Go Back   Family Tree DNA Forums > Paternal Lineages (Y-DNA) > BIG Y and SNP Discovery

BIG Y and SNP Discovery This area is for talk about BIG Y results.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 8th January 2018, 07:49 AM
Armando Armando is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvbellomo View Post
You can reasonably guess based on your haplogroup. Lots of Western Europeans test, so if you are R1b, I'd be surprised if you don't match. But how many native Americans, obscure African lineages, and other "interesting" results are going to have matches? Almost none, and these are the people who will advance science by testing.
Yes, a lot of R1b people can expect to find matches and should get BigY testing in case they do but, using your own example, not all R1b people will get matches so YMMV. If they don't test there is no way to know if they will get matches. The only way to know for sure is to test. Even if no matches show up immediately there is a possibility that a match will show up in the not too distant future.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 8th January 2018, 08:00 AM
Armando Armando is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvbellomo View Post
But how many native Americans, obscure African lineages, and other "interesting" results are going to have matches? Almost none, and these are the people who will advance science by testing.
Actually all people that get a BigY test can help create new branches that were previously unknown. That is how four SNPs previously thought to be phylogenetically equivalent to L21 were proven to be upstream of L21. http://ytree.net/
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 8th January 2018, 08:55 AM
Ric Ric is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armando View Post
Actually all people that get a BigY test can help create new branches that were previously unknown. That is how four SNPs previously thought to be phylogenetically equivalent to L21 were proven to be upstream of L21. http://ytree.net/
So we will see new branches popping up next to ours, or even below our own branch, but without names and locations associated to these branches, when the people are not matching.

In the example I mentioned above, a BigY kit was in a new branch below mine, but still too old for us to match with the new 30SNP stringency. It is lucky that another BigY kit matched this person so they could form a new branch, otherwise, if that person didn't match me with the new stringency, he would not have matched anybody else and stayed invisible for everybody, including the groups.
But that was 2 years ago and thankfully, we matched, and I am the one who take credit for contacting the person and asking him to join the relevant group.

So that now I am surrounded by very precious little flags, thanks to the Groups and the Big Tree, but none of them I will match now (I have 25 unnamed variants) and at least one would have been absent in the new system.

That raise the question of how many people take a BigY but don't join their Y-haplogroup group automatically. Probably a minority, but still, you don't want to loose anybody such is precious any information.

So now the new stringency is truly ~ 15 new unnamed SNPs, since we have to consider the other dude's unnamed SNPs.
That's what ? a 1500 to 2000 years old ancestor. The chance that one male descendant from this ancestor takes a BigY, are not great outside of the British isles and colonies.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 8th January 2018, 09:45 AM
John McCoy John McCoy is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 629
You might have a different take on the matter if you were named Buchanan! A large number of Buchanans have taken the Big Y test, and it is now clear that they fall into distinct groups defined by multiple new SNP's that must reflect their ancestry and history. You can see this interesting result on Alex Williamson's "The Big Tree" website ytree dot net, look for the R-L1335 group.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 24th January 2018, 05:56 PM
rt-sails rt-sails is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald View Post
But no matches at all is showstopper.
Just checked for my Big Y matches -- 0, none. I'd understand not matching on my terminal SNP (BY4064); it's bound to be a small group. But that's a couple of levels below Z253, a larger group. I just checked R-Z253 project stats; they have 822 members, ~380 with Big Y. Surely, at least some of the 380 are Z253+.
If the feature is non-functional now, there should be some notice.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 25th January 2018, 07:11 AM
Armando Armando is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt-sails View Post
Just checked for my Big Y matches -- 0, none. I'd understand not matching on my terminal SNP (BY4064); it's bound to be a small group. But that's a couple of levels below Z253, a larger group. I just checked R-Z253 project stats; they have 822 members, ~380 with Big Y. Surely, at least some of the 380 are Z253+.
If the feature is non-functional now, there should be some notice.
You have to have 30 or fewer non-matching variants with people that are positive for R-Z253 in order for you to have a match. When I look at BY4064 at http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=2749 there are at least 20 variants downstream from BY4064 which means that you have about that many more variants and so does anyone else that is positive for BY4064 which amounts to about 40 non-matching variants. So there needs to be someone that matches you on about another 5 variants downstream from BY4064 at which point some of your unnamed SNPs variants will get an SNP name and will be added to the FTDNA haplotree and your terminal SNP will be one of those newly named SNPs.

Last edited by Armando; 25th January 2018 at 07:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 25th January 2018, 02:21 PM
Ric Ric is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 77
It doesn't help when somebody says 'it works for me so who cares about the others ?'

15 novel variants is ridiculously small. It could refer to a known SNP/ancestor 1500 to 2000 years old and who said we are not interested in older ancestors ?
Anyways I have complained enough, a few here seem to agree that NO BigY matches is more damaging than a lot of irrelevant BigY matches (that can be easily filtered), but we don't seem to get any traction.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 3rd February 2018, 09:17 AM
Ric Ric is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 77
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 4th February 2018, 08:20 PM
wkauffman wkauffman is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 153
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
  #30  
Old 5th February 2018, 07:23 AM
Ric Ric is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by wkauffman View Post
Why should the majority of the BigY test clients care to understand and work with matches where their shared ancestor was >2000 years ago?
It is totally inappropriate for FTDNA to decide for us what we should be interested in and what we should not.
I am interested in all my ancestry and I bet many others are. Why shouldn't we ? make a poll...

Also, who were our ancestors 3000 years ago(I mean their descendants as matches, you get that) provides information about where/who they could be 2000 years ago.
This is important precisely for those who don't get matches from a <2000years common ancestor, and who will never get any. Usually from countries who don't test much : France, Germany (all German matches are colonials), Belgium, Central Europe, Eastern Europe all the way to Russia. This is a big chunk. The chances of finding a match with a common ancestor younger than 2000 years from these areas is null.

With a bunch of 3000 years matches you can contact by email, make correlations and perhaps infer who or where are potentially interesting people who should test, who may already be STR match at a level insignificant, but good candidates for a nearby clade in BigY testing... and you get closer and closer. If you know nothing, nothing will happen.

But I concede that a 2000 years old clipping threshold is all good for the Anglo-sphere customers with a heavy testing demographic.
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
Useless Test! Webgurl Grumbles & Gripes 9 20th August 2016 02:35 PM
Family tree is useless gatty Grumbles & Gripes 10 21st April 2016 07:34 PM
New (Useless) Y Match Notice 381858 Grumbles & Gripes 16 15th July 2015 10:34 AM
ysearch is broken and useless Archdale Paternal Lineage (Y-DNA STR) Advanced 5 7th December 2013 04:45 AM
Useless Statistic Frederator Family Finder Advanced Topics 34 11th December 2012 12:28 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 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.