Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Get error when uploading ANcestryDNA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is there any explanation as to why some kits work and other's don't? My friend ordered a kit for their father, they got their results Saturday. They were able to upload their Ancestry DNA raw data file without any issue to ftDNA. My father's results came in Wednesday, just 4 days later, and my father's Ancestry data will NOT upload to ftDNA.

    I read the previous posts and tried all the possible fixes, but none have worked

    Comment


    • CFegley & JeremyGlen2017,

      You both are absolutely right. The files I have that upload with no problem are 17,686 kb and the ones that won't upload are 17,184 kb. Ugh, when are they going to fix this??

      Comment


      • Originally posted by aprilmcg123 View Post
        CFegley & JeremyGlen2017,

        You both are absolutely right. The files I have that upload with no problem are 17,686 kb and the ones that won't upload are 17,184 kb. Ugh, when are they going to fix this??
        April, at one point, I was told there is no rhyme or reason as to which "chip" is used for which test...they are selected randomly and that they only have to guarantee that the data is accurate for Ancestry's purposes, not anyone/anything else. Of course, that was before they finally agreed that my husband and son's files were "smaller" than some others...

        I've written another email and mentioned that more people are talking about it and when will I get an update...2 days ago. Waiting for a response...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by KATM View Post
          It sounds like your test got in just under the wire. From ISOGG's Ancestry DNA page, under Chip Versions, it says:

          Quote:
          From mid May 2016 onwards AncestryDNA began using a new chip for their autosomal DNA product

          and

          Quote:
          As of September 2016 the Ancestry v2 chip is not compatible with the Family Tree DNA autosomal DNA transfer program.

          (the latter no doubt reflected in, and possibly based at least partially on, this thread!)
          No, this was a separate issue that was resolved back in the spring of 2017. The incompatibility was publicized and the eventual fix was announced.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 462DNA View Post
            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.
            I have had 3 recent Ancestry DNA tests done. The first 2 were me and my grandmother, both uploaded to FTDNA just fine and are exactly the file size you have described here. The 3rd which we just got the results from yesterday, will not upload and gives the same error message others are describing here and is the same filesize as the problematic ones. Same exact problem to the tee and FTDNA still isnt accepting it. This seems to be a different chip than the others as its different SNPs, yes? I'm a software developer and even went as far as recreating a new file based upon the SNPs in the files that work and putting 0's for the missing SNPs(someone suggested using excel but it was far too slow, I just used mysql and php)....but alas it wont accept that file either, so I really don't know if its the actual file format or something missing in the data that its wanting(maybe some vital SNPs)? Or something about the way its compressed? (i'm just compressing the file on a mac using the OS).......very frustrating though and I wish we had some clue what the solution to this is. Also the original file is accepted by GEDMATCH and other places and shows matches with me and other relatives.

            Comment


            • Same problem - had a live chat with Ancestry

              I have just had a live chat with Dirk at Ancestry. He says the change to the raw data files was announced on 5/12/2016. https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/...estrydna-chip/

              The files are smaller, Dirk says, because:

              "It is due to certain snps being removed as they don't pertain to what we are testing for... Not necessarily a fault, but that there have been changes made and we can't determine what they [FTDNA] do on their end ... Yes, as far as I have been told the kits tested since the update described in the blog will be smaller as snps were refined so there will be less text or lines of data."

              So it looks as if the ball is in FTDNA's court. As my file uploaded ok on Gedmatch and My Heritage, it does seem to be about FTDNA.

              Comment


              • I hope everyone will keep in mind that the ability to transfer your file from one DNA testing company to another is an added feature made possible by the company you transfer to (whether FTDNA, My Heritage, or other). No company has a responsibility to accept another companies files, or is under any obligation to do so. They do it to serve current customers, and attract new customers. The receiving company often has to do extra work in order to accept the files. Of course they should keep customers up to date on their ability to accept files; that's an issue that seems to be aggravating things in this case.

                Since each company changes their chip at their own convenience, it's likely that the others have no idea ahead of time when the new chip will start to be used. It's understandable that customers get upset when these changes happen, and they try to upload a recent file that is not accepted, where earlier files were.

                We need to remember that in the current circumstances, the newer chips being used by 23andMe and Ancestry have much fewer SNPs in common with FTDNA's chip. There may be no satisfactory solution to making the new files work at FTDNA with the same quality that the older files did. It's very possible that the matches will be less reliable, or at least fewer in quantity. You can see on the ISOGG Autosomal SNP Comparison chart how the new chips compare with the current FTDNA chip.

