Go Back   Family Tree DNA Forums > Family Tree DNA Communications > Recreation Room

Recreation Room This is a good place for chatting about off topic subjects and just having fun together. Keep the humor PG13 and things friendly please.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12th January 2018, 02:38 PM
KATM KATM is offline
mtDNA: K1a3 | Y-DNA: R-L1308*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic coast, U.S.A.
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenn4ever View Post
However, your remark that Ancestry is for those who have a passing interest in genealogy at best is quite ridiculous. I don't think their huge base of people paying almost $400 a year for many years would be people with a passing interest or curiosity.
But not all of Ancestry's DNA testers have subscriptions. Newbies who are non-subscribers, see the ads that tell them they can find out their ethnicities, and do the test. I would bet that a majority of Ancestry's DNA testers are not subscribers, or if they initially do subscribe, they cancel their subscriptions at the end of the subscribed period, after trying it. Who counts on needing an ongoing subscription, just to make good use of DNA matches? You don't need to do that at 23andMe and FTDNA, at least. Here's one user's experience.

Although, I could be wrong, because it is tough to make use of your DNA match list at Ancestry, without having a subscription so you could view their trees. I have heard that customers can call and ask for a limited subscription (called Ancestry Insights, I believe), that would allow viewing the trees of, and communicating with, their DNA matches, seeing the hints and circles, for a yearly cost of $49 - but missing the ability to search Ancestry's record databases. Apparently this is available as a one time deal; to get it again, you may have to have a gap in service, and re-subscribe after a time. So Ancestry's model for DNA is a continual drip drip drip of subscribing costs, or suffer crippled functionality for DNA matches (unless your match is one of the rare ones who puts an email address so you can contact them outside of Ancestry's very unreliable message system).

I have a lot of matches at Ancestry who show as having not logged in for a long time (which could be because they no longer subscribe, or just that they never log out), many who do not have trees (either public, or otherwise shown in their profiles), and many who do not reply to messages, even when apparently active.

23andMe is also not great for matches; again, they only offer their messaging system for contact, not email addresses, and the New Experience has been disappointing, removing features users liked and depended on. Many of the matches never respond, or fill out useful profiles, and since 23andMe discontinued trees a few years ago (other than teaming up with MyHeritage for trees), overall it's less than optimal.

I think we have to realize that many of our matches just are not into genealogy, but perhaps might be one fine day. It's still worth trying to contact them.

Quote:
Also, I have several kits on FT and they all have code names

I love FTDNA but sad to say if Ancestry had a chromosome browser they would probably leave FT in the dust.
I've tested at 23andMe, transferred to FTDNA, and most recently gave in and tested at Ancestry, where, yes, I have subscribed for 6 months, but will cancel and not go beyond that - I can use the library or a Family History Center to get access to their records, as I've done in the past. Ancestry does not have a lot of databases for a good portion of my ancestry. Cancelling will hobble my DNA match use, unfortunately.

For all of the above companies, I have matches with code names. I use aliases for the accounts I manage that I've uploaded to GEdmatch, but for most of the kits I manage at FTDNA, the testers themselves chose to use their real names, or a first initial and last name.

Sadly, you might be right about Ancestry if they ever relent and get a chromosome browser. We can hope that FTDNA is working on some features and improvements that will keep them competitive in this field. And I have to think that the subscription costs of Ancestry eventually would discourage and turn off people who can't afford it, just to deal with their DNA matches. If Ancestry did add a chromosome browser and other helpful tools for DNA matches, what do you bet they would only be available with a subscription? FTDNA does have an advantage there.

Last edited by KATM; 12th January 2018 at 02:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12th January 2018, 10:09 PM
Carpathian Carpathian is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 162
[QU
Quote:
OTE=Tenn4ever;447369]

One reason Ancestry sells so many kits is they are a by-word for ancestry research. When someone decides to be tested who hasn't been involved with much genealogy research they will automatically think of Ancestry. Think of it like this. When someone first wants to buy auto insurance where do their thoughts first go to? Allstate, Geico, State Farm?
Where does an elephant sit? Anywhere it wants to. Ancestry dominates the field due to their business plan.

Quote:
However, your remark that Ancestry is for those who have a passing interest in genealogy at best is quite ridiculous. I don't think their huge base of people paying almost $400 a year for many years would be people with a passing interest or curiosity.
I will rephrase it in that most who subscribe to Ancestry have no prior experience in genealogy. It isn't that they are uninterested, it is that they lack any research skills. So they subscribe, then post "their" tree with one or two names and expect others on the site to provide them with information which they can't find or do not know. Then the tree information of others gets 'cut and pasted', as many other trees have that, but nothing more than that. The information found, posted and re-posted becomes a dead end.

Quote:
I love FTDNA but sad to say if Ancestry had a chromosome browser they would probably leave FT in the dust.
Why should they do that? Ancestry is highly profitable enterprise without it. Desire and longing are the basis of marketing. When and if the longing becomes satisfied, the income stream evaporates. Instilling and promoting hopes and dreams is a very profitable business.

Last edited by Carpathian; 12th January 2018 at 10:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12th January 2018, 11:09 PM
KATM KATM is offline
mtDNA: K1a3 | Y-DNA: R-L1308*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic coast, U.S.A.
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpathian View Post
I will rephrase it in that most who subscribe to Ancestry have no prior experience in genealogy. It isn't that they are uninterested, it is that they lack any research skills. So they subscribe, then post "their" tree with one or two names and expect others on the site to provide them with information which they can't find or do not know. Then the tree information of others gets 'cut and pasted', as many other trees have that, but nothing more than that. The information found, posted and re-posted becomes a dead end.
There's a tree at Ancestry which has my father's paternal grandparents and their children on it. The information is very obviously taken from the 1920 U.S. Census, which had several of the family members' first names recorded incorrectly (other details for that census entry are correct, and I know it is the right family, except for the names). On top of that, the only way the family is connected to the tree is by showing my great grandmother (born in the 1860s) as being married to a man in the tree who was born in the 1600s.

