The Census Bureau waits only 70 years. The 1940 census was released in 2010 and includes countless individuals still living. Of course, only persons born by 1940 can be linked with their parents. Loretta -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sam Sloan via Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 8:17 PM To: AJ Marsh; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA matching system ideas (was: "Where to yDNA Test") How is any person who has been adopted going to find their birth parent if everybody born after 1900 is excluded from the trees? I do not think it is a legal requirement to exclude living persons. Just a custom and courtesy. Sam Sloan On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:45 PM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Doug, > > That did not read the way I intended it! > > I meant the trees should not include persons still living, to protect > the privacy of living persons who may not be the DNA tester. I meant > to say as an arbitrary cutoff, it was reasonably certain persons born > before 1900 were not still living. It is safer to exclude persons > born after 1900, than to exclude "living" persons, as I find internet > trees are occasionally wrong about living status. I even found one > Internet tree indicating I was dead, something which I disagree with. > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 10/12/2015, at 10:57 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via > > "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just > > the > presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published > genealogical books claim that certain USA families descended from > brothers in the 1600, whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers > did not have the same Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line > ancestor in the past > 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it > still would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. > > > > In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their > earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. > In some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. > > > > One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented > pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to > infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were > hugely helpful. > > > > I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born > before about 1900, but there are different views on that." > > ----------------------------- > > > > Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? > > > > Doug McDonald > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just the presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published genealogical books claim that certain USA families descended from brothers in the 1600, whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers did not have the same Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line ancestor in the past 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it still would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. In some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were hugely helpful. I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born before about 1900, but there are different views on that." ----------------------------- Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? Doug McDonald

Greg, You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just the presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published genealogical books claim that certain USA families descended from brothers in the 1600, whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers did not have the same Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line ancestor in the past 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it still would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. In some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were hugely helpful. Pity Ancestry.com poisoned the database, then shot it dead just to make sure the gifts of contributors of DNA and pedigrees to the Sorenson project would not benefit posterity. But I think I commented on that recently! If a new private Y database was formed, it would increase its value many times over if it had extended pedigrees. Direct male lines at least, not sure about male cousin lines, but I think not maternal lines, other than spouses of the direct male lines. Maternal lines would be good, but would considerably increase computer power to store and search information. If the database had too much of a genealogical focus, Ancestry might try and buy it and close it down. I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born before about 1900, but there are different views on that. Just thinking a few years ahead, the time might come when someone managing a new database or someone else might try linking ancestral lines of participants in the database based on their trees where corroborated by STRs or SNPs. If more details of male lines were included this might be more feasible. Perhaps the end game would be a single male line family tree of the human race. Just think, query the database and be told that Bill Smith and John Brown were estimated to be 37th cousins on the male line! Another thought is archaeological Y-DNA. This might start becoming quite common. It would be good if this information could be integrated....... but that might really involve work! The question has been raised as to whether a new database needs to plan ahead for a long life. I say that as small as the Sorenson database was compared to other databases today, it's loss is still being felt. Even if a new Y database, with heaps of Y line genealogy was closed to new entries in 5 years, it would be nice if the database could be left to some organisation, perhaps even Family Search, so that it would be an ongoing legacy for future generations. Andreas, if you started a new Y database, you might consider some sort of loose association with an organisation like ISOGG. There might also be means of finding a donor to help with cost if that was necessary. There must be at least one person on this list with connections to big potential donor companies. Andreas, if you started a new Y database which after your time was left to posterity via some caretaker organisation, you might be remembered in the future as a giant of the stature of Sorenson himself, who made substantial efforts to leave something of value to posterity. John. Sent from my iPad > On 9/12/2015, at 6:27 pm, G. Magoon via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi Andreas, > I think AJ covered most everything of what I might suggest. I agree with > his point about getting rid of the captchas. Also, of course, some sort of > e-mail contact info (and/or a simple messaging system) would be important. > > In terms of "nice to haves", one thought that comes to mind: it might be > interesting to allow separate entries for all the known individuals along > the paternal (or maternal) lineage. (These entries might each consist of > fields for name, locations, birth and death years, and notes.) I'm thinking > it would be nice to have something simpler than GEDCOM for these direct > lineages, but also more comprehensive than a single most-distant ancestor > (I've found that relying on the latter can particularly be a limitation for > investigating mtDNA matches). > > In terms of importing/exporting results, I think it would be great if the > system could handle uploads/downloads of a simple text/ASCII representation > of the Y-STRs, along the lines of FTDNA's .csv export of Y-STR results. I > imagine YSEQ would be able to produce similar files (if they don't do so > already). That way, people could upload the results from FTDNA and YSEQ > without needing to worry about manual entry of all the individual markers. > I think YSEQ uses the same marker counting standards as FTDNA, so > conversion of marker values shouldn't be an issue for comparing between > those two sources. > > It would also be nice to have at least some rudimentary allowance for > associating each Y-STR profile with a haplogroup or SNP(s)…there are of > course challenges associated with this, including the fact that our > understanding of the tree is constantly evolving. However, even something > as simple as a generic text field for people to enter haplogroup > details/comments might be useful. > > If you and/or others are able to implement something along these lines, I > think it would be awesome. > > Greg > >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: >> >> Greg, >> >> I agree with your point that an alternative, company independent and open >> to all sorts of Y-DNA and mtDNA testing results would be good, if not >> needed (see the other now closed/destroyed databases at Ancestry). >> >> What kind of features would you expect from such a service? >> >> Comparing STR results sounds like an easy to feature, I have never looked >> at my results (not even sure if FTDNA allows for download of the raw Y-DNA >> data) but the resulting number of STR's must be very small in comparison to >> SNP's (given the larger effort to get them by hand). >> >> What else would you see as absolutely necessary, nice-to-have? That list >> should include features that might not exist today? >> >> I'm thinking about offering this maybe in the future but I haven't spend >> much time with it (Y-DNA) so I don't know how big of an effort it would be. >> >> Andreas > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

