I find these delays very annoying - one of my kits (398993 ) was batched for YDNA12 on 08/12/2015 and I am still waiting for results. On the other hand, I have a bunch of YSEQ-only kits and it usually takes just a week or two for the Alpha+Beta panel which equates to FTDNA's YDNA37 + one additional marker. The funny part about kit 398993 is that at the same time I send a sample from this person to YSEQ too and ordered some random marker so that I have his DNA in both companies. YSEQ reported the marker result + results for about ten more markers for free even before FTDNA had batched the test. From the YSEQ markers I determined that this person belongs to J2-L70. -- Best regards, Atanas Kumbarov http://dna.kumbarov.com/ On 2015-10-10 16:57, Orin Wells via wrote: > Over the past months I have had encouraging input from folks within > FTDNA that they are making changes aimed at reducing the testing time > considerably - never a promise by how much. We have been waiting with > hope that this will come to pass, but so far we still see tests that > still take 10 to 12 weeks. Five weeks sounds incredibly promising! I > am one who was spoiled by the Ancestry test results that we used to get > in two weeks and sometimes, when the stars were aligned perfectly, in > about a week. It can be done and if they are doing what I think they > are at FTDNA we just might start seeing something approaching that sort > of turnaround yet. > > On 10/10/2015 6:54 AM, Larry Vick via wrote: >> The last member of our VICK project ordered a 37-marker test. His kit was batched on 26 Aug 2015, and it was complete on 1 Oct 2015. I had prepared him for a long wait, and he was pleasantly surprised with the much shorter time to get his results than he expected. >> Regards, >> Larry >> From: Lindsey Britton via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [DNA] Longest Wait for STR Results? >> >> >> I doubt that I can, but every standard test order in my Britton project since last December has been three months or more in processing. My question is: WHY? What has changed? Something surely has because results used to be posted in as little as three weeks and never more than six weeks except in unusual circumstances. >> >> Lindsey >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >

I think it is useful because they test about 15000 Y-SNPs , about 3000 more than the original Geno 2.0 ... Al On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Doris Wheeler via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > What is this new test? I see that it transfers to FF, so is it autosomal? > Is it different from FF, Ancestry, 23andMe? Is there any "added value" for > someone who has already done Y-DNA, mtDNA and atDNA... and maybe the > original National Geographic Y test? > > Thank you for any insight. > > Doris > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Politics, marketing, propaganda, big business, coffee to hot, coffee too cold.. all way over my head. If for $69 a person can find their line through a group of 600 Y SNPs, that has to be good. John.

What is this new test? I see that it transfers to FF, so is it autosomal? Is it different from FF, Ancestry, 23andMe? Is there any "added value" for someone who has already done Y-DNA, mtDNA and atDNA... and maybe the original National Geographic Y test? Thank you for any insight. Doris

The last member of our VICK project ordered a 37-marker test.  His kit was batched on 26 Aug 2015, and it was complete on 1 Oct 2015.  I had prepared him for a long wait, and he was pleasantly surprised with the much shorter time to get his results than he expected. Regards, Larry From: Lindsey Britton via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [DNA] Longest Wait for STR Results? I doubt that I can, but every standard test order in my Britton project since last December has been three months or more in processing.  My question is: WHY?  What has changed? Something surely has because results used to be posted in as little as three weeks and never more than six weeks except in unusual circumstances.    Lindsey

I became an FTDNA surname project administrator in 2010, and 6-8 weeks was then typical for Y-DNA test results. The process only became slower in the year and a half, and I'm more than happy to see that FTDNA is focusing some resources on returning to a more reasonable, timely turn-around. Loretta -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Orin Wells via Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 10:57 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Longest Wait for STR Results? Over the past months I have had encouraging input from folks within FTDNA that they are making changes aimed at reducing the testing time considerably - never a promise by how much. We have been waiting with hope that this will come to pass, but so far we still see tests that still take 10 to 12 weeks. Five weeks sounds incredibly promising! I am one who was spoiled by the Ancestry test results that we used to get in two weeks and sometimes, when the stars were aligned perfectly, in about a week. It can be done and if they are doing what I think they are at FTDNA we just might start seeing something approaching that sort of turnaround yet. On 10/10/2015 6:54 AM, Larry Vick via wrote: > The last member of our VICK project ordered a 37-marker test. His kit was batched on 26 Aug 2015, and it was complete on 1 Oct 2015. I had prepared him for a long wait, and he was pleasantly surprised with the much shorter time to get his results than he expected. > Regards, > Larry > From: Lindsey Britton via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:23 AM > Subject: Re: [DNA] Longest Wait for STR Results? > > > I doubt that I can, but every standard test order in my Britton project since last December has been three months or more in processing. My question is: WHY? What has changed? Something surely has because results used to be posted in as little as three weeks and never more than six weeks except in unusual circumstances. > > Lindsey > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 -- Orin Wells 253-630-5296 ------------------------------- 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

