Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For those awaiting Y results

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

  • Originally posted by dna View Post
    You mean that to satisfy the regulators (rules) the website should include a disclaimer at the bottom, it will take as long as it is going to take ?

    W.
    Businesses 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).
    ekc123
    FTDNA Customer
    Last edited by ekc123; 16 February 2015, 05:16 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ekc123 View Post
      Businesses 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.
      The 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


      • 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 Post
          Businesses 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).
          Z63 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.

          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 Post
              In 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.
              W.
              LIKE BUTTON !
              THUMBS UP MR/MS DNA

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Laizuregirl View Post
                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
                .
                Did you look for the results on the Project results page within the ungrouped section Laizuregirl? If the results were notified as partially completed they should really show up there, but not within the Kit's YDNA profile matching pages.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ekc123 View Post
                  That'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.
                  If 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 Alexandrina View Post
                    If 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 ?
                    I submitted a new kit relatively recently when I ordered FF if I remember correctly, so lack of viable samples shouldn't be a problem for me, personally. Actually, I haven't been waiting all that long compared to many others on here that are still waiting on orders from October. I suspect that the missing panel is having to be rerun and that the delay is due, in part, to the pre-existing backlog. My y111 is in 601.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Laizuregirl View Post
                      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.
                      On Feb. 17, 2015 my Batch 599 was completed. All the way from marker 13-67 has been posted on my 90-year-old-Dad's page.

                      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 Post
                        The 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.
                        If that is the case, it would probably be difficult to pursue a complaint based on lack of timeliness in obtaining results, since most such complaints are based on a reasonableness standard determined by industry practices. Still, I understand folks' frustration in having to wait for months for results, and this frustration is compounded by the evident lack of a reliable system of notification and communication, not to mention a lack of communication between project administrators and the company (as evidenced by the uncorrected mistakes on the HG I haplotree I mentioned previously, to name one example). I don't believe for a second that the long wait times are solely due to perceived differences in the level of accuracy in the testing process as between FTDNA and its competitors, although it is certainly plausible that that is one of the factors involved. Nevertheless, the sloppy maintenance of the haplotree - at least for HG I, and the misplacing of samples and so forth, to which other customers have alluded, are also a part of the larger problem.

                        Comment


                        • Perception is reality

                          Mr. W.
                          dna
                          FTDNA Customer
                          Last edited by dna; 18 February 2015, 01:58 AM. Reason: +signature :-)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by David Guetta View Post
                            Z63 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.
                            According to the project administrator with whom I spoke as well as my own search of tested snps from the M223 project snp data page, Z63 has not been observed in any M223 I2a2a participants, but is nevertheless included in that portion of the tree as well as the I1 portion. It occurs downstream of the split between the two groups in question. Thus, M223 members who order this test based upon its listing on the tree are wasting their money. Since it occurs downstream of the split, it would be worthless anyway should it appear in both trees since it would have had to have occurred as an independent mutation in both branches, a highly unlikely event. To confirm that it does not occur in I2a2 (M223), one can go to the public project page and search for Z63- and Z63+. You will find over 100 matches for Z63- and not one Z63+ result. Yet, this test has been offered as a part of the individual tests listed for M223 for months, and was brought to the attention of the company by the project's administrators. As of this evening, the snp still is being erroneously displayed on that portion of the haplotree on the myFTDNA page. So far as I am aware, Z63 does not occur anywhere within the I2 tree and is demonstrably not found in the M223 portion by viewing the public results on the project page.
                            ekc123
                            FTDNA Customer
                            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


                              • Today is the last day for my current testing estimated date of completion. nothing has changed. It will be interesting to see if anything does.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X