How is any person who has been adopted going to find their birth parent if everybody born after 1900 is excluded from the trees? I do not think it is a legal requirement to exclude living persons. Just a custom and courtesy. Sam Sloan On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:45 PM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Doug, > > That did not read the way I intended it! > > I meant the trees should not include persons still living, to protect the > privacy of living persons who may not be the DNA tester. I meant to say as > an arbitrary cutoff, it was reasonably certain persons born before 1900 > were not still living. It is safer to exclude persons born after 1900, > than to exclude "living" persons, as I find internet trees are occasionally > wrong about living status. I even found one Internet tree indicating I was > dead, something which I disagree with. > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 10/12/2015, at 10:57 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via > > "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just the > presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published genealogical > books claim that certain USA families descended from brothers in the 1600, > whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers did not have the same > Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line ancestor in the past > 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it still > would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. > > > > In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their > earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. In > some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. > > > > One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented > pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to > infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were hugely > helpful. > > > > I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born > before about 1900, but there are different views on that." > > ----------------------------- > > > > Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? > > > > Doug McDonald > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks for your feedback Greg. I also think that the future lies in connecting our own results into one giant phylotree. That would be an ever evolving tree for sure (as you wrote) but even with the simplest test we could place people at least somewhere further in the tree and show them further options what to check for (like additional SNP's). Andreas > On 9 Dec 2015, at 12:27, G. Magoon <gregm4584@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Andreas, > I think AJ covered most everything of what I might suggest. I agree with his point about getting rid of the captchas. Also, of course, some sort of e-mail contact info (and/or a simple messaging system) would be important. > > In terms of "nice to haves", one thought that comes to mind: it might be interesting to allow separate entries for all the known individuals along the paternal (or maternal) lineage. (These entries might each consist of fields for name, locations, birth and death years, and notes.) I'm thinking it would be nice to have something simpler than GEDCOM for these direct lineages, but also more comprehensive than a single most-distant ancestor (I've found that relying on the latter can particularly be a limitation for investigating mtDNA matches). > > In terms of importing/exporting results, I think it would be great if the system could handle uploads/downloads of a simple text/ASCII representation of the Y-STRs, along the lines of FTDNA's .csv export of Y-STR results. I imagine YSEQ would be able to produce similar files (if they don't do so already). That way, people could upload the results from FTDNA and YSEQ without needing to worry about manual entry of all the individual markers. I think YSEQ uses the same marker counting standards as FTDNA, so conversion of marker values shouldn't be an issue for comparing between those two sources. > > It would also be nice to have at least some rudimentary allowance for associating each Y-STR profile with a haplogroup or SNP(s)…there are of course challenges associated with this, including the fact that our understanding of the tree is constantly evolving. However, even something as simple as a generic text field for people to enter haplogroup details/comments might be useful. > > If you and/or others are able to implement something along these lines, I think it would be awesome. > > Greg > >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: >> Greg, >> >> I agree with your point that an alternative, company independent and open to all sorts of Y-DNA and mtDNA testing results would be good, if not needed (see the other now closed/destroyed databases at Ancestry). >> >> What kind of features would you expect from such a service? >> >> Comparing STR results sounds like an easy to feature, I have never looked at my results (not even sure if FTDNA allows for download of the raw Y-DNA data) but the resulting number of STR's must be very small in comparison to SNP's (given the larger effort to get them by hand). >> >> What else would you see as absolutely necessary, nice-to-have? That list should include features that might not exist today? >> >> I'm thinking about offering this maybe in the future but I haven't spend much time with it (Y-DNA) so I don't know how big of an effort it would be. >> >> Andreas >>

Sam, We need to keep babies with genetic defects alive, otherwise where would our next generation of politicians come from? But on reflection, maybe I need to think this through a bit more! John. Sent from my iPad > On 9/12/2015, at 1:29 am, Sam Sloan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > "Van Rooyen predicts that in a few years, every infant born in the > developed world will have his or her genome sequenced in the hospital." > > This represents a great breakthrough, but am sure all of can see the > potential problem. > The problem is if we are keeping babies with genetic defects alive, those > genetic defects will be passed down to the next generation. > Recognizing this, somebody will have to decide which babies to keep alive, > and which babies to let die of natural causes. > I am sure everybody can see where that will lead. > > Sam Sloan > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Max Heffler via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> Decoding a Baby's Genome in 26 Hours - IEEE Spectrum >> >> >> http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/diagnostics/decoding-a-babys-genome-in-2 >> 6-hours >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Many of you are familiar with Bonnie Schrack, who, created the very first mtDNA haplogroup project (for Haplogroup I) years ago, and later moved into Y-DNA research. For the past several years, she has been studying the earliest Y-DNA branch that has yet been found: Y-Haplogroup A00. Years of research have resulted in exciting discoveries and strides, but her project is now at a critical stage requiring funding by the end of the first week of January 2016 to move forward. Please consider a donation to enable the continuation of this groundbreaking research! Any donation, large or small, will be appreciated! Here is a link to the project's fundraising page: http://experiment.com/A00west - Martha Hicks ==================================================

Hi Andreas, I think AJ covered most everything of what I might suggest. I agree with his point about getting rid of the captchas. Also, of course, some sort of e-mail contact info (and/or a simple messaging system) would be important. In terms of "nice to haves", one thought that comes to mind: it might be interesting to allow separate entries for all the known individuals along the paternal (or maternal) lineage. (These entries might each consist of fields for name, locations, birth and death years, and notes.) I'm thinking it would be nice to have something simpler than GEDCOM for these direct lineages, but also more comprehensive than a single most-distant ancestor (I've found that relying on the latter can particularly be a limitation for investigating mtDNA matches). In terms of importing/exporting results, I think it would be great if the system could handle uploads/downloads of a simple text/ASCII representation of the Y-STRs, along the lines of FTDNA's .csv export of Y-STR results. I imagine YSEQ would be able to produce similar files (if they don't do so already). That way, people could upload the results from FTDNA and YSEQ without needing to worry about manual entry of all the individual markers. I think YSEQ uses the same marker counting standards as FTDNA, so conversion of marker values shouldn't be an issue for comparing between those two sources. It would also be nice to have at least some rudimentary allowance for associating each Y-STR profile with a haplogroup or SNP(s)…there are of course challenges associated with this, including the fact that our understanding of the tree is constantly evolving. However, even something as simple as a generic text field for people to enter haplogroup details/comments might be useful. If you and/or others are able to implement something along these lines, I think it would be awesome. Greg On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > Greg, > > I agree with your point that an alternative, company independent and open > to all sorts of Y-DNA and mtDNA testing results would be good, if not > needed (see the other now closed/destroyed databases at Ancestry). > > What kind of features would you expect from such a service? > > Comparing STR results sounds like an easy to feature, I have never looked > at my results (not even sure if FTDNA allows for download of the raw Y-DNA > data) but the resulting number of STR's must be very small in comparison to > SNP's (given the larger effort to get them by hand). > > What else would you see as absolutely necessary, nice-to-have? That list > should include features that might not exist today? > > I'm thinking about offering this maybe in the future but I haven't spend > much time with it (Y-DNA) so I don't know how big of an effort it would be. > > Andreas > >

