Batch Status

[fmoakes]

Jim,
Since you are always around providing good service and attempting to keep all us impatient testees in line, how about trying to get FTDNA to provide you periodic uptdates on the general status of testing on each batch as it progresses through the system. Once a week would probably keep the unrest at a manageable level. I would think they would be willing to do this, without disclosing any private or company proprietary data, as a good investment in public relations. Also, in return for your time and effort, you would be our real hero.
Just a thought.

[JTCullen]

I did give this a try. If you mean Mr Denning, I could be wrong but he didn't seem to take to ideas like this very well. See Post #69 on the Batch 147 Forum for reference. Having been soundly squashed and having therefore abandoned this approach, I decided to send off an email to Bennett Greenspan regarding just such a system as you've described above. Either an in-depth FAQ describing the process and reasons for possible delays or a table giving in-depth batch progress. Like you, I still believe it's a very good idea for both sides of the issue and for the same reasons you gave. If Mr Greenspan is as responsive to email as I hear he is, I hope to hear back from him in (maybe) a few days.

[Jim Denning]

Jim,
Since you are always around providing good service and attempting to keep all us impatient testees in line, how about trying to get FTDNA to provide you periodic uptdates on the general status of testing on each batch as it progresses through the system. Once a week would probably keep the unrest at a manageable level. I would think they would be willing to do this, without disclosing any private or company proprietary data, as a good investment in public relations. Also, in return for your time and effort, you would be our real hero.
Just a thought.

they have been busy improving things you want me to stop them so they can do what i do?

[fmoakes]

they have been busy improving things you want me to stop them so they can do what i do?

JTCULLEN wrote, "If you mean Mr Denning, I could be wrong but he didn't seem to take to ideas like this very well."

Looks like you read that right! Any Jim that could help keep us informed on what is going on with the batches at FTDNA would be my hero. A little impatients with 1 May arriving with no results, other than "your test failed and we are redoing it", for a test ordered before Christmas might be expected.

[Jim Denning]

this thread is a bad idea

see people from all batches will post genericly and which batch they are talking about will be lost

[sitiv1]

Suggestion

I think that a small change in the way that ftdna reports the progress they are making toward finishing a test would help. On my original page I had a series of steps that got filled in one step at a time. Now that I have results, I only have a "target date" I wonder if a series of steps like the first page, with a comment next to it and a date like "Passed 5/1" or "Failed, needs to be repeated" and a target date for the next step would relieve some of the worry that many people have. The process is more mysterious than it needs to be. I know that ftdna has this information in a computer somewhere; I bet all they need to do is find a way to present it to the public. I bet if one of the bosses says, "What is going on with kit 64901?" that somebody can answer without having to go over to a lab and look at a testtube.
ftdna seems like a competent company; they have been friendly and responsive everytime I've asked anything. I bet they could report better without slowing down.
I imagine that they don't report more because they don't want to answer a question everytime a step fails, but reporting nothing is worse.
steve

[JTCullen]

sitiv1 posted:
I only have a "target date" I wonder if a series of steps like the first page, with a comment next to it and a date like "Passed 5/1" or "Failed, needs to be repeated" and a target date for the next step would relieve some of the worry that many people have.

That's not a bad idea either. As you say, as long as newcomers have a little more information without impeding FTDNA in it's primary function, then it would be a nice improvement. I'm sure Mr Greenspan and company will come up with something that fits the bill.

I've had a great experience with FTDNA and the whole goal here is to make FTDNA an even nicer experience for newcomers than I've had. Really, Mr Denning (no offense), no thread can be a bad idea if we're exchanging ideas on how to make it even better than it already is, right?

[lgmayka]

Since my mtDNA results were scheduled for today, if I don't get them by Friday, to whom at FTDNA should I direct my email query?

Keep in mind that a later batch, 144, has already gotten its results today.

[efgen]

lgmayka,

You can email Bennett Greenspan or Eileen Krause (there may be others who could answer test status questions too). Both of their email addresses are on the Contact Us page.

I remember you mentioned in a previous post that you had HVR1&2 in batch 143 and previously received Y-DNA results. Were your Y and mtDNA tests all in the same batch?

Elise

[lgmayka]

I remember you mentioned in a previous post that you had HVR1&2 in batch 143 and previously received Y-DNA results. Were your Y and mtDNA tests all in the same batch?

Yes, I ordered Y-DNA37 and mtDNAplus at the same time, in the same batch 143. I got my yDNA results in early April.

[efgen]

Ok, well let's think about this...

Your Y-DNA tests were done with the rest of batch 143. It sounds like they then had to go back and re-process your DNA for the mtDNA tests. Batches are sent to the lab weekly, so I assume the lab works in somewhat of an assembly line -- when a batch moves on to step 2 of the process, they start the next batch at step 1.

Let's assume that a week after your batch 143 Y-DNA tests were started, the batch 144 tests were started. By the time your Y-DNA test was done and they started on your mtDNA, batch 144 was already well into the process. Now, I don't know if your sample would have been included with samples from a later batch or if it would have been handled separately, maybe with other samples requiring additional tests and/or with samples that failed their first test and needed to be re-run. Either way, if the process works as I've assumed it does, then it definitely makes sense to me that your mtDNA tests aren't due until after our batch 144 results were due. In fact, I'm actually surprised that your target date is only two days after ours instead of two weeks This can probably be attributed to the fact that the lab already had your sample, plus they may not have had to start completely back at the beginning from step 1.

Did you follow all that?

Anyway, I'm by no means an authority on any of this -- it just appears to me that they do different tests on the same sample in series, not in parallel, which will certainly push your final results date out.

If you're interested, you could email Bennett or someone else at FTDNA and ask for some authoritative information about how tests like yours are processed. If you decide to do this, please let us know what you find out!

[lgmayka]

Elise, you are suggesting that because I asked for both yDNA and mtDNA testing, my mtDNA test results would be later than those of someone in batch 144 who had asked for mtDNA testing only.

The flaw in that logic is clear from reading the thread associated with batch 144. At least some of those people asked for both yDNA and mtDNA testing just as I did, yet they have now gotten both results!

I can only conclude that our mtDNA batch, or even my personal sample, got goofed up and needed a re-run. Or perhaps, as my brother suggests, FTDNA has found extraterrestrial or artificially altered DNA from my mother and is consulting with NASA and/or the CIA on "what do we tell the customer?"

[efgen]

Only way to know for sure is to email FTDNA and ask
Elise