Go Back   Family Tree DNA Forums > Family Tree DNA Communications > Features Requests & Bug Reports Area

Features Requests & Bug Reports Area This forum is for customers to talk about features they would like to see. It may also be used to report potential website issues and account bugs, though you may get faster service by sending those through the Open a Request feature found in the Customer Service link at the top of the forum page.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 27th August 2017, 10:26 AM
Ann Turner Ann Turner is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by nooni View Post
I re-downloaded the .zip file from Ancestry about twenty minutes ago and this copy has the V2.0 and DIAGNOSTIC format, so it appears Ancestry has started reverting back to the old header. However, the unzipped file is now 17,595 KB, and of course FTDNA still won't accept the .zip or .txt file. So I don't know that the issue is entirely the header since my file's text now matches.

I don't have the patience to make a copy of a pre-broken, 18.1 MG .txt file and manually change the ATCGs to the new file's in an effort to capture these invisible format changes, but I wonder if that's what it'll take for some of us.
If you'd like to send me copies of your old and new downloads, I could take a look at them and see what differences I spot. My regular email is DNACousins@gmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 27th August 2017, 11:12 AM
OldFinneyKid OldFinneyKid is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: California
Posts: 20
Are file sizes an issue?

So far, from what I have seen, the file size determines whether the fix will work on files downloaded over the last week or two. It seems that the Ancestry files are now being downloaded with the proper header so the fix is no longer necessary. File size appears to remain an issue.

All the older V1 files with an uncompressed size of 18,400 KB seem to work. All the newer V2 files with an uncompressed size of 17,686 KB seem to work.

The files that will not work, header fix or no header fix, are the ones where the uncompressed size is something different.

Does anyone see an exception -- a file with the correct size that cannot be fixed? -- or a file with a different size that works?
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 27th August 2017, 05:49 PM
nooni nooni is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Turner View Post
If you'd like to send me copies of your old and new downloads, I could take a look at them and see what differences I spot. My regular email is DNACousins@gmail.com
Thank you for your offer! I've transferred two kits into FTDNA before, and this one I'm having trouble with is my third. I realized it would make the most sense to compare two .txt files from the same person, but when I re-downloaded the Ancestry .zip files for the two previous kits, they both came up as the original 18.1 MGs (exactly 18,110,076 bytes). This third one that finished Ancestry's processing on 16 Aug 2017 is the only one that is 17,595,826 bytes.

I think whatever formatting change that FTDNA doesn't like is built into recent data. Of course, I can't check the first two kits to see if FTDNA still accepts them since I've already transferred them to FTDNA previously. I wonder if it has anything to do with AncestryDNA's administrator change for profiles from 18 July...
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 27th August 2017, 10:31 PM
Ann Turner Ann Turner is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by nooni View Post
Thank you for your offer! I've transferred two kits into FTDNA before, and this one I'm having trouble with is my third. I realized it would make the most sense to compare two .txt files from the same person, but when I re-downloaded the Ancestry .zip files for the two previous kits, they both came up as the original 18.1 MGs (exactly 18,110,076 bytes). This third one that finished Ancestry's processing on 16 Aug 2017 is the only one that is 17,595,826 bytes.

I think whatever formatting change that FTDNA doesn't like is built into recent data. Of course, I can't check the first two kits to see if FTDNA still accepts them since I've already transferred them to FTDNA previously. I wonder if it has anything to do with AncestryDNA's administrator change for profiles from 18 July...
I could still see if the SNP coverage is the same, if you'd like.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 29th August 2017, 01:49 PM
462DNA 462DNA is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 4
Like others here, I've been unsuccessful in trying to upload raw data for an AncestryDNA kit which completed its processing on August 22, 2017. When I first downloaded the raw data on the same day it finished, I immediately noticed that the header had a V1.0, something which was mentioned earlier in this thread. However, I didn't try to upload it to FamilyTreeDNA until several days later. When I did so, it was not accepted. I tried the remedies in this thread (changing the header) with no success.

I then decided to try to download a new copy and noticed that the header had changed to match the "older" style which some people had success in submitting. Unfortunately this file was also not accepted.

I noticed that the file size (17,595,826 bytes) did not match the expected 18,110,076 bytes which was mentioned in this thread. In fact, when I first downloaded the raw data and looked at number of lines or SNPs, I noticed it did not match up with the number I expected based on the ISOGG comparison chart.

Yesterday, I decided to download a sample AncestryDNA raw data file posted several weeks ago to the Personal Genome Project in order to compare the lines/SNPs. I found that there are 18532 fewer SNPs in my newer raw data! The older files seem to have 668,962 lines, whereas my newer raw data files only have 650,430.

After doing a basic comparison operation on the two different files, I found that there are 1354 SNPs which are apparently unique to the 17,595,826 byte "broken" file and 19886 SNPs unique to the sample (V2.0) Ancestry file from PGP. Could this be a possible change to Ancestry's chip? If so, it's a shame they're removing more SNPs.

I have to wonder whether these SNPs could have been removed deliberately for medical or other reasons. I have uploaded a list of the unique SNPs to each chip, and a list showing the differences in total SNPs for each chromosome.

Also, today another family member's AncestryDNA kit finished processing and the raw data is the same 650,340 lines.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 31st August 2017, 11:22 AM
Ann Turner Ann Turner is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,118
Thanks for the information above, 462DNA, which I forwarded on to Mike Cariaso of SNPedia. If he has any comments, I will post them here.

FTDNA appears to have very little flexibility for "minor" changes to file formats and contents. This is going to trap them over and over. GEDmatch simply reads in whatever SNPs are present.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 31st August 2017, 07:37 PM
462DNA 462DNA is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 4
To follow up on my previous message, I wanted to provide a more complete file for those who are curious about the structure of the newer "broken" AncestryDNA raw data files. To protect the privacy of the tested individual, I have replaced all allele letters with 0's. My apologies if this prevents certain types of analysis. Link is here.

Last edited by 462DNA; 31st August 2017 at 08:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 31st August 2017, 08:20 PM
prairielad prairielad is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,731
One thing to note when comparing fIles is that one should also look at position numbers. Snp names change as revisions to builds are made( merged with another) but position number will not change within the same build.
I understand that you are saying different number of snps but to truly understand which ones are different is position number. If two have same position but different Snp name, looking up Snp names will probably show two being merged in latest build revision
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 5th September 2017, 08:02 PM
CFegley CFegley is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 11
So, for those who have the "broken" Ancestry files, is there a way to upload them or are we just out of luck?
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 6th September 2017, 08:54 AM
angiebg1 angiebg1 is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 462DNA View Post
To follow up on my previous message, I wanted to provide a more complete file for those who are curious about the structure of the newer "broken" AncestryDNA raw data files. To protect the privacy of the tested individual, I have replaced all allele letters with 0's. My apologies if this prevents certain types of analysis. Link is here.
Mine is identical to the file you posted. Does anyone have a sample of one that works?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 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
AncestryDNA Upload Error... ibuprophen Features Requests & Bug Reports Area 1 25th August 2014 10:59 PM
Y-DNA from AncestryDNA? outland Paternal Lineage (Y-DNA STR) Advanced 2 29th June 2013 05:44 AM
23andMe or AncestryDNA next? Pied_Noir DNA and Genealogy for Beginners 21 25th January 2013 12:28 PM
AncestryDNA Swennilsson DNA and Genealogy for Beginners 268 31st August 2012 08:48 PM
PF vs AncestryDNA briancowings Family Finder Advanced Topics 11 27th June 2012 12:10 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 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 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.