"Van Rooyen predicts that in a few years, every infant born in the developed world will have his or her genome sequenced in the hospital." This represents a great breakthrough, but am sure all of can see the potential problem. The problem is if we are keeping babies with genetic defects alive, those genetic defects will be passed down to the next generation. Recognizing this, somebody will have to decide which babies to keep alive, and which babies to let die of natural causes. I am sure everybody can see where that will lead. Sam Sloan On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Max Heffler via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Decoding a Baby's Genome in 26 Hours - IEEE Spectrum > > > http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/diagnostics/decoding-a-babys-genome-in-2 > 6-hours > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Andreas, I considered providing a Y database myself once, but I lack computer skills, so I finally came to my senses. For a time I even had a couple of web addresses on the back burner, I think I may still be paying for the domain names for some. I concluded it seemed like a significant undertaking. I presume it would have ongoing costs, but not sure what. Of the existing databases...... A) FTDNA CUSTOMER DATABASE: For the most part FTDNA are not interested in adding search features requested by customers, but in general they do moderately well so I am very thankful for what they provide. The search feature I would most like added would be ability to search for matches having my haplogroup branch SNPs, such as Z2552, L617, and FGC14951. The last one, FGC14951, is about 3,000 years old, and appears to denote a Bronze Age immigrant to England about 3,000 years ago. If I could trace more lines in England, it would help greatly in my efforts along with others to learn about this Bronze Age ancestor, and how the family spread around England before the "genealogical time frame" was reached about 800 years ago. The search feature of next interest to me would be widening the search criteria from for example a maximum of mutation 10 steps on 111 markers. At that level it prevents finding matches within my family group related in the past 300 to 800 years. It does not find any false matches, but false matches can be eliminated with research, so a few false matches could be tolerated if the matching included all of my close relatives. An issue though is that different haplogroups have very different numbers of matches, so one size may not fit all. The search feature of next greatest interest would be a way to overcome problems caused by multi step mutations on a single marker. In my family there was a 4 step mutation on one marker, which prevents a lot of matches being found. Some databases allow switching off multi copy markers in matching, as they can often make match finding difficult if that have recombination mutations The most important match for me on the FTDNA customer database is not contactable, but I guess that is their choice, but may just be an issue stemming from the person having his email address listed as his secondary email address rather than primary. B) YSEARCH: Biggest issue for me is that it does not include all of the markers 68 to 111, and it is in that group where 4 of my most important diagnostic family markers are, making it impossible to search YSearch for matches on my key family specific markers. The good thing about YSearch is that results can be uploaded direct from FTDNA, eliminating transcription errors. Without FTDNA cooperation, direct uploading to a new private database has a bit of a handicap. But YSeq might be amenable to direct upload features, as they would have something to gain from making finding matches easier for their customers. Perhaps FTDNA would cooperate.... if they are not worried about protecting their monopoly. Could ask them nicely. I think we are moving into an era where STRs need to be used in conjunction with SNPs, and known family history, and known geographic origins. I think that joining a database should have fields for earliest male line ancestor name, the country of origin of that ancestor, the county or state or province he came from, and the village or town, each individually searchable in the database. Perhaps scope for occupation, or other key words which might identify a family. It would be good if I could search for all persons tracing to my small ancestral village, as most in the village will be my relations on maternal lines within half a dozen generations. This would also help find matches from the area which had a surname change in recent centuries. There may be advantage in a person being able to insert a short biography of their earliest ancestor, say less than 50 or 100 words? I mentioned SNPs, and I think it would be good if a person could insert into a field at least their major haplogroup, plus their 3 or 4 most recent named SNPs as a minimum. In my case if I could search for matches using my recent SNPs as well as STRs I could focus in on important matches, and not be distracted with false matches from remote haplogroup branches. It might even be good if people tested on Y SNPs at Britains DNA, 23 and ME, national geographic etc could input their recent branch Y SNPs, even if they have not tested end STRs. Searches for surnames, surname variant, and combinations of surnames at the same time might be good. A new database may need an anonymous contacting system like YSearch has. When searching for matches, YSearch allows searching on a minimum of 8 random markers. That is good, but on the odd time it would be convenient if I could search with less markers. I think a new independent database should accommodate a minimum of the standard 111 FTDNA markers. But I now have found some diagnostic markers for my family in the many hundreds of new STR markers reported by Full Genomes Corp, and YFull, and YSeq. I have not yet determined the number of potentially useful STR markers, but just plucking a number out of the air, it might be 1000 or more. The new comprehensive genome tests often rate SNPs and STRs with reliability ratings, so you may not just have 1000 markers, but if you get fussy, you could at the very least have 2 reliability categories for each marker. The Captcha (spelling?) hindrance could be eliminated and save thousands of hours. I think the database should serve the community, and not be to fussy about protecting monopolies. Joining the database should have well though out privacy criteria which are well understood by all parties. There many more search features which could be added, which can be discussed if you get serious, and are not put off by my above comments. C) SEMARGL.ME: This is a very useful database largely captured from FTDNA surname projects and YSearch. Be sure to have a look at how that works. To quickly build a viable database.... How good would you be at following semargls lead??? There may be ethical issues here, or legal issues, not sure, so I am not trying to insight anything illegal or unethical, just noting that incorporating what information is currently public because FTDNA customers in projects have elected to make it public, would be something to think about. I don't believe persons can enter their own data or contact links onto SEMARGL, so that is a bit of a shortcoming. The SEMARGL database cannot be search on individual markers, or selections of markers, which is one of it's down sides. It can be searched for some major branch SNPs, but not many down stream SNPs. SEMARGL does limit searches to various max number of matches for different types of searches... I don't find this a major issue, just something to consider. Just a few of my thoughts! A last thought...... Perhaps the most important.... is "perminence". What can be done to make the database have a long life, 50 years or 100 years perhaps? Perhaps it needs to be run by a self renewing group rather than an individual, or at least have a built in succession feature to protect it in the future? John. Sent from my iPad > On 7/12/2015, at 9:26 pm, Andreas West via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Greg, > > I agree with your point that an alternative, company independent and open to all sorts of Y-DNA and mtDNA testing results would be good, if not needed (see the other now closed/destroyed databases at Ancestry). > > What kind of features would you expect from such a service? > > Comparing STR results sounds like an easy to feature, I have never looked at my results (not even sure if FTDNA allows for download of the raw Y-DNA data) but the resulting number of STR's must be very small in comparison to SNP's (given the larger effort to get them by hand). > > What else would you see as absolutely necessary, nice-to-have? That list should include features that might not exist today? > > I'm thinking about offering this maybe in the future but I haven't spend much time with it (Y-DNA) so I don't know how big of an effort it would be. > > Andreas > >> On 7 Dec 2015, at 03:47, G. Magoon via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> The case based on database size is fine, from a practical standpoint; but >> in the absence of any other benefit, the argument basically boils down to: "I >> am recommending you test at FTDNA because I and most others have been >> recommending FTDNA previously." >> >> Personally, I think it would be stupendous if someone was able to set up an >> independent matching system (analogous to GEDMATCH) for Y-STRs (and mtDNA >> for that matter). With such a tool, prospective testers wouldn't have to >> worry so much about having to pay a significantly higher price in order to >> get that "ticket" into a large database. >> >> Your post also raises the question: how much is that "ticket" worth to a >> prospective tester? 