That's good news. I hope to see a similar response time for our latest orders. Delays generate complaints or project members to lose interest. Lindsey -----Original Message----- From: Larry Vick <jameslvick@yahoo.com> To: Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sat, Oct 10, 2015 9:54 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Longest Wait for STR Results? The last member of our VICK project ordered a 37-marker test. His kit was batched on 26 Aug 2015, and it was complete on 1 Oct 2015. I had prepared him for a long wait, and he was pleasantly surprised with the much shorter time to get his results than he expected. Regards, Larry From: Lindsey Britton via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [DNA] Longest Wait for STR Results? I doubt that I can, but every standard test order in my Britton project since last December has been three months or more in processing. My question is: WHY? What has changed? Something surely has because results used to be posted in as little as three weeks and never more than six weeks except in unusual circumstances. Lindsey

I just noticed a kit in my project (Kit N135695) who ordered a 37 marker upgrade on 2/26/2015 and who is still waiting for his results! He was batched on 3/4/15 in batch 612. 226 days and counting! Expected due date: 10/14/2015 - 10/28/2015 Can anyone beat this number? *************** I doubt that I can, but every standard test order in my Britton project since last December has been three months or more in processing. My question is: WHY? What has changed? Something surely has because results used to be posted in as little as three weeks and never more than six weeks except in unusual circumstances. Lindsey

This posting was intended by me to be just 2 lines, saying "don't forget to consider taking advantage of the BigY sale ending on 11 Oct 2015". Also spread the word to others. You don't need to be pushy, just make others aware, some will test, some won't. That is my message! John. ****************************** I keep trying but no luck so far. Big-Y is a hard sell even with $100 coupons. I can't tell you how frustrated I am trying to persuade more L1275s to order this test. Lindsey

Not to dispute Mike W's point about lawyers, but regarding the elderly woman and the hot coffee, which has become a bit of a punching bag and joke over the years, my understanding is that the coffee was so hot she suffered severe burns when it spilled. Whether millions of dollars were an appropriate outcome is questionable, but some recompense was surely appropriate. On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Mike W via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Lindsey, do you live in the USA? This is not a compliment to the system I > live in, but we have many greedy lawyers who will glad sue anyone with > money if they think they can win. > > Are you familiar with the elderly lady who spilled her cup of coffee from > MacDonald's and received a large settlement (millions) because the coffee > was too hot? Big corporations regularly settle before court starts giving > out hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is trinkets for them. The public > relations nightmares are worse. > > >

Yes, Mike, I live in the US and have recent personal experience with two cases in which a family member was involved and held the winning hand in both. The case you mentioned was personal injury, and it's true that many lawyers are willing to take personal injury cases for the greater part of the settlement. I rather doubt that would be true if a customer tried to sue over the lab where a DNA test was processed. I was personally involved in a third suit when I was a graduate student at UVA and another student ran into my car at an intersection. Although the policemen gave him a ticket, he hired a lawyer and beat the charge, then sued me for damages to his car. When informed of the circumstances, my insurance company decided to fight rather than pay and he lost the case. He had admitted in a telephone call first to my mother and then to me that the accident was his fall, so our testimony carried the day. But you are correct in thinking my remarks were meant to impugn the legal system. The truth is that with very few exceptions (most of which are personal injury cases), the cost of filing suit, whether or not the case actually goes to court, is more expensive than most cases are worth. My state follows the American Rule which makes recovery of legal costs difficult or impossible even for the winner. Did you ever read Bleak House? I have a copy of a letter written by an American ancestor who said much the same a couple of decades before Bleak House was written. Lindsey

