View Single Post
  #29  
Old 4th February 2018, 08:20 PM
wkauffman wkauffman is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ric View Post
I think we are losing this battle, Admins in various groups stay silent about it and few people show the will to complain. Basically FTDNA can do whatever they want, once the money is spent, why should they care ?

Group admins should be more concerned. Since now we are entirely dependent on our groups to see who is in our subclade, every time a new members will pop up in our subclade we will ask the admin for name (since the ancestor's name is often not the same as the tester's name), background info and email. Multiply that by the number of members and the admins could be overflowed with requests.
Is that what you want, admins ?

Anyways, using the number of different novel variants SNPs to define who should be a BigY match doesn't make the slightest sense. When you are positive for a SNP that defines a branch/subclade, everybody under it, who is positive for the said SNP should be a BigY match, regardless of the number of different unnamed SNPs. It could be 30, it could be 40 or 50, it doesn't matter. The ancestor is the same. Some particular lineages could experience a slightly higher mutation rate and slightly shorter generations time in average, like 25 years versus 27 years and that could easily make up for the difference in SNPs.

Somebody explains to me why that total number of different SNPs should be 30.
As a project admin of several larger projects we are not silent as we realize there are squeaky wheels that need to vent. We would prefer that FTDNA invest their resources into finishing off the hg38 upgrade process and delivering the BAMs over being diverted making some enhancements which will make it harder for the bulk of users to properly interpret their results.

BigY SNP matching criteria are similar to the STR GD distance criteria. A MEANINGFUL cutoff needs to be in place to help less knowledgeable clients to understand the LIMITS of their results. With the BigY SNP limit that essentially means that an individual isn't going to share an ancestor with a matching result within the last 2000 years. If one wants deeper ancestral information associated with BigY matches that is where the haplogroup project grouping comes in to help provide that definition.

The correlation between the relevance of BigY matches and STR GD could vary some across the major haplogroup branches.

Why should the majority of the BigY test clients care to understand and work with matches where their shared ancestor was >2000 years ago?
Reply With Quote