50% extra cost? 100% higher cost? 200% higher cost? >> Personally, I think that is a decision that should be made by the >> prospective tester (or the person paying for the test), based on financial >> considerations, goals, etc. From my perspective, it is not as simple as >> "there is only one choice". >> >> I'm glad you raised the issue about results living on for posterity, which >> I also think is an important consideration. But I think testers at all >> labs, including FTDNA, would be wise to take appropriate safegaurds in this >> respect. An organization or business will typically only have a finite >> lifespan, and there are no guarantees that results will be >> hosted/maintained in perpetuity, FTDNA included. >> >> Again, just my two cents. >> >> Greg >> >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mike W via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Recruiting others to test, project and results sharing systems is critical. >>> This is the essence of genetic genealogy as comparisons between people and >>> sharing of results are needed. >>> >>> If possible, it is good in Y DNA testing to recruit get your most distant >>> male cousin to test so you can estimate the DNA information for the >>> family's most distant known ancestor (MDKA). However, it is hard to recruit >>> people on the other side of your genealogical brickwalls and you may not >>> want to pay for someone's tests you may not be related too. Ideally, you >>> want people who are inclined towards DNA testing to find you or for you to >>> find them through a matching database. >>> >>> The importance of a consistent set of test results available in a large >>> matching database can not be understated. This is FTDNA's most dominant >>> advantage for Y DNA, the largest accessible database. There hundreds of >>> thousands of Y DNA records already available in FTDNA's database. These are >>> records of real people, not just anonymous results. For more details, >>> please read this web page. >>> https://www.familytreedna.com/why-ftdna.aspx >>> >>> Cost is a factor, but when you get your Y STRs tested with FTDNA you are >>> also getting a ticket into that large database and project management >>> system with all of those surname projects. FTDNA allows you to join >>> projects without cost and there is no annual subscription fee for support >>> in their database and matching systems as well. >>> >>> Genetic test results data without the accompanying web based project and >>> matching systems is not as useful and may not live on for prosperity. When >>> you order STR and SNP tests from FTDNA your data is supported by a growing >>> company with a 15 year, self-sustaining operation. You don't have to send >>> your DNA sample to multiple labs. You and your recruits' samples all go to >>> Houston's lab and are stored there subject to published privacy policies. >>> This is particularly important if you think you only have one shot to get a >>> DNA sample from a recruit. >>> >>> The central lab and DNA storage support is complemented by a full product >>> line. Besides Y DNA testing up to 111 STRs, there is Y SNP testing and even >>> Y Next Generation SNP discovery testing (Big Y) along with an array of >>> autosomal and mitochondrial DNA tests. You have "one stop shopping" for >>> your DNA sample. >>> >>> I'm not known for political correctness and we do not want to scare you off >>> newbies but it is important that we acknowledge - It is very, very likely >>> that 37 Y STRs is not enough. I recommend you starting with a minimum of 67 >>> STRs. Most of the male large haplogroup branches of Europe started their >>> great expansions during the Bronze Age. That means that it is very hard to >>> discern who fits where at 37 STRs. 67 may not even be enough. Probably many >>> of the people posting here, even those who prefer niche vendors, have 67 >>> and even 111 STRs tested with FTDNA. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mike W >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Wow, that's a lot of features and I need to digest it further. I'm less worried about the different search features, that can be easily implemented, but the presentation of results and how to help filter out unimportant ones (nobody wants to go through 1500 matches by hand). If it's only 1000 STR that's easy, the number of SNP's is constantly growing and new SNP's are discovered with their importance and put into the phylotree (which is constantly changing). Thanks for giving such valuable input. A database cannot survive 50-100 years, technology is evolving to quickly, every 5 years there is a big step forward (as the processing power doubles every year our ability to analyze more and more data is growing as fast). Andreas > On 7 Dec 2015, at 17:20, AJ Marsh <ajmarshnz@gmail.com> wrote: > > Andreas, > > I considered providing a Y database myself once, but I lack computer skills, so I finally came to my senses. For a time I even had a couple of web addresses on the back burner, I think I may still be paying for the domain names for some. > > I concluded it seemed like a significant undertaking. I presume it would have ongoing costs, but not sure what. > > Of the existing databases...... > > A) FTDNA CUSTOMER DATABASE: > > For the most part FTDNA are not interested in adding search features requested by customers, but in general they do moderately well so I am very thankful for what they provide. > > The search feature I would most like added would be ability to search for matches having my haplogroup branch SNPs, such as Z2552, L617, and FGC14951. The last one, FGC14951, is about 3,000 years old, and appears to denote a Bronze Age immigrant to England about 3,000 years ago. If I could trace more lines in England, it would help greatly in my efforts along with others to learn about this Bronze Age ancestor, and how the family spread around England before the "genealogical time frame" was reached about 800 years ago. > > The search feature of next interest to me would be widening the search criteria from for example a maximum of mutation 10 steps on 111 markers. At that level it prevents finding matches within my family group related in the past 300 to 800 years. It does not find any false matches, but false matches can be eliminated with research, so a few false matches could be tolerated if the matching included all of my close relatives. An issue though is that different haplogroups have very different numbers of matches, so one size may not fit all. > > The search feature of next greatest interest would be a way to overcome problems caused by multi step mutations on a single marker. In my family there was a 4 step mutation on one marker, which prevents a lot of matches being found. Some databases allow switching off multi copy markers in matching, as they can often make match finding difficult if that have recombination mutations > > The most important match for me on the FTDNA customer database is not contactable, but I guess that is their choice, but may just be an issue stemming from the person having his email address listed as his secondary email address rather than primary. > > B) YSEARCH: > > Biggest issue for me is that it does not include all of the markers 68 to 111, and it is in that group where 4 of my most important diagnostic family markers are, making it impossible to search YSearch for matches on my key family specific markers. > > The good thing about YSearch is that results can be uploaded direct from FTDNA, eliminating transcription errors. Without FTDNA cooperation, direct uploading to a new private database has a bit of a handicap. But YSeq might be amenable to direct upload features, as they would have something to gain from making finding matches easier for their customers. Perhaps FTDNA would cooperate.... if they are not worried about protecting their monopoly. Could ask them nicely. > > I think we are moving into an era where STRs need to be used in conjunction with SNPs, and known family history, and known geographic origins. I think that joining a database should have fields for earliest male line ancestor name, the country of origin of that ancestor, the county or state or province he came