Tweet
When will FTDNA's Autosomal DNA Transfer be compatible with Ancestry's updated file format?
-
-
I'll be surprised if ever. Like 23andMe's V4 chipset kits, AncestryDNA's new format does not have enough meat to it (i.e. SNP's used for genealogical prediction).Originally posted by PPLeBlanc View Post
If anyone is serious about relationships more than a few generations back and can only test with one service, Family Finder is the only way to go.
Jack -
I don't understand the rationale of changing to a chip that analyses LESS of your DNA.Comment
-
I would like to see FTDNA make a pledge not to ever make drop in the SNP's that it is measuring (except if a particular SNP is shown to be useless in analysis), but to only add to them. I think that would be a marketing coup.Originally posted by ltd-jean-pull View Post
Right now, FTDNA needs something.
JackComment
-
It is not so much that they test less of the DNA, just different SNPs which do not match up with FTDNA's tested SNPs...old ancestry chip tested the same SNPs as FTDNA (more or less) but ancestry customized new chip to test various other SNPsOriginally posted by ltd-jean-pull View Post
The new ancestry chip test around 642000 SNPs (chr 1 thru 22)
FTDNA chip tests around 698000 SNPs
But comparable SNPs (identical tested SNPs) between two chips is only around 411000 SNPSComment
-
I talked to Family Tree DNA about this problem & the recommendation is that the Ancestry folk simply participate in Family Finder with an actual sample & kit, rather than doing an autosomal transfer.
I have to wonder if that is a contributing factor in Family Tree DNA's decision to lower the Family Finder price indefinitely to $69.
Timothy PetermanComment
-
Let's be real. Ancestry kits compare just fine via GedMatch, and the Ancestry.com tree-matching feature is just simply AWESOME. Worth every penny. I just bought a bunch of Ancestry kits for the sole purpose of duplicating tests, on folks done here and at 23andMe, just to get Ancestry tree matching.
Don't get me wrong, I am an FTDNA fan. FTDNA just doesn't have the tools we need to find matches in trees, largely because trees, and tree tools, here are largely lame, if they exist at all. Ancestry made the strategic move to exit y- and mt- DNA and focus only on autosomal and tree-matching. It seems to be paying off for them and folks who use Ancestry.Comment
-
BTW - I agree fully with georgian1950 and ltd-jean-pull as posted prior; LESS (fewer) should be avoided unless it is actually proven better.
On the flip side, I'd rather 100 quarters than 100 pennies, all things being normal and I couldn't have both.Comment
-
The new AncestryDNA kits and 23andMe V4 (and earlier V2) chipset kits may match with Family Finder, earlier AncestryDNA kits, and 23andMe V3 chipset kits for close relationships with big matching segments, but they are completely incompatible when you are looking at smaller segments a bit further back.Originally posted by hansonrf View Post
The latest AncestryDNA and 23andMe kits are seriously watering down what you can discover with GEDmatch.
I also don't care for what AncestryDNA is doing with its own analysis where it throws away what it does not understand (i.e. Timber) instead of trying to figure it out.
The current AncestryDNA is crap, but the company is walking away with most of the market.
Jack WyattComment
-
Like you, I've been doing this energetically for a few years, help others, and have my own successes and failures.
A couple of my largest successes have been with my grandsons on Ancestry and the connections Ancestry has found with others who have extensive trees. The connections it found through me and through my wife's side were known, correct and confirmed. The connections it discovered on their father's side were unknown (the reason I tested them, specifically), and have been found to be correct in the situations we have been able to now confirm. Ancestry has many more trees, more in-depth and better researched/more accurate trees, and apparently uses time/place intersections in addition to just names. These are features folks on this forum have been clamoring for, to no know avail...
No other service has or uses this info, either, and many of us have resorted to spreadsheets and assorted witchcraft to do similar searching for crossed paths, since besides in-vitro, a couple had to have been in the same place at the same time to conceive. I don't pretend to know their algorithms but I do know that the results are amazing. The biggest problem there as well is folks with DNA and no trees, and folks who want to get without sharing in return; an unfortunate sign of the times.
I like FTDNA; they are the best at y- and mt- and I am obviously a fan of these well-run forums and the true experts that spend their days here (like yourself). I admin more family/friend kits here than anywhere else. As a retired engineer/scientist I just feel compelled to admit how Ancestry has advanced the utility of as-DNA matching. I just wish they did imports, or better yet, that they purchased GedMatch...
Bob HansonComment
-
"Ancestry has many more trees, more in-depth and better researched/more accurate trees, and apparently uses time/place intersections in addition to just names. These are features folks on this forum have been clamoring for, to no know avail..."
I have a problem with your statement about Ancestry family trees. There are many good trees and then there are the many idiots who copy from a tree without even looking at it.
Many cases of following a line and then you reach a point and the parents are supposedly younger than their children .
Then there are people claiming their ancestors were born in Massachusetts or Connecticut before 1620. Really! White people there before the Mayflower. Not hardly!Comment
-
Of course, FTDNA's Family Trees are pure crap trying to follow through the scrolling all over the place. What a poor piece of crap. Whoever designed and coded it had no idea how to do it. It wasn't good on it;s previous version but it got worse with this version.
As to all the phony trees with the tested person and no one else. Look like FTDNA is running a scam so in about six months, they can announce we have more family trees on our site than any other testing company. Thanks a lot for nothing!Comment
-
My guess is that FTDNA will suddenly revert to something like the old version of the pedigree charts (the version that kinda worked) and proclaim it a great improvement! But yes, there's no excuse for the current version.Comment
-
My guess is that FTDNA will let Geni.com do the heavy-lifting and they'll only fix obvious errors and/or do some minor tweaks.
I've been keeping an eye on the progress of their addition of DNA and Geni will have to make some major upgrades to be competitive with Ancestry but they could poach ideas from GEDmatch and Ancestry like:
As they will have your tree the data is there to allow them to suggest where the DNA matches are coming from based on location and/or surname, as well as triangulation from known relatives and the particular chromosomes you match on. Currently, it isn't very helpful.Originally posted by hansonrf View PostComment
-
The trees at AncestryDNA are a great way to test hypothetical lines of ancestry. I prefix such ancestors with a (?) & then see if new leaf hinted matches are pulled from the mix.
I much prefer Family Finder's reports with segment data, which I process in Genome Mate Pro. Trying to find a 4th or 5th cousin to participate can be a challenge, since they frequently don't share enough DNA with my field of participants to be worth testing. A minority do. I find that matches at AncestryDNA are a good way of identifying the good prospects for testing in Family Finder. Before the AncestryDNA downgrade, I would simply help them through an autosomal transfer. Now, this will be a lot tougher.
Timothy PetermanComment
Comment