Supposedly she had 4 children with him, and one with my great-grandfather. What a time traveler! Who knew? But in the actual profile page for my great-grandmother, it shows the opposite: 1 child with Mr. 1600s, and 4 with her real husband. I've pointed out the impossibility of the relationship to the tree owner, and am waiting to see what the reply, if any, will be.

Last edited by KATM; 12th January 2018 at 11:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 13th January 2018, 08:27 AM
Biblioteque Biblioteque is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 529
Blog Entries: 1
And just a caveat to all adoptees who test at Ancestry.

Just because you have a close dna match with someone who has a big tree, please do not get excited and run with that without first confirming the tree is actually representative of the dna.

E.g., I recently had a 525 cMs match and her big tree had nothing to do with my well-documented tree, so I knew something was wrong somewhere. I messaged the administator and she said the tree was hers, but the dna was that of her son-in-law.

What!

Last edited by Biblioteque; 13th January 2018 at 08:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 13th January 2018, 10:30 AM
Tenn4ever Tenn4ever is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by marietta View Post
And just a caveat to all adoptees who test at Ancestry.

Just because you have a close dna match with someone who has a big tree, please do not get excited and run with that without first confirming the tree is actually representative of the dna.

E.g., I recently had a 525 cMs match and her big tree had nothing to do with my well-documented tree, so I knew something was wrong somewhere. I messaged the administator and she said the tree was hers, but the dna was that of her son-in-law.

What!
Yes, when you get a match on Ancestry click on the user name at the top of the page. This will take you to their profile page. If you match to them it will show that. If they have tested someone else it will show that down below.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 13th January 2018, 11:00 AM
Carpathian Carpathian is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 162
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by KATM View Post
I've pointed out the impossibility of the relationship to the tree owner, and am waiting to see what the reply, if any, will be.
Most people don't like to be corrected if they become embarrassed or defensive. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. You will only end up irritating the pig."

I'm also convinced that most people who don't respond are lacking in education and in basic social skills. Most people who are our DNA relatives are of average intelligence - if even that.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 13th January 2018, 01:00 PM
Biblioteque Biblioteque is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 529
Blog Entries: 1
Carpathian, and there is a lot of sloppiness on all sides.

I had a dna match who had a PhD, and in her tree she had her great grandfather married to himself; and then he and himself had a child who was her grandparent. Wow!

It would appear many people throw up their trees and never go back to check them. Too many grandsons who marry their grandmothers and have a child.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 8th February 2018, 11:03 PM
ewd76 ewd76 is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMaddi View Post
Here's additional information from the page - https://www.familytreedna.com/why-ftdna.aspx - you're quoting:

630,315 Y-DNA records in the database
312,214 25-marker records in the database
290,738 37-marker records in the database
150,951 67-marker records in the database
271,651 mtDNA records in the database

Adding the yDNA and mtDNA numbers (630,315 and 271,651) together gives a total of 901,966. And that's exactly the number you quoted for their entire database.

I don't think this is a coincidence. The total they give is for yDNA and mtDNA results and doesn't include Family Finder autosomal results. This is why ISOGG only has an estimate for the size of FTDNA's autosomal database. The company has never issued a public count for that part of their database.

I wish that your and Frank Kelch's estimate that FTDNA has 1 million people in their autosomal database is correct. I've been a customer of FTDNA since 2005 and an administrator of two large projects, so I want to FTDNA to grow. But all the information that's public says to me that FTDNA doesn't have 1 million people in its autosomal database.
Unless I am missing something, the most people we can infer from that information is 312,214 + 271,651 = 583,865 since higher markers already include the lower markers.

Last edited by ewd76; 8th February 2018 at 11:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 8th February 2018, 11:10 PM
ewd76 ewd76 is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by marietta View Post
Carpathian, and there is a lot of sloppiness on all sides.

I had a dna match who had a PhD, and in her tree she had her great grandfather married to himself; and then he and himself had a child who was her grandparent. Wow!

It would appear many people throw up their trees and never go back to check them. Too many grandsons who marry their grandmothers and have a child.
I learned that lesson the hard way. I got one of the free two week trials from Ancestry and accepted every shaky leaf hint I found. Once I started to actually think about what I had done, and that I am not likely to be descended from God Kings from a million years ago, nor could an unbroken descendancy from Adam and Eve be confirmed, I deleted my whole tree and started over. I was somewhat disappointed at first, but knowing the truth is important and at least I don't sound like an idiot at family reunions.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 9th February 2018, 05:15 AM
Ann Turner Ann Turner is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewd76 View Post
Unless I am missing something, the most people we can infer from that information is 312,214 + 271,651 = 583,865 since higher markers already include the lower markers.
I've always assumed that the largest Y figure includes 12-marker tests.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Database Skew FredSpringer The Genographic Project 7 1st September 2007 07:11 PM
CSFS database msc_44 DNA and Genealogy for Beginners 1 17th April 2007 07:34 AM
New database of haplogroup J nry_j DNA and Genealogy for Beginners 0 22nd December 2005 03:03 AM
REO database tmjohnson DNA and Genealogy for Beginners 0 6th January 2005 09:01 AM
European Database Kate DNA and Genealogy for Beginners 1 10th June 2003 01:36 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 PM.


Family Tree DNA - World Headquarters

1445 North Loop West, Suite 820
Houston, Texas 77008, USA

Phone: (713) 868-1438 | Fax: (832) 201-7147
Copyright 2001-2010 Genealogy by Genetics, Ltd.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.