If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I2b and so far not I2b1b test for other variants are pending.
Looks like you are the descendant of the earliest men to inhabit NW Europe. Pretty cool. Is that what you were expecting? I am still waiting for FTDNA to throw me a bone.
I'm not sure what particular test you're waiting for, but there is a post elsewhere on this Forum about a major delay in the STR panel 38 through 47 results due to a re-test requirement.
A 67 marker upgrade that I have sponsored seems to be affected by that delay.
Look at your haplotree. You should see some changes, specifically information on tests that have already cleared. In my case I am waiting for one more test to determine I2b1 or I2b1d. a b and c are already back as negative as were a couple of upstream tests. This has been happening over the last week. Check it out.
I'm also waiting on batch 325. My "pending lab results" page said to expect my first 12 markers on 14 Oct, but so far no word. Someone else on this thread mentioned a backlog. Has anyone received official word that they are behind schedule?
I'm not sure what particular test you're waiting for, but there is a post elsewhere on this Forum about a major delay in the STR panel 38 through 47 results due to a re-test requirement.
A 67 marker upgrade that I have sponsored seems to be affected by that delay.
It seems the delays are now beyond STR panels 38 thru 47. I am waiting for deep clade extended SNP test results. Hopefully, the delay is only due to staff tied up in retesting and not poor samples in our cases.
As I understand it, STR tests and SNP tests are done at different labs, so I guess a delay in STRs ought not to affect SNP work.
Whilst I did get emails about my STRs, I have never been emailed when my SNPs are done; I have always had to keep looking at my haplotree to see if the diagram and footnote text has changed.
On my page, it states that results for Batch 325 should be in by October 26. I can hardly wait.
bob
I was told to expect partial results by Oct 21 and full results by October 26. So far, I have received no results. FTDNA has told me their scientists are baffled by my sample. They are working very hard, but having lots of problems. Apparently, it is a very rare type of fast mutating DNA. The SNPs keep moving, making it hard to get an accurate reading. Something they have never encountered before. So, they need extra time (just kiddin) . Although, it is true I was supose to have my results by Oct 26 and I still have not gotten them.
I was told to expect partial results by Oct 21 and full results by October 26. So far, I have received no results.
In the latest issue of their "Facts & Genes" newsletter (Vol 8, Issue 3) FTDNA says: "The timing of this [mtDNA] technology upgrade was planned to allow us to complete the hundreds of orders we received for Y-DNA Deep Clade tests."
So if they have received hundreds of orders, I guess there's a backlog of SNP tests at the moment.
I have a deep clade test on order, as well as a basic MtDNA test. Both are expected by Nov. 2. I wonder if this puts things off quite a bit on those. Thus far, I have received the results on my (12-25) DYS upgrade and earwax factoid well ahead of schedule.
In the latest issue of their "Facts & Genes" newsletter (Vol 8, Issue 3) FTDNA says: "The timing of this [mtDNA] technology upgrade was planned to allow us to complete the hundreds of orders we received for Y-DNA Deep Clade tests."
So if they have received hundreds of orders, I guess there's a backlog of SNP tests at the moment.
That is a good point. I prefer FTDNA take the few extra weeks and maintain accuracy rather than rush to meet some time deadlines and compromize their standards. It is nice to hear that lots of people are getting deep clade testing. Hopefully, it will add to our sense of who does and does not have these new SNPs.
Comment