from, and the village or town, each individually searchable in the database. Perhaps scope for occupation, or other key words which might identify a family. It would be good if I could search for all persons tracing to my small ancestral village, as most in the village will be my relations on maternal lines within half a dozen generations. This would also help find matches from the area which had a surname change in recent centuries. > > There may be advantage in a person being able to insert a short biography of their earliest ancestor, say less than 50 or 100 words? > > I mentioned SNPs, and I think it would be good if a person could insert into a field at least their major haplogroup, plus their 3 or 4 most recent named SNPs as a minimum. In my case if I could search for matches using my recent SNPs as well as STRs I could focus in on important matches, and not be distracted with false matches from remote haplogroup branches. It might even be good if people tested on Y SNPs at Britains DNA, 23 and ME, national geographic etc could input their recent branch Y SNPs, even if they have not tested end STRs. > > Searches for surnames, surname variant, and combinations of surnames at the same time might be good. > > A new database may need an anonymous contacting system like YSearch has. > > When searching for matches, YSearch allows searching on a minimum of 8 random markers. That is good, but on the odd time it would be convenient if I could search with less markers. > > I think a new independent database should accommodate a minimum of the standard 111 FTDNA markers. But I now have found some diagnostic markers for my family in the many hundreds of new STR markers reported by Full Genomes Corp, and YFull, and YSeq. I have not yet determined the number of potentially useful STR markers, but just plucking a number out of the air, it might be 1000 or more. The new comprehensive genome tests often rate SNPs and STRs with reliability ratings, so you may not just have 1000 markers, but if you get fussy, you could at the very least have 2 reliability categories for each marker. > > The Captcha (spelling?) hindrance could be eliminated and save thousands of hours. I think the database should serve the community, and not be to fussy about protecting monopolies. > > Joining the database should have well though out privacy criteria which are well understood by all parties. > > There many more search features which could be added, which can be discussed if you get serious, and are not put off by my above comments. > > C) SEMARGL.ME: > > This is a very useful database largely captured from FTDNA surname projects and YSearch. Be sure to have a look at how that works. To quickly build a viable database.... How good would you be at following semargls lead??? There may be ethical issues here, or legal issues, not sure, so I am not trying to insight anything illegal or unethical, just noting that incorporating what information is currently public because FTDNA customers in projects have elected to make it public, would be something to think about. I don't believe persons can enter their own data or contact links onto SEMARGL, so that is a bit of a shortcoming. > > The SEMARGL database cannot be search on individual markers, or selections of markers, which is one of it's down sides. It can be searched for some major branch SNPs, but not many down stream SNPs. SEMARGL does limit searches to various max number of matches for different types of searches... I don't find this a major issue, just something to consider. > > Just a few of my thoughts! A last thought...... Perhaps the most important.... is "perminence". What can be done to make the database have a long life, 50 years or 100 years perhaps? Perhaps it needs to be run by a self renewing group rather than an individual, or at least have a built in succession feature to protect it in the future? > > John. > > > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 7/12/2015, at 9:26 pm, Andreas West via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> Greg, >> >> I agree with your point that an alternative, company independent and open to all sorts of Y-DNA and mtDNA testing results would be good, if not needed (see the other now closed/destroyed databases at Ancestry). >> >> What kind of features would you expect from such a service? >> >> Comparing STR results sounds like an easy to feature, I have never looked at my results (not even sure if FTDNA allows for download of the raw Y-DNA data) but the resulting number of STR's must be very small in comparison to SNP's (given the larger effort to get them by hand). >> >> What else would you see as absolutely necessary, nice-to-have? That list should include features that might not exist today? >> >> I'm thinking about offering this maybe in the future but I haven't spend much time with it (Y-DNA) so I don't know how big of an effort it would be. >> >> Andreas >> >>> On 7 Dec 2015, at 03:47, G. Magoon via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> >>> The case based on database size is fine, from a practical standpoint; but >>> in the absence of any other benefit, the argument basically boils down to: "I >>> am recommending you test at FTDNA because I and most others have been >>> recommending FTDNA previously." >>> >>> Personally, I think it would be stupendous if someone was able to set up an >>> independent matching system (analogous to GEDMATCH) for Y-STRs (and mtDNA >>> for that matter). With such a tool, prospective testers wouldn't have to >>> worry so much about having to pay a significantly higher price in order to >>> get that "ticket" into a large database. >>> >>> Your post also raises the question: how much is that "ticket" worth to a >>> prospective tester? 50% extra cost? 100% higher cost? 200% higher cost? >>> Personally, I think that is a decision that should be made by the >>> prospective tester (or the person paying for the test), based on financial >>> considerations, goals, etc. From my perspective, it is not as simple as >>> "there is only one choice". >>> >>> I'm glad you raised the issue about results living on for posterity, which >>> I also think is an important consideration. But I think testers at all >>> labs, including FTDNA, would be wise to take appropriate safegaurds in this >>> respect. An organization or business will typically only have a finite >>> lifespan, and there are no guarantees that results will be >>> hosted/maintained in perpetuity, FTDNA included. >>> >>> Again, just my two cents. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mike W via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Recruiting others to test, project and results sharing systems is critical. >>>> This is the essence of genetic genealogy as comparisons between people and >>>> sharing of results are needed. >>>> >>>> If possible, it is good in Y DNA testing to recruit get your most distant >>>> male cousin to test so you can estimate the DNA information for the >>>> family's most distant known ancestor (MDKA). However, it is hard to recruit >>>> people on the other side of your genealogical brickwalls and you may not >>>> want to pay for someone's tests you may not be related too. Ideally, you >>>> want people who are inclined towards DNA testing to find you or for you to >>>> find them through a matching database. >>>> >>>> The importance of a consistent set of test results available in a large >>>> matching database can not be understated. This is FTDNA's most dominant >>>> advantage for Y DNA, the largest accessible database. There hundreds of >>>> thousands of Y DNA records already available in FTDNA's database. These are >>>> records of real people, not just anonymous results. For more details, >>>> please read this web page. >>>> https://www.familytreedna.com/why-ftdna.aspx >>>> >>>> Cost is a factor, but when you get your Y STRs tested with FTDNA you are >>>> also getting a ticket into that large database and project management >>>> system with all of those surname projects. FTDNA allows you to join >>>> projects without cost and there is no annual subscription fee for support >>>> in their database and matching systems as well. >>>> >>>> Genetic test results data without the accompanying web based project and >>>> matching systems is not as useful and may not live on for prosperity. When >>>> you order STR and SNP tests from FTDNA your data is supported by a growing >>>> company with a 15 year, self-sustaining operation. You don't have to send >>>> your DNA sample to multiple labs. You and your recruits' samples all go to >>>> Houston's lab and are stored there subject to published privacy policies. >>>> This is particularly important if you think you only have one shot to get a >>>> DNA sample from a recruit. >>>> >>>> The central lab and DNA storage support is complemented by a full product >>>> line. Besides Y DNA testing up to 111 STRs, there is Y SNP testing and even >>>> Y Next Generation SNP discovery testing (Big Y) along with an array of >>>> autosomal and mitochondrial DNA tests. You have "one stop shopping" for >>>> your DNA sample. >>>> >>>> I'm not known for political correctness and we do not want to scare you off >>>> newbies but it is important that we acknowledge - It is very, very likely >>>> that 37 Y STRs is not enough. I recommend you starting with a minimum of 67 >>>> STRs. Most of the male large haplogroup branches of Europe started their >>>> great expansions during the Bronze Age. That means that it is very hard to >>>> discern who fits where at 37 STRs. 67 may not even be enough. Probably many >>>> of the people posting here, even those who prefer niche vendors, have 67 >>>> and even 111 STRs tested with FTDNA. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Mike W >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>>> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Decoding a Baby's Genome in 26 Hours - IEEE Spectrum http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/diagnostics/decoding-a-babys-genome-in-2 6-hours

