Only 140,000 people in FTDNAs database?

[Carpathian]

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.

[Biblioteque]

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.

[ewd76]

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.

[ewd76]

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.

[Ann Turner]

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.

[ewd76]

I've always assumed that the largest Y figure includes 12-marker tests.

Yes, I didn't notice that the 12 marker wasn't included in that. So the number would be however many Y-12 marker results there are plus whatever mtDNA results there are.