Family Tree DNA Forums

Family Tree DNA Forums (http://forums.familytreedna.com/index.php)
-   BIG Y and SNP Discovery (http://forums.familytreedna.com/forumdisplay.php?f=236)
-   -   No match big Y is useless (http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=42776)

bvbellomo 26th December 2017 09:57 AM

No match big Y is useless
 
Pretty upset after seeing no matches and reading that so many other people have no matches, and very disappointed ftdna restricted this from their previous product, which might have been useful or interesting.

I completely understand that showing matches likely beyond genealogical can be misleading, especially for people who have matches within genealogical time. But people who paid for BigY are advanced users unlikely to be mislead, and people who see nothing have gotten nothing for what they paid for - especially if they can't get BAM files.

satyricon 26th December 2017 12:56 PM

has FTDNA announced that they are no going to generate BAM files ?

Armando 26th December 2017 01:21 PM

The BAM files will be available in the future. It isn't known when though.

John McCoy 26th December 2017 04:31 PM

Also, at this stage, there is apparently a residuum of Big Y kits that haven't been "reprocessed" yet. Consequently, the lack of matches for some kits could simply be the result of incomplete processing, or it could really mean that there are no close matches at all! There does not seem to be any way we can tell the difference, which is a cause of considerable frustration for many of us.

For me, the lack of close matches on FTDNA even before the "reprocessing" and also on YFull has been useful. It is now clear that my McCoy family is not related to the other McCoy's who have been tested, and that I can safely ignore them in my research! But the McCoy families from Brown County, Illinois that I would really like to compare myself with haven't been tested.

brownbagg 26th December 2017 06:13 PM

i agree the big y has not produce anything, totally waste of money

dtvmcdonald 27th December 2017 10:39 AM

I have said before that the new match criteria are far better.

But no matches at all is showstopper.
They really should extend the number of tree levels back
for a given person until that person get at least 5 matches,
or some such number.

Of course, this leads to the possibility of going back level by level with zero matches, and then it hits a level with
1,000 matches. Especially in Africa.

bvbellomo 27th December 2017 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald (Post 446904)
I have said before that the new match criteria are far better.

But no matches at all is showstopper.
They really should extend the number of tree levels back
for a given person until that person get at least 5 matches,
or some such number.

Of course, this leads to the possibility of going back level by level with zero matches, and then it hits a level with
1,000 matches. Especially in Africa.

Any match criteria, even matching to samples at random, is far better than no matches at all.

Extending this so everyone has at least 5 matches is a great idea.

Going from 0 to 1000 matches is not a problem, it could simply show the top 5, or all 1000. Showing too much irrelevant data that needs filtering is a very small problem. Showing no data at all is a gigantic problem.

bvbellomo 27th December 2017 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John McCoy (Post 446885)
Also, at this stage, there is apparently a residuum of Big Y kits that haven't been "reprocessed" yet. Consequently, the lack of matches for some kits could simply be the result of incomplete processing, or it could really mean that there are no close matches at all! There does not seem to be any way we can tell the difference, which is a cause of considerable frustration for many of us.

I disagree, I would be no less frustrated knowing whether lack of processing was the reason for my lack of matches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John McCoy (Post 446885)
For me, the lack of close matches on FTDNA even before the "reprocessing" and also on YFull has been useful. It is now clear that my McCoy family is not related to the other McCoy's who have been tested, and that I can safely ignore them in my research! But the McCoy families from Brown County, Illinois that I would really like to compare myself with haven't been tested.

BigY is primarily promoted as a tool for those with samples that are outliers to further our knowledge of the tree of human y-genetics and provide information beyond what the cheaper test do. This is why I bought, and probably why the majority of customers did and future customers will. It greatly advances science and we all benefit every time an outlier tests. Instead of designing their software specifically for this group, they've gone ahead and designed something useless unless you are in an overrepresented branch of R1b.

If people are willing to pay for BigY for genealogical reasons and find it useful beyond the cheaper tests, that is great, but people in that situation are few and far between.

Jim Barrett 28th December 2017 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvbellomo (Post 446906)
Any match criteria, even matching to samples at random, is far better than no matches at all.

I know you are talking about Big Y SNPS and not Y-DNA STRs, but you seem to be saying you'd rather see several Y-DNA12 matches than to see zero Y-DNA111 matches.:rolleyes:

Put another way, reduce the matching criteria to the point it is meaningless rather than show zero matches.:confused:

Armando 28th December 2017 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John McCoy (Post 446885)
Also, at this stage, there is apparently a residuum of Big Y kits that haven't been "reprocessed" yet. Consequently, the lack of matches for some kits could simply be the result of incomplete processing, or it could really mean that there are no close matches at all! There does not seem to be any way we can tell the difference, which is a cause of considerable frustration for many of us.

Using the current cutoff of 30 non-matching variants, most BigY tested people can tell fairly easily if they should have BigY matches simply by counting the Unnamed Variants. If there are more than 15 Unnamed Variants then it is extremely likely that most other people also have more than 15 Unnamed Variants and therefore they have more than 30 non-matching variants which is more than allowed to have a match. The exceptions to this rule are people that have some named variants downstream from their terminal SNP but aren't shared by anyone else in the database. So some people will have less than 15 unnamed variants but still not have matches. Normally those named variants won't start with BY and were named by a lab not run by FTDNA.

Most people have had their BigY kit upgraded to hg38 which is what is being called the "reprocess". Most people that did not have matches prior to the upgrade still won't have matches unless it's due to a new customer sharing more SNPs in which case your terminal SNP will change and you will have fewer unnamed variants because some will be named. The hg38 upgrade might add some new legitimate SNPs not previously identified and create a further genealogical distance.

So the less than 10% of people that haven't been upgraded to hg38 might not show as a match to others right now but if you have more than 15 unnamed variants then it is almost 100% that you won't see a match until a new customer shows up.

I have no idea what the results look like for people that haven't been upgraded yet.

Anyone with 15 unnamed variants has a terminal SNP that is at least around 2,000 years old. That's too far back for genealogy anyway.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.