Eldon, why do you keep comparative spreadsheet? Shouldn't this not be held at the service you use (FTDNA)? Andreas > On 7 Dec 2015, at 05:15, Eldon Wade via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I have been testing my DNA and been a surname project administrator for well > over 10 years. I think I have personally taken every test at every lab > (except for the most recent startup labs). I too agree that having the > largest database is a factor BUT it certainly isn't the only factor. Like > most surname project administrators I maintain an independent website for > all those in the surname project complete with comparative spreadsheets, > etc. That being the case it doesn't matter which lab you use. > I feel customer support is a very important factor. In my opinion, FGC and > YSEQ have the best customer service. > > Eldon > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Greg, I agree with your point that an alternative, company independent and open to all sorts of Y-DNA and mtDNA testing results would be good, if not needed (see the other now closed/destroyed databases at Ancestry). What kind of features would you expect from such a service? Comparing STR results sounds like an easy to feature, I have never looked at my results (not even sure if FTDNA allows for download of the raw Y-DNA data) but the resulting number of STR's must be very small in comparison to SNP's (given the larger effort to get them by hand). What else would you see as absolutely necessary, nice-to-have? That list should include features that might not exist today? I'm thinking about offering this maybe in the future but I haven't spend much time with it (Y-DNA) so I don't know how big of an effort it would be. Andreas > On 7 Dec 2015, at 03:47, G. Magoon via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > The case based on database size is fine, from a practical standpoint; but > in the absence of any other benefit, the argument basically boils down to: "I > am recommending you test at FTDNA because I and most others have been > recommending FTDNA previously." > > Personally, I think it would be stupendous if someone was able to set up an > independent matching system (analogous to GEDMATCH) for Y-STRs (and mtDNA > for that matter). With such a tool, prospective testers wouldn't have to > worry so much about having to pay a significantly higher price in order to > get that "ticket" into a large database. > > Your post also raises the question: how much is that "ticket" worth to a > prospective tester? 50% extra cost? 100% higher cost? 200% higher cost? > Personally, I think that is a decision that should be made by the > prospective tester (or the person paying for the test), based on financial > considerations, goals, etc. From my perspective, it is not as simple as > "there is only one choice". > > I'm glad you raised the issue about results living on for posterity, which > I also think is an important consideration. But I think testers at all > labs, including FTDNA, would be wise to take appropriate safegaurds in this > respect. An organization or business will typically only have a finite > lifespan, and there are no guarantees that results will be > hosted/maintained in perpetuity, FTDNA included. > > Again, just my two cents. > > Greg > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mike W via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> Recruiting others to test, project and results sharing systems is critical. >> This is the essence of genetic genealogy as comparisons between people and >> sharing of results are needed. >> >> If possible, it is good in Y DNA testing to recruit get your most distant >> male cousin to test so you can estimate the DNA information for the >> family's most distant known ancestor (MDKA). However, it is hard to recruit >> people on the other side of your genealogical brickwalls and you may not >> want to pay for someone's tests you may not be related too. Ideally, you >> want people who are inclined towards DNA testing to find you or for you to >> find them through a matching database. >> >> The importance of a consistent set of test results available in a large >> matching database can not be understated. This is FTDNA's most dominant >> advantage for Y DNA, the largest accessible database. There hundreds of >> thousands of Y DNA records already available in FTDNA's database. These are >> records of real people, not just anonymous results. For more details, >> please read this web page. >> https://www.familytreedna.com/why-ftdna.aspx >> >> Cost is a factor, but when you get your Y STRs tested with FTDNA you are >> also getting a ticket into that large database and project management >> system with all of those surname projects. FTDNA allows you to join >> projects without cost and there is no annual subscription fee for support >> in their database and matching systems as well. >> >> Genetic test results data without the accompanying web based project and >> matching systems is not as useful and may not live on for prosperity. When >> you order STR and SNP tests from FTDNA your data is supported by a growing >> company with a 15 year, self-sustaining operation. You don't have to send >> your DNA sample to multiple labs. You and your recruits' samples all go to >> Houston's lab and are stored there subject to published privacy policies. >> This is particularly important if you think you only have one shot to get a >> DNA sample from a recruit. >> >> The central lab and DNA storage support is complemented by a full product >> line. Besides Y DNA testing up to 111 STRs, there is Y SNP testing and even >> Y Next Generation SNP discovery testing (Big Y) along with an array of >> autosomal and mitochondrial DNA tests. You have "one stop shopping" for >> your DNA sample. >> >> I'm not known for political correctness and we do not want to scare you off >> newbies but it is important that we acknowledge - It is very, very likely >> that 37 Y STRs is not enough. I recommend you starting with a minimum of 67 >> STRs. Most of the male large haplogroup branches of Europe started their >> great expansions during the Bronze Age. That means that it is very hard to >> discern who fits where at 37 STRs. 67 may not even be enough. Probably many >> of the people posting here, even those who prefer niche vendors, have 67 >> and even 111 STRs tested with FTDNA. >> >> Regards, >> Mike W >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Greg & Mike W, I find myself at the same time agreeing with both of you. Interesting since you have different emphasis in your views. Genetic genealogy is basically a science based exercise. Should we be putting this debate into a statistical framework? What I mean is.... a) If you are not a scientific person, and you are a new tester but not via FTDNA what percentage of the world pool of Y-DNA tested persons can you expect to compare to. b) If you have some science understanding, and some skill at searching, and you are a new tester but not at FTDNA, what percentage of the world pool of Y-DNA tested persons can expect to cover using public tools like YSearch, Semargl.me, public FTDNA project pages, Google, forums, etc. c) What percentage of the world Y-DNA pool do you need to reach to make significant progress if your name is Smith, or Rumplestiltskin, or if you are haplogroup R1b, or haplogroup A0000, or adopted. I would suggest in case (a), you might be a lost sole with access to next to zero percent matches unless you test at FTDNA. I would suggest that in case (b) you might be able by smart searching to be able to reach 25 to 75% of the World Y-DNA pool, which in many cases would get you a long way down the road of discovery. I would suggest that in case (c), it comes down to luck... some people are just rare breeds, and they need to have access to a huge pool to find a match, others might find all their answers without having to look. I speculate that for 50% of people, 10% of the World pool would be sufficient to significantly progress them, but for 10% of people 50% of the World pool would be necessary to get progress. I speculate for 1% of people 90% of the world pool would be a bare minimum. Sometimes, if there are 10 matches in the whole world, you only need to find one of them to answer your burning questions. If you first match happens to be an obsessed genetic genealogist on this Genealogy-DNA forum, you might just strike gold! So to that extent, comparing to 10% of the world might suffice. Now putting this in some sort of wobbly perspective for a low budget new tester.... 