We've seen such positive results from Big Y working with Alex Williamson's project at ytree.net that I'm constantly letting others know if they are R-L21 particularly, ordering a Big Y upgrade is a very good idea. :) I anticipate a day in the future when enough folks have done Big Y where a new participant can do the test and BAM (pun intended) be placed in a family unit by ancestor..tada! On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Lindsey Britton via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > This posting was intended by me to be just 2 lines, saying "don't forget > to consider taking advantage of the BigY sale ending on 11 Oct 2015". Also > spread the word to others. You don't need to be pushy, just make others > aware, some will test, some won't. That is my message! > > John. > ****************************** > > I keep trying but no luck so far. Big-Y is a hard sell even with $100 > coupons. I can't tell you how frustrated I am trying to persuade more > L1275s to order this test. > > Lindsey > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- Lisa R Franklin RN,BSN Admin, Franklin Y DNA Project http://trackingyourroots.com/FranklinGenetics/ FranklinGenetics@gmail.com http://trackingyourroots.com/DNA (How To presentation (23andme), tips, & helps. *2**3**&**m**e**: **The World's Largest database & coincidentally the ONLY one with all the tools you need for genealogy and DNA!--* http://refer.23andme.com/v2/share/6158544791499756901/4672616e6b6c696e47656e657469637340676d61696c2e636f6d BEST GENETIC GENEALOGY BOOK! http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Genealogy-Emily-D-Aulicino-ebook/dp/B00HJJWBU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391174801&sr=8-1&keywords=Genetic+Genealogy

Over the past months I have had encouraging input from folks within FTDNA that they are making changes aimed at reducing the testing time considerably - never a promise by how much. We have been waiting with hope that this will come to pass, but so far we still see tests that still take 10 to 12 weeks. Five weeks sounds incredibly promising! I am one who was spoiled by the Ancestry test results that we used to get in two weeks and sometimes, when the stars were aligned perfectly, in about a week. It can be done and if they are doing what I think they are at FTDNA we just might start seeing something approaching that sort of turnaround yet. On 10/10/2015 6:54 AM, Larry Vick via wrote: > The last member of our VICK project ordered a 37-marker test. His kit was batched on 26 Aug 2015, and it was complete on 1 Oct 2015. I had prepared him for a long wait, and he was pleasantly surprised with the much shorter time to get his results than he expected. > Regards, > Larry > From: Lindsey Britton via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > To: GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:23 AM > Subject: Re: [DNA] Longest Wait for STR Results? > > > I doubt that I can, but every standard test order in my Britton project since last December has been three months or more in processing. My question is: WHY? What has changed? Something surely has because results used to be posted in as little as three weeks and never more than six weeks except in unusual circumstances. > > Lindsey > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 -- Orin Wells 253-630-5296

I just noticed a kit in my project (Kit N135695) who ordered a 37 marker upgrade on 2/26/2015 and who is still waiting for his results! He was batched on 3/4/15 in batch 612. 226 days and counting! Expected due date: 10/14/2015 - 10/28/2015 Can anyone beat this number?

Lindsey, do you live in the USA? This is not a compliment to the system I live in, but we have many greedy lawyers who will glad sue anyone with money if they think they can win. Are you familiar with the elderly lady who spilled her cup of coffee from MacDonald's and received a large settlement (millions) because the coffee was too hot? Big corporations regularly settle before court starts giving out hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is trinkets for them. The public relations nightmares are worse. There is a problem. The plaintiffs don't get the lion's share of the money. The lawyers do so no one wins. However, this is a big inhibitor that helps keep corporations in check. This is a moot point anyway. *Bennett Greenspan has clearly stated FTDNA does not send any DNA out of their Houston lab, let alone out of the country.* That charge is without backing. Regards, Mike w On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Lindsey Britton via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Fortunately, FTDNA is big enough and an on-going concern and has terms of > service documented. I could sue them in > court successfully if needed. I don't expect to need that, but that > capability here in the USA is a good inhibitor to > privacy-related malpractice or negligence on FTDNA's part. > > ******************* > > I doubt it. Most of the time lawsuits cost more than the case is worth > and corporations have more money to spend on lawyers than individuals. > > While I have no idea whether FTDNA is sending samples out of the country > for testing, I can say that progress in my Britton project has slowed > considerably this year because of three month delays plus in processing > standard Y- tests. > > So I'm not happy about whatever is happening. > > Lindsey > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Derek, Interesting result. I have been a supporter of the "out of everywhere" origin of the human race, rather than "out of Africa". Now that there seems close to acceptance that all modern Africans have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA, does that count as a point towards the "out of everywhere" case? John. Sent from my iPad > On 9/10/2015, at 8:45 pm, Derek Ham via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34479905 > > Large back migration suggested, from Eurasia to Africa 3000 yrs ago, due to spread of agriculture. > > > ------------------------------- > 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