                Both Ancestry and 23andMe have changed their chips (now customized chips called GSA, from the chip-making company Illumina) to incorporate an increased amount of medically relevant SNPs. Your medical information is profitable for them. FTDNA has always removed many such SNPs on their chip. We shall have to wait and see if FTDNA can change things so that the new files can be accepted. Eventually they, too, will have to change their chip (Illumina will not make the current OmniExpress chip any more) - but I doubt they will do so in the way that the other two companies have done.

                Places like GEDmatch (which has a new section created just for these new chips, called "GEDmatch Genesis") and others like DNA.Land and MyHeritage are using imputation in order to make transferred files work with earlier chip version files. That is not necessarily a good thing; see Roberta Estes' post "Imputation Matching Comparison" (second of what will be three posts on the topic) for one look at it.
                Last edited by KATM; 10th October 2017, 05:47 PM.

                Comment


                • Thanks for the explanation

                  Aggravating is the word. Some of the wording of the error message does beg a question and compounds the aggravation, especially after the time spent on trying to upload files.

                  As a consumer, even for a free service or one at minimal cost, I may have grumbled for a few seconds if I had been alerted about the new generation of chips on the upload page, but a short well-judged paragraph giving reasons and then marketing the benefits of FTDNA would have felt more respectful, even if disrespect wasn’t intended!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by genealice View Post
                    Aggravating is the word. Some of the wording of the error message does beg a question and compounds the aggravation, especially after the time spent on trying to upload files.

                    As a consumer, even for a free service or one at minimal cost, I may have grumbled for a few seconds if I had been alerted about the new generation of chips on the upload page, but a short well-judged paragraph giving reasons and then marketing the benefits of FTDNA would have felt more respectful, even if disrespect wasn’t intended!
                    FamilytreeDNA does state which files the do accept on their transfer page
                    https://www.familytreedna.com/autosomal-transfer
                    "
                    23andMe© V3
                    23andMe© V4
                    AncestryDNA™ V1
                    AncestryDNA™ V2

                    Unfortunately, at this time, you cannot transfer 23andMe© V1 or 23andMe© V2 results from 23andMe©"

                    Granted they have not included in the final statement that 23andMeV5 and possibly Ancestry New chip version is not accepted

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by prairielad View Post
                      FamilytreeDNA does state which files the do accept on their transfer page
                      https://www.familytreedna.com/autosomal-transfer
                      "
                      23andMe© V3
                      23andMe© V4
                      AncestryDNA™ V1
                      AncestryDNA™ V2

                      Unfortunately, at this time, you cannot transfer 23andMe© V1 or 23andMe© V2 results from 23andMe©"

                      Granted they have not included in the final statement that 23andMeV5 and possibly Ancestry New chip version is not accepted
                      Hi,

                      Nice to hear from you. I remember reading many years ago a book on creating websites called "Don't Make Me Think". I do think the link to the page you've given me should have the note regarding incompatible formats much higher up, or a bold link like "check if your format is compatible" at the top. On my laptop it looks as if the sign up and the top list listing the companies is all there is.

                      It does not tell people to scroll down to the other information.

                      There is nothing on the "submit" page where, imo, there should be a list of those formats which will not be accepted. Of course if someone has a better idea of how to present it, that's fine as well.

                      But at the moment it's not intuitive and important information will easily be missed. Many, like me, will spend hours trying to upload a file which isn't accepted but I have noted you have said that even the list lower down on the webpage of the link you have given is not up to date.

                      Of course I'm sure there are factors which I'm not mentioning involved. But ... there should be clear flagging up for the consumer. The length of this thread shows it is not clear. I am purely talking as a consumer and there are plenty of aspects of Family Tree DNA which are excellent - just not this! If FTDNA had been clear about this, I wouldn't be on this thread.

                      My file which is not accepted has the following header. Am I correct in assuming it is one of the new chips? It certainly seems to be one of the Ancestry smaller files. I have left some lines out to get to the nub of the matter!


                      #Data was collected using AncestryDNA array version: V2.0
                      #Data is formatted using AncestryDNA converter version: V1.0
                      #Below is a text version of your DNA file from Ancestry.com DNA, LLC. THIS
                      #INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND IS INTENDED FOR GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH
                      #ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, OR HEALTH PURPOSES. THE EXPORTED DATA IS


                      So far it does not upload to Ancestry (I've opened this file up but obviously I've tried many times in the zip non-text format without opening up the download).