37 markers at YSeq would in most cases be better that 12 markers at FTDNA, it you don't envisage selling your bicycle to push testing further in the future. But you would still need some search skills to discover Y-Search as a bare minimum. We have to remember searching can go 2 ways. You searching for someone, or someone searching for you. If you get 37 markers on YSearch, there is a possibility that your matches may find you even if they are not on public databases themselves. John. Sent from my iPad > On 7/12/2015, at 9:47 am, G. Magoon via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > The case based on database size is fine, from a practical standpoint; but > in the absence of any other benefit, the argument basically boils down to: "I > am recommending you test at FTDNA because I and most others have been > recommending FTDNA previously." > > Personally, I think it would be stupendous if someone was able to set up an > independent matching system (analogous to GEDMATCH) for Y-STRs (and mtDNA > for that matter). With such a tool, prospective testers wouldn't have to > worry so much about having to pay a significantly higher price in order to > get that "ticket" into a large database. > > Your post also raises the question: how much is that "ticket" worth to a > prospective tester? 50% extra cost? 100% higher cost? 200% higher cost? > Personally, I think that is a decision that should be made by the > prospective tester (or the person paying for the test), based on financial > considerations, goals, etc. From my perspective, it is not as simple as > "there is only one choice". > > I'm glad you raised the issue about results living on for posterity, which > I also think is an important consideration. But I think testers at all > labs, including FTDNA, would be wise to take appropriate safegaurds in this > respect. An organization or business will typically only have a finite > lifespan, and there are no guarantees that results will be > hosted/maintained in perpetuity, FTDNA included. > > Again, just my two cents. > > Greg > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mike W via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> Recruiting others to test, project and results sharing systems is critical. >> This is the essence of genetic genealogy as comparisons between people and >> sharing of results are needed. >> >> If possible, it is good in Y DNA testing to recruit get your most distant >> male cousin to test so you can estimate the DNA information for the >> family's most distant known ancestor (MDKA). However, it is hard to recruit >> people on the other side of your genealogical brickwalls and you may not >> want to pay for someone's tests you may not be related too. Ideally, you >> want people who are inclined towards DNA testing to find you or for you to >> find them through a matching database. >> >> The importance of a consistent set of test results available in a large >> matching database can not be understated. This is FTDNA's most dominant >> advantage for Y DNA, the largest accessible database. There hundreds of >> thousands of Y DNA records already available in FTDNA's database. These are >> records of real people, not just anonymous results. For more details, >> please read this web page. >> https://www.familytreedna.com/why-ftdna.aspx >> >> Cost is a factor, but when you get your Y STRs tested with FTDNA you are >> also getting a ticket into that large database and project management >> system with all of those surname projects. FTDNA allows you to join >> projects without cost and there is no annual subscription fee for support >> in their database and matching systems as well. >> >> Genetic test results data without the accompanying web based project and >> matching systems is not as useful and may not live on for prosperity. When >> you order STR and SNP tests from FTDNA your data is supported by a growing >> company with a 15 year, self-sustaining operation. You don't have to send >> your DNA sample to multiple labs. You and your recruits' samples all go to >> Houston's lab and are stored there subject to published privacy policies. >> This is particularly important if you think you only have one shot to get a >> DNA sample from a recruit. >> >> The central lab and DNA storage support is complemented by a full product >> line. Besides Y DNA testing up to 111 STRs, there is Y SNP testing and even >> Y Next Generation SNP discovery testing (Big Y) along with an array of >> autosomal and mitochondrial DNA tests. You have "one stop shopping" for >> your DNA sample. >> >> I'm not known for political correctness and we do not want to scare you off >> newbies but it is important that we acknowledge - It is very, very likely >> that 37 Y STRs is not enough. I recommend you starting with a minimum of 67 >> STRs. Most of the male large haplogroup branches of Europe started their >> great expansions during the Bronze Age. That means that it is very hard to >> discern who fits where at 37 STRs. 67 may not even be enough. Probably many >> of the people posting here, even those who prefer niche vendors, have 67 >> and even 111 STRs tested with FTDNA. >> >> Regards, >> Mike W >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Elizabeth, Please note that there are difficulties especially with the Safari and Internet Explorer browsers (even the newest versions) when a website is currently built with the newest technology. Problem is that both companies are rather slow in implementing certain standards or don't want to implement as a company policy. It's always good to try the same function (eg when a button isn't responding though clearly being clicked) with another browser like you did. I had the same problem yesterday and Safari worked, Chrome didn't. Andreas > On 7 Dec 2015, at 01:07, Elizabeth Harris via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Only one of my three accounts has been converted to the new format, and I'm still not even remotely proficient in using it. However, I noticed two things today that I don't think have been addressed yet in this forum. > > First, not all features of the site work with Safari on a Mac. When I clicked on Manage Your Connections, I got a box saying "You are seeing this because you are sharing with a family member but have not changed them from Relatives and Friends to their correct relationship (mother, father, etc). Please scroll down and change relatives with green check marks to their desired relationship." Clicking OK in response to this did nothing. There were no names listed, and nothing to scroll through. > > I tried the same thing with Chrome, and it worked OK. > > But, although I was then able to link this profile (my daughter-in-law) to her mother, who has her own account, and to my son as "partner," everybody else in her sharing list shows up as "friend". The other choices are "father's father", "father's mother" etc., and brother or sister. There's no option for cousin (as opposed to friend), let alone what I could do in the old version of DNA Relatives to identify a known cousin as "first cousin twice removed" or whatever. > > > Second, while I was still working through Safari, I discovered that a message I sent recently (since this account converted) had lost all its line breaks: > > "Hi, my name is Elizabeth Harris, and ____ is my son's wife. I'm managing a big project focused on the ancestors of all my grandchildren. Here's your match: _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 26.9 cM 3226 You also match several other people on the same segment, with whom I'm also sharing: _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 27.2 cM 3270 _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 159000000 22.1 cM 2452 _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 154000000 15.9 cM 1413 _____ vs. _____ 1 101000000 164000000 49.7 cM 7073 _____vs. _____ 1 118000000 163000000 27.9 cM 3435 I haven't found a common ancestor for any of these yet. ____'s ancestors have been in North Carolina since at least the late 1700s or early 1800s. Most, maybe all of them, came there from England and Scotland. The surnames are listed on my web page: [URL inserted here]l - look at just the names in red There are links to individual web pages for many of thes! e families. Do you see anything that looks like a match to you, either names or ! > locations? > > which should have been > > "Hi, my name is Elizabeth Harris, and ____ is my son's wife. I'm managing a big project focused on the ancestors of all my grandchildren. > > Here's your match: _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 26.9 cM 3226 > > You also match several other people on the same segment, with whom I'm also sharing: > > _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 27.2 cM 3270 > > > and so on. If my recipient received it looking like this, she would have to copy it off and edit it just to make sense of it. > > > When I tried to check this with Chrome, I couldn't find the sent messages at all. Clicking on the circle identifying this particular matching person said there were no messages. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Be sure to submit a big report to 23and me. They do fix problems brought to their attention On Dec 6, 2015 11:08 AM, "Elizabeth Harris via" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Only one of my three accounts has been converted to the new format, and > I'm still not even remotely proficient in using it. However, I noticed two > things today that I don't think have been addressed yet in this forum. > > First, not all features of the site work with Safari on a Mac. When I > clicked on Manage Your Connections, I got a box saying "You are seeing this > because you are sharing with a family member but have not changed them from > Relatives and Friends to their correct relationship (mother, father, etc). > Please scroll down and change relatives with green check marks to their > desired relationship." Clicking OK in response to this did nothing. There > were no names listed, and nothing to scroll through. > > I tried the same thing with Chrome, and it worked OK. > > But, although I was then able to link this profile (my daughter-in-law) to > her mother, who has her own account, and to my son as "partner," everybody > else in her sharing list shows up as "friend". The other choices are > "father's father", "father's mother" etc., and brother or sister. There's > no option for cousin (as opposed to friend), let alone what I could do in > the old version of DNA Relatives to identify a known cousin as "first > cousin twice removed" or whatever. > > > Second, while I was still working through Safari, I discovered that a > message I sent recently (since this account converted) had lost all its > line breaks: > > "Hi, my name is Elizabeth Harris, and ____ is my son's wife. I'm managing > a big project focused on the ancestors of all my grandchildren. Here's your > match: _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 26.9 cM > 3226 You also match several other people on the same segment, with whom > I'm also sharing: _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 27.2 > cM 3270 _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 159000000 22.1 cM > 2452 _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 154000000 15.9 cM 1413 _____ > vs. _____ 1 101000000 164000000 49.7 cM 7073 _____vs. > _____ 1 118000000 163000000 27.9 cM 3435 I haven't > found a common ancestor for any of these yet. ____'s ancestors have been in > North Carolina since at least the late 1700s or early 1800s. Most, maybe > all of them, came there from England and Scotland. The surnames are listed > on my web page: [URL inserted here]l - look at just the names in red There > are links to individual web pages for many of these families. Do you see > anything that looks like a match to you, either names or ! > locations? > > which should have been > > "Hi, my name is Elizabeth Harris, and ____ is my son's wife. I'm managing > a big project focused on the ancestors of all my grandchildren. > > Here's your match: _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 > 26.9 cM 3226 > > You also match several other people on the same segment, with whom I'm > also sharing: > > _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 27.2 cM 3270 > > > and so on. If my recipient received it looking like this, she would have > to copy it off and edit it just to make sense of it. > > > When I tried to check this with Chrome, I couldn't find the sent messages > at all. Clicking on the circle identifying this particular matching person > said there were no messages. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Isn't that ysearch? Jon Masterson Wales UK, Florida US jon@scruffyduck.co.uk Gedmatch: A488362, M938817 Surnames: Cannon, Coulter, Clinton, Dryman, Lance, Mabey, Pryor, Wrixon Locations: England, Illinois, Kentucky, Texas, Utah, Virginia On 06/12/2015 20:47, G. Magoon via wrote: > The case based on database size is fine, from a practical standpoint; but > in the absence of any other benefit, the argument basically boils down to: "I > am recommending you test at FTDNA because I and most others have been > recommending FTDNA previously." > > Personally, I think it would be stupendous if someone was able to set up an > independent matching system (analogous to GEDMATCH) for Y-STRs (and mtDNA > for that matter). With such a tool, prospective testers wouldn't have to > worry so much about having to pay a significantly higher price in order to > get that "ticket" into a large database. > > Your post also raises the question: how much is that "ticket" worth to a > prospective tester? 50% extra cost? 100% higher cost? 200% higher cost? > Personally, I think that is a decision that should be made by the > prospective tester (or the person paying for the test), based on financial > considerations, goals, etc. From my perspective, it is not as simple as > "there is only one choice". > > I'm glad you raised the issue about results living on for posterity, which > I also think is an important consideration. But I think testers at all > labs, including FTDNA, would be wise to take appropriate safegaurds in this > respect. An organization or business will typically only have a finite > lifespan, and there are no guarantees that results will be > hosted/maintained in perpetuity, FTDNA included. > > Again, just my two cents. > > Greg > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mike W via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> Recruiting others to test, project and results sharing systems is critical. >> This is the essence of genetic genealogy as comparisons between people and >> sharing of results are needed. >> >> If possible, it is good in Y DNA testing to recruit get your most distant >> male cousin to test so you can estimate the DNA information for the >> family's most distant known ancestor (MDKA). However, it is hard to recruit >> people on the other side of your genealogical brickwalls and you may not >> want to pay for someone's tests you may not be related too. Ideally, you >> want people who are inclined towards DNA testing to find you or for you to >> find them through a matching database. >> >> The importance of a consistent set of test results available in a large >> matching database can not be understated. This is FTDNA's most dominant >> advantage for Y DNA, the largest accessible database. There hundreds of >> thousands of Y DNA records already available in FTDNA's database. These are >> records of real people, not just anonymous results. For more details, >> please read this web page. >> https://www.familytreedna.com/why-ftdna.aspx >> >> Cost is a factor, but when you get your Y STRs tested with FTDNA you are >> also getting a ticket into that large database and project management >> system with all of those surname projects. FTDNA allows you to join >> projects without cost and there is no annual subscription fee for support >> in their database and matching systems as well. >> >> Genetic test results data without the accompanying web based project and >> matching systems is not as useful and may not live on for prosperity. When >> you order STR and SNP tests from FTDNA your data is supported by a growing >> company with a 15 year, self-sustaining operation. You don't have to send >> your DNA sample to multiple labs. You and your recruits' samples all go to >> Houston's lab and are stored there subject to published privacy policies. >> This is particularly important if you think you only have one shot to get a >> DNA sample from a recruit. >> >> The central lab and DNA storage support is complemented by a full product >> line. Besides Y DNA testing up to 111 STRs, there is Y SNP testing and even >> Y Next Generation SNP discovery testing (Big Y) along with an array of >> autosomal and mitochondrial DNA tests. You have "one stop shopping" for >> your DNA sample. >> >> I'm not known for political correctness and we do not want to scare you off >> newbies but it is important that we acknowledge - It is very, very likely >> that 37 Y STRs is not enough. I recommend you starting with a minimum of 67 >> STRs. Most of the male large haplogroup branches of Europe started their >> great expansions during the Bronze Age. That means that it is very hard to >> discern who fits where at 37 STRs. 67 may not even be enough. Probably many >> of the people posting here, even those who prefer niche vendors, have 67 >> and even 111 STRs tested with FTDNA. >> >> Regards, >> Mike W >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com 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 GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

For most folks taking a Y-DNA test, you'll want the full range of support you get from FTDNA. For those who are really into the science, the SNPs and Haplogroups, other sites may work better. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 6, 2015, at 5:15 PM, Eldon Wade via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I have been testing my DNA and been a surname project administrator for well > over 10 years. I think I have personally taken every test at every lab > (except for the most recent startup labs). I too agree that having the > largest database is a factor BUT it certainly isn't the only factor. Like > most surname project administrators I maintain an independent website for > all those in the surname project complete with comparative spreadsheets, > etc. That being the case it doesn't matter which lab you use. > I feel customer support is a very important factor. In my opinion, FGC and > YSEQ have the best customer service. > > Eldon > >

I have been testing my DNA and been a surname project administrator for well over 10 years. I think I have personally taken every test at every lab (except for the most recent startup labs). I too agree that having the largest database is a factor BUT it certainly isn't the only factor. Like most surname project administrators I maintain an independent website for all those in the surname project complete with comparative spreadsheets, etc. That being the case it doesn't matter which lab you use. I feel customer support is a very important factor. In my opinion, FGC and YSEQ have the best customer service. Eldon