference. > > > > > > > > I have posted it on Gedmatch with no problem at all but I understand it > > allows for more variations in the raw data. > > > > > > > > The header on the Ancestry data I have is as follows: > > > > > > > > #AncestryDNA raw data download > > > > #This file was generated by AncestryDNA at: 10/07/2017 01:20:13 UTC > > > > #Data was collected using AncestryDNA array version: V2.0 > > > > #Data is formatted using AncestryDNA converter version: V1.0 > > > > #Below is a text version of your DNA file from Ancestry.com DNA, LLC. > THIS > > > > #INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND IS INTENDED FOR GENEALOGICAL > > RESEARCH > > > > #ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, OR HEALTH PURPOSES. > THE > > EXPORTED DATA IS > > > > #SUBJECT TO THE AncestryDNA TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BUT PLEASE BE AWARE > THAT > > THE > > > > #DOWNLOADED DATA WILL NO LONGER BE PROTECTED BY OUR SECURITY MEASURES. > > > > #WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD YOUR RAW DNA DATA, YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF STORING, > > > > #SECURING AND PROTECTING YOUR DATA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE > ANCESTRYDNA > > FAQS. > > > > # > > > > #Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns. Each line > > > > #corresponds to a SNP. Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID > where > > > > #possible). Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair > > position > > > > #of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates. Columns four > and > > five > > > > #contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype). The genotype > is > > reported > > > > #on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference. > > > > rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2 > > > > > > > > I am not a tekkie and just want to get on Family Tree DNA. Can anyone > help > > me with this? > > > > > > > > Thank you so much! > > > > > > > > Alice > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > To contact the GENEALOGY-DNA list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list, send an email to > [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the > email with no additional text. > > > ------------------------------ > > End of GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 12, Issue 668 > ********************************************** >