For those awaiting Y results

[Kev0]

Just throwing in my data...

Y-67 Batched 12/25 into 602

1-12 - 1/22/-2/5
13-25 - 2/5-02/19
26-37 - 2/5-02/19
38-47 - 2/5-02/19
48-60 - 2/5-02/19
61-67 - 2/5-02/19

[RandyZie]

Same here Kev0

[Dna-donut]

Inquiring minds want to know

So apparently batch 602 has an earlier completion date than batches in the 590's. That kind of makes me wonder how they are prioritizing the tests. You would think it would be FIFO (with the exception of errors).

[MikeP]

Grain of Salt

I feel that the estimated dates should be taken with a grain of salt, since more recent kits have dates set based on the original "official" wait time, which may not be valid. There are many reports of people seeing their expected wait time shrink by a logical progression to 1-2 weeks and then get stuck there. I think it's entirely possible that the projected dates bear no relation to the actual testing schedule. Only when a kit is late, do they seem to start adjusting the official word ...

[KATM]

I'm waiting for an uncle's Y-67 results in batch 601. When I checked on Sunday, it showed 1-3 weeks (down from 2-4 shown on Tues. 1/13); I calculated that to be Jan. 25-Feb. 8.

I checked late last night, just after midnight, and now it shows a date range, by panel:
Y-DNA1-12 Markers 01/15/2015 - 01/29/2015
Y-DNA13-25 Markers 01/29/2015 - 02/12/2015
Y-DNA26-37 Markers 01/29/2015 - 02/12/2015
Y-DNA38-47 Markers 01/29/2015 - 02/12/2015
Y-DNA48-60 Markers 01/29/2015 - 02/12/2015
Y-DNA61-67 Markers 01/29/2015 - 02/12/2015

The 13-25 through 61-67 panel dates are now later than what was predicted on Sunday.

A separate Family Finder test on another kit in batch 604 now shows the same "date range" type of estimate, also later than when last checked on Sunday.

[MikeP]

They seem to have gone back to using the mid-week batch date to reference to instead of changing on Sundays ... Other people have noted that results preferentially come in on Tuesdays and Thursdays, although, they can be reported most any day of the week. I also have a FF in batch 604 and will report when I see results. If everybody did this, it would help those who're waiting get a sense of how things are progressing and when to actually expect some results. One person reported batch 603 results last Friday, so I'm planning on checking in every day.

[DCook]

I'm waiting for an uncle's Y-67 results in batch 601. When I checked on Sunday, it showed 1-3 weeks (down from 2-4 shown on Tues. 1/13); I calculated that to be Jan. 25-Feb. 8.

I checked late last night, just after midnight, and now it shows a date range, by panel:
Y-DNA1-12 Markers 01/15/2015 - 01/29/2015
Y-DNA13-25 Markers 01/29/2015 - 02/12/2015
Y-DNA26-37 Markers 01/29/2015 - 02/12/2015
Y-DNA38-47 Markers 01/29/2015 - 02/12/2015
Y-DNA48-60 Markers 01/29/2015 - 02/12/2015
Y-DNA61-67 Markers 01/29/2015 - 02/12/2015

how are you finding dates for expected test completions?

The 13-25 through 61-67 panel dates are now later than what was predicted on Sunday.

A separate Family Finder test on another kit in batch 604 now shows the same "date range" type of estimate, also later than when last checked on Sunday.

[KATM]

how are you finding dates for expected test completions?

When you log in to your account, if you have a test pending, there should be a large button in the left column, "Awaiting Results" (also should be a graphic link in the section for your test - Y, mtDNA, or FF). Click on that and you go to the "Awaiting Lab Results" page, where the dates are in the "expected" column of the table there.

I just posted the dates from what I saw on my uncle's Awaiting Results page.

[381858]

601

I am getting the same date range for 601 Y that the other 601 person is getting. This is really a slow process. It has been almost 2 months since I ordered the darned kit; 23and me and ancestry were a lot faster.

I am also supposed to get DNA transfer results, but it has now been 2 business days since I paid the small fee and got batched as 606. That seems weird because the free one took just a few hours to give me 20 matches. I thought paying the fee would get me an almost immediate unlock. Heck, GEDmatch does a quicker job of this for no fee.

Does anyone know why the transfer would take this long?

[crhfish]

I'm in batch 593 and my results are not supposed to be in until mid February. I sent my kit in back in October. I have emailed and tried to make contact through Facebook. I just received this post on Facebook.