I am hearing that FTDNA utilizes micro array technology for their SNP packs instead of Sanger sequencing. This might explain some strange results. Mike and Thomas, do you know if this is true? Atanas Kumbarov On 2015-10-09 16:05, Mike W via wrote: > I am independent, Thomas. I don't know anything about what FTDNA is doing > with the DNA samples. I know they used to send them to Arizona for some > testing. I generally don't comment on rumors but I will ask FTDNA about > this. > > I have privacy concerns like many other people. Is that the relevance of > your question? I am not afraid to send my DNA sample to Germany which is > where I think you are, although I probably should do better research on > this. I was not afraid to send my DNA sample to the UK and did so. > > However, I am reticent to send my DNA sample to countries that don't > respect individual rights and privacy. In that regards I feel pretty good > about the European Union, maybe even more so than the USA. There are > countries that do NOT abide by western international trade practices and do > NOT respect individual rights. Once you send something to one of those > countries you have no recourse. Fortunately, FTDNA is big enough and an > on-going concern and has terms of service documented. I could sue them in > court successfully if needed. I don't expect to need that, but that > capability here in the USA is a good inhibitor to privacy-related > malpractice or negligence on FTDNA's part. > > Thomas, if your products are good, and I think they are, why do focus on > negative campaigning? "Propaganda" is the term you brought into this > conversation. Maybe if you have points to make they are okay, but if > someone else has points it is propaganda. Beauty and fairness are in the > eye of the beholder. > > I'm not easily bullied, because I really am independent. I say what I want, > but I always ask myself what is helpful for the individual testers. Debate > is good for understanding and therefore helpful, but that does not make one > side good and one side bad, nor any one opinion or interpretation > infallible. It's all okay. Besides, it's just a hobby. > > BTW, just to re-iterate: I don't receive any compensation or free testing* > for anything related to genetic genealogy and I have no plans to. I don't > plan to enter this business. I don't need to. I have never met an FTDNA > employee or family member or business partner of FTDNA. I've never been to > FTDNA's location or to an FTDNA conference, although I've been to Houston. > > * I received a free test from BritainsDNA once and I regretted accepting it > so when I was offered an FGC test paid for I turned it down. > > Mike W > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Thomas Krahn via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> wrote: >> Mike, >> >> If you're really independent, then why don't you comment on FTDNA >> sending the samples out of the country to a third party laboratory? >> >> Thomas >> >> On 10/9/2015 5:33 AM, Mike W via wrote: >>> I receive no compensation or free tests. I'm not a vendor and have never >>> met anyone face to face that I know of who is a vendor in this hobby. >>> >>> 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

List Tucked away in the supplementary material is mention of the mitochondrial Haplogroup: Mota was assigned to haplogroup L3x2a. Haplogroup L3 arose 60-70 kya in Eastern Africa where the richest present-day haplogroup diversity is found. All mitochondrial haplogroups found outside Africa descend from the L3 lineage and hence this haplogroup is associated with the spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa to the rest of the world. The subhaplogroup L3x2 is restricted to the Horn of Africa and the Nile Valley in modern Ethiopian samples, suggesting a degree of maternal continuity in Ethiopia over the past 4,500 years. Perhaps look at my page for 'L3x2a' at: http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/l3x_genbank_sequences.htm Ian ------------------ On 09/10/2015 16:27, Wjhonson via wrote: > The main problem with "out of everywhere" is that no human remains older than two hundred thousand years have been found *anywhere* other than Africa >

Fortunately, FTDNA is big enough and an on-going concern and has terms of service documented. I could sue them in court successfully if needed. I don't expect to need that, but that capability here in the USA is a good inhibitor to privacy-related malpractice or negligence on FTDNA's part. ******************* I doubt it. Most of the time lawsuits cost more than the case is worth and corporations have more money to spend on lawyers than individuals. While I have no idea whether FTDNA is sending samples out of the country for testing, I can say that progress in my Britton project has slowed considerably this year because of three month delays plus in processing standard Y- tests. So I'm not happy about whatever is happening. Lindsey

The main problem with "out of everywhere" is that no human remains older than two hundred thousand years have been found *anywhere* other than Africa -----Original Message----- From: AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: Derek Ham <djham27@hotmail.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, Oct 9, 2015 1:44 am Subject: Re: [DNA] 4,500 yr old African Genome Derek, Interesting result. I have been a supporter of the "out of everywhere" origin of the human race, rather than "out of Africa". Now that there seems close to acceptance that all modern Africans have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA, does that count as a point towards the "out of everywhere" case? John. Sent from my iPad > On 9/10/2015, at 8:45 pm, Derek Ham via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34479905 > > Large back migration suggested, from Eurasia to Africa 3000 yrs ago, due to spread of agriculture. > > > ------------------------------- > 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