Ken, Can we begin by agreeing that your work on Haplogroup I in deep time frames could give you a different perspective from someone working on paper genealogies in (obviously) genealogical time frames? I hope so because, as an admin of six surname projects, I do *not* want my members cherry-picking STR tests. I want them taking the full panels because, among other things, you never know where individual/private STR mutations will pop up — and those of us doing paper genealogy on individual families need every one of these we can get. We are not looking at the "big picture," as you are; we are looking at the "small picture." I just checked at FTDNA to determine which Y-STR markers, among their standard offering (Markers 1-111), are available a-la-carte. All of them are, except for the 15 markers that were new and exclusive to FTDNA in Panel 5. My guess as to why FTDNA is not updating Ysearch is that they want people to transfer their results to them, instead. Of the two options, I would prefer the latter, myself. It makes it easier to incorporate them into my projects, easier to get them to upgrade their testing, and much easier to get them to share their lineage. Ken, please be aware that the research you are doing with these data is the *exception* to what the majority of FTDNA customers are doing with those results. If FTDNA caters to our needs, not yours, consider it a result of market forces. When you, personally, start purchasing tests by the thousands, you will probably start getting their attention. Otherwise, you should not be surprised to find them ignoring your wishes, especially when your strategies appear intended to *reduce* their sales. >From my perspective, as a surname project admin, having members cherry-pick STRs is detrimental*, so I hope FTDNA sticks to its guns and continues to make people test Panel 5 to get the 15 new markers and to test Panels 1-4 before they can take Panel 5. I know we disagree, but you've had your say, and now I've had mine. Let's just stop here and not drag this out into an interminable debate. It's possible to have different opinions on this subject depending on what you are using these test results for. There is no right or wrong, here, because it's not a question of fact, it's a question of perspective, and that's a personal matter for each of us. Diana *The more markers you test, the more statistically meaningful matches become (or, conversely, the more meaningful differences become). So, why would you want to reduce the number of markers people test? > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna- > haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Kenneth Nordtvedt > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 10:17 AM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: [yDNAhgI] A pitch for the 68-111 STR markers > > It is not easy to understand FTDNA’s schizo policies toward the > wonderful product they introduced --- the 68-111 panel of STR > markers. I have found it a strong tool for finding new ancient > clade divisions throughout much of haplogroup I. > > If someone had 37 STR markers and a budget-constrained amount to > spend on haplotype expansion, I’d advise going for the 68-111 panel > instead of 38-67 panel if you had that choice. The 38-67 panel is > boring by comparison in its > haplotype and clade distinquishing properties. > > But FTDNA seems to bury this 68-111 panel product beneath > unnecessary difficulties. Why is not Ysearch expanded to include > the 68-111 panel of STRs? Why can not the customer order the 68-111 > set of markers without first buying the 38-67 panel of markers? But > maybe some one can make our day (at least my day) and report that > this latter policy has been eliminated? The other day someone did > report that there is a way to partially circumvent FTDNA’s policy > concerning these 68-111 STRs. Most of them can be purchased as > singletons. I don’t know if there are any rules or conditions to do > this selective buying. On the positive side, FTDNA has upgraded its > data spreadsheets for its Projects to include the 68-111 panel. > Those projects which do not use FTDNA’s spreadsheet might consider > including this 68-111 panel as well. > > Until such time as we have something akin to full y chromosome snp > tests over a clearly defined, fixed, set of nucleotide sites, > extended haplotypes with as many STRs as possible provide us with > the best clocks for adding the time dimension to the y tree. The > 68-111 panel of STRs adds approximately 0.1 to the total mutation > rate of haplotype STRs (that roughly means that every 10 generations > on average on a line of descent, there will be a mutation within the > 68-111 panel, itself). I decided the time has arrived to expand > the Generations software to include the 68-111 panel of STRs for > doing variance-based tmrca estimates; this should > be done in the near future (after income tax forms are done and out > of the way). > > If you scan the I1modalities file linked to below, you will see I > now include the 68-111 STRs in the table of clade identifying STRs. > I eventually plan to make such online tables for the rest of y > haplogroup I. > > Presently I am trying to keep complete a full database of all 68-111 > haplotype extensions reported out within haplogroup I. And then I > use that database to detect any new clade structure in haplogroup I. > So I recommend buying this panel if you are in haplogroup I; your > information will not go to waste. And it would help if you > suggested to FTDNA to treat this panel better with regard to Ysearch > and its restrictions on purchase. > > - - - - > Kenneth Nordtvedt