"Hi Chuck! Just as soon as our system is back up and I can access our email client, I'm going to send you a bit more detail on your tests. Thanks! Michelle"

It has been said before that they don't run these tests in order. They apparently jump around. I'm not saying they don't do that, but if it were me and I were assigning numbers to things it would be for a reason. That reason would be so I could start with number 1, then go on to number 2, then 3, you get my drift.

[Dna-donut]

I'm in batch 593 and my results are not supposed to be in until mid February. I sent my kit in back in October. I have emailed and tried to make contact through Facebook. I just received this post on Facebook.

"Hi Chuck! Just as soon as our system is back up and I can access our email client, I'm going to send you a bit more detail on your tests. Thanks! Michelle"

It has been said before that they don't run these tests in order. They apparently jump around. I'm not saying they don't do that, but if it were me and I were assigning numbers to things it would be for a reason. That reason would be so I could start with number 1, then go on to number 2, then 3, you get my drift.

As I stated before, I would think they would run them in a FIFO (First In First Out), naturally not including the exception for reruns on muddy tests.

Luckily there is someone here who actually answers questions and I did receive this private message today.

"we just changed how we do the pending dates to actual dates, so there may be a couple of weeks of weird dates that seem out of phase as we work out the exact system to report."

Now with all the advent of modern technology and the myriad of ways to communicate it would seem that someone should make this an official announcement.

It really seems like what FTDNA really lacks is a good PR spokesman who can make these official announcements. I bet it would lessen the anxiety of their customers and probably relieve some of the help desk calls as well.

I thought that is what these forums, Facebook, twitter and whatever else is for.....communication.

[lgmayka]

Do I dare to propose an uncomfortable hypothesis, based on several smidgens of evidence?

Is it possible that in mid-November, FTDNA's IT suffered a catastrophic failure that wiped out the data from many ongoing but incomplete tests, forcing a total re-run of those tests?

Here are my smidgens:

1) An administrator was specifically told that her/his bulk email was not only never sent but was totally lost, and he/she had to recompose it from scratch.

2) A Big Y participant, asking about the long delay waiting for results, was specifically told that his data suffered a "system error" and had to be totally re-run.

3) Numerous Big Y participants waited months for results, only to then be told (sometimes only upon calling by telephone!) that they needed to submit new DNA samples.

4) Many Y-STR panels were posted with missing markers, then totally removed--many weeks ago, with no further visible progress. Not just the 1-12 panel, for which FTDNA had a very weak explanation (how is Yseq able to order all those primers that FTDNA can't?), but other panels, for which FTDNA had no explanation at all.

Is my hypothesis at least barely possible?

I realize that any questioning of an "official" (bureaucratic) explanation may brand me in some people's eyes as a "conspiracy theorist" or even "paranoid." On the other hand, some people (sometimes those same people!) say that I am way too gullible and trusting, and that I need to be much more suspicious of what people tell me. (I just lost a substantial sum of money to a highly skilled con man.)

[Dna-donut]

Conspiracy

Do I dare to propose an uncomfortable hypothesis, based on several smidgens of evidence?

Hmmm I would find that hard to fathom since the bottleneck seems to have revolved around on the 590 and later batches. If an IT crash corrupted data how would it have only impacted those batches?

I'm no IT guy so I really don't know but it just seems that the primer problem fits better and seems to correspond to going to the NGS. If it was only IT then having to go to the NGS wouldn't have been needed, would it?

[Sarmat]

Is my hypothesis at least barely possible?

Sure, but then again we've heard multiple times from people who were waiting for delayed results and were told upon calling that they would need to submit new kits, only to have their results show up or to be told later by someone else that no new kit was necessary.

The latter is what happened in the case of my own Big Y. A manager in Customer Service, to whom I was directly referred by Bennett Greenspan, told me I needed to submit a new kit; Greenspan himself then replied, saying that that no new kit was necessary. Through him I later found out that my test was simply not started within the expected timeframe due to "space limitations" at the lab.

I think just as likely as your hypothesis -- or perhaps they are part and parcel -- is that FTDNA is experiencing serious growing pains and is struggling to handle an expanding customer base with their existing infrastructure.

[dna]

I can see serious pains and struggles, but my guess at their origins is very different.

W.

P.S. That does not exclude IT disasters or IT negligence or just IT inefficiency (some communication mishandlings have otherwise no reasonable explanations... ).