Originally posted by dna
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
For those awaiting Y results
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by ekc123; 16 February 2015, 05:16 PM.
-
Originally posted by ekc123 View PostBusinesses are generally under an implicit duty to comply with industry standards. What constitutes a reasonable wait time is determined by considering all businesses in a particular industry. I don't know whether the company should be required to include such language on its site or not, but it should have informed potential and existing customers of the supply problems and increased wait times so that customers were fully informed about the nature of what they were ordering and what to expect in terms of wait times. It should also update its "haplotree page" so customers are not induced to order tests for snps that aren't even a part of the tree to which they belong. That has been an ongoing issue with regard to the HG I tree. The company was allegedly informed of the errors by project administrators months ago, and yet the erroneous tree is still being displayed on the haplotree page.
It is my understanding that Y-DNA STR and mtDNA tests are being done by FTDNA using different technology, than other companies employ. And the consumer observed difference in speed is caused by different accuracy levels...
Mr. W.
P.S.
As I had written many times here, I wish there were notifications/e-mails about the state of the tests.
Comment
-
DNA
My first post. Waiting on a Y37 in 601. This is my first ever DNA test with anyone. Expected results dates have been set back twice now. Not exactly the way I expected this to go. Guess I didn't read this forum before requesting my kit. My bad.
Anyway, you probably have some recourse by disputing the charge with your credit card company (hopefully you did use a cc) - that should get someones attention. One of the main reasons I never use a debit card.
Hopefully they'll get this all figured out soon.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ekc123 View PostBusinesses are generally under an implicit duty to comply with industry standards. What constitutes a reasonable wait time is determined by considering all businesses in a particular industry. I don't know whether the company should be required to include such language on its site or not, but it should have informed potential and existing customers of the supply problems and increased wait times so that customers were fully informed about the nature of what they were ordering and what to expect in terms of wait times. It should also update its "haplotree page" so customers are not induced to order tests for snps that aren't even a part of the tree to which they belong. That has been an ongoing issue with regard to the HG I tree. The company was allegedly informed of the errors by project administrators months ago, and yet the erroneous tree is still being displayed on the haplotree page. It would seem that the recommendations and suggested corrections made by the project administrators were simply ignored in this regard. Granted it takes time to fix such errors, but several months have passed and nothing on that page has changed. Unless project members consult with administrators before ordering, they might very well or an snp test that is completely unnecessary since it actually belongs in a different branch of I (I believe this is the case for Z63, for example).
Comment
-
Batch 599 Slowed Down
Batch 599. On Jan. 29 I received a notice that my Dad's Y13-37 had been completed. Until today I wanted for the data to be ENTERED so I could see his results. FTdna has never posted any of the panels.
Today I saw the Y-37 segment was back to saying Pending, instead of Complete. Now it is due to be completed Feb. 11-28.
I am also waiting for Y-38 through Y-67. It has given me the completion date of Feb. 11-28 all of February.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dna View PostIn addition to your analysis, in my opinion people purchasing today goods and services using the Internet are accustomed to be notified on any status change and not held incommunicado for months.
That is, there is the expectation to get automated e-mail notifications:- DNA extraction succeeded/failed/retried
- machine doing Y-DNA STR panel 1-12 markers testing succeeded/failed/retried
- quality control passed/returned back for retesting/another swab kit required
- etc., etc.
THUMBS UP MR/MS DNA
Comment
-
Originally posted by Laizuregirl View PostBatch 599. On Jan. 29 I received a notice that my Dad's Y13-37 had been completed. Until today I wanted for the data to be ENTERED so I could see his results. FTdna has never posted any of the panels.
Today I saw the Y-37 segment was back to saying Pending, instead of Complete. Now it is due to be completed Feb. 11-28.
I am also waiting for Y-38 through Y-67. It has given me the completion date of Feb. 11-28 all of February.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ekc123 View PostThat's great. I am still waiting on one panel 86-93 for my y111 upgrade, but I've pretty much given up on receiving the results on it before March. I'm sick of this whole business and wouldn't have ordered it in the first place, but someone ordered it as a gift on my behalf, and so here I sit waiting once again for results for another test.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alexandrina View PostIf this is an upgrade the Y111 test along with previous tests have taken up alot of the DNA sample from the test kit submitted, and if a panel fails the Lab techs need to go to the 2nd vial and start the process all over again. What batch is your Y111 in ekc123 ?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Laizuregirl View PostBatch 599. On Jan. 29 I received a notice that my Dad's Y13-37 had been completed. Until today I wanted for the data to be ENTERED so I could see his results. FTdna has never posted any of the panels.
Today I saw the Y-37 segment was back to saying Pending, instead of Complete. Now it is due to be completed Feb. 11-28.
I am also waiting for Y-38 through Y-67. It has given me the completion date of Feb. 11-28 all of February.
His only matches are at 12 markers.
At 25 markers he has several matches with genetic distance of 1. So far I have not been able to read their names because the operation times out, but it will eventually work.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dna View PostThe second part is quite clear.
It is my understanding that Y-DNA STR and mtDNA tests are being done by FTDNA using different technology, than other companies employ. And the consumer observed difference in speed is caused by different accuracy levels...
Mr. W.
P.S.
As I had written many times here, I wish there were notifications/e-mails about the state of the tests.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Guetta View PostZ63 is a recurrent SNP that appears twice in Haplogroup I, once in the I1 subclade and once in the I2 subclade. I1-Z63 is much more common than I2-Z63 but that does not mean I2-Z63 is not significant.Last edited by ekc123; 18 February 2015, 02:30 AM.
Comment
-
I mention the Z63 issue in this thread merely to point out that accuracy is not the problem with these delays. Rather, it is yet another example of the lack of coordination, communication, and cooperation that are the real cause of frustration on the part of long-term customers. Right below my known terminal snp, CTS6433, Z63 is listed on my haplotree page and, had I not first consulted with project administrators, I probably would have ordered this test based upon its erroneous placement in the tree. IF the company does not bother to correct an error that has been displayed for months, then I honestly do not believe that it is too concerned about causing frustration over testing delays due to supply issues that were only brought to light after many projected completion dates had lapsed and many new customers ordered tests without the knowledge that they were in for a long wait while the new process was being developed 'in house' by the same lab(s) charged with processing customer tests. Hardly an accuracy problem. More like a major communication breakdown on multiple levels.
Comment
Comment