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by genealice View Post
                        I have just had a live chat with Dirk at Ancestry. He says the change to the raw data files was announced on 5/12/2016. https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/...estrydna-chip/

                        The files are smaller, Dirk says, because:

                        "It is due to certain snps being removed as they don't pertain to what we are testing for... Not necessarily a fault, but that there have been changes made and we can't determine what they [FTDNA] do on their end ... Yes, as far as I have been told the kits tested since the update described in the blog will be smaller as snps were refined so there will be less text or lines of data."

                        So it looks as if the ball is in FTDNA's court. As my file uploaded ok on Gedmatch and My Heritage, it does seem to be about FTDNA.
                        That's nice that you think Dirk understands the issue. This is NOT related to the changes that were made in May 2016 when Ancestry started to use a new chip. FtDNA had to make some changes to accept uploads from the new chip so uploads were not possible for anyone tested with the new chip for several months. Then it was possible again, until fairly recently. Files that are being downloaded now are often missing several SNPs and will not upload to FtDNA.

                        Dirk is probably keen to help but doesn't know what he is talking about.

                        Comment


                        • Ah, you’re so psychologically astute about me - yes, I’m a nice person who skips through life thinking happy thoughts about everybody .

                          Whatever the timing involved, it does seem likely that it’s about the change in file size which Dirk from Ancestry did address:

                          “ ... Yes, as far as I have been told the kits tested since the update described in the blog will be smaller as snps were refined so there will be less text or lines of data."

                          As I’ve said, it would be good practice for FTDNA, as it offers and advertises the service, to alert people about the smaller Ancestry files and that they will not upload. For me, it’s been a waste of time and effort, although I have got to meet nice people like you - and Dirk! lol

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by genealice View Post
                            I have just had a live chat with Dirk at Ancestry. He says the change to the raw data files was announced on 5/12/2016. https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/...estrydna-chip/

                            The files are smaller, Dirk says, because:

                            "It is due to certain snps being removed as they don't pertain to what we are testing for... Not necessarily a fault, but that there have been changes made and we can't determine what they [FTDNA] do on their end ... Yes, as far as I have been told the kits tested since the update described in the blog will be smaller as snps were refined so there will be less text or lines of data."

                            So it looks as if the ball is in FTDNA's court. As my file uploaded ok on Gedmatch and My Heritage, it does seem to be about FTDNA.
                            You are describing a different change that happened last year. I've got 5 total dna samples from ancestry and 3 different formats:

                            11/24/2014 v1.0 - 701495 lines
                            03/01/2017 v2.0 - 668961 lines
                            08/25/2017 v2.0 - 668961 lines
                            09/29/2017 v2.0 - 668961 lines
                            10/08/2017 v2.0 - 650429 lines

                            These are possibly +1 lines if you count the last line-feed. Clearly the last "v2.0" one is in a different format of some kind and its the only one not accepted by FTDNA. Even "changing" the new format one to the other 2.0 formats by removing new snps and filling the missing snps with no-calls doesn't seem to fix it as FTDNA wont accept that new file either with the same error message, although its possible my method of creating this new file is introducing other changes to the file I'm unaware of. I'm willing to provide the last 2 samples to anyone who has the programming skills to attempt what I did. Let me know...

                            Comment


                            • FTDNA is really missing the boat here......I've actually paid for all my autosomal transfers to upgrade($19), and wanting to do the same thing to my non-working file but cannot. I've also paid for a y-dna 37 test ($160). This non working file unfortunately is one of the most important I need to be able to import as it's my mom and my dads dna is not available. Clearly we need a fix here, and they are losing lots of money not fixing it!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by genealice View Post
                                Ah, you’re so psychologically astute about me - yes, I’m a nice person who skips through life thinking happy thoughts about everybody .

                                Whatever the timing involved, it does seem likely that it’s about the change in file size which Dirk from Ancestry did address:

                                “ ... Yes, as far as I have been told the kits tested since the update described in the blog will be smaller as snps were refined so there will be less text or lines of data."

                                As I’ve said, it would be good practice for FTDNA, as it offers and advertises the service, to alert people about the smaller Ancestry files and that they will not upload. For me, it’s been a waste of time and effort, although I have got to meet nice people like you - and Dirk! lol
                                While Dirk's explanation may sound logical when you're only looking at a single file which will not upload, I manage several profiles for my family members and have found that results files from tests run within a single month of each other are of different sizes and some are accepted for upload to ftdna while others aren't. So this can't possibly be due to them using less SNP's for all customers since May 2016.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X