Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For those awaiting Y results

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

  • Nothing yet 595

    Continuing to update yDNA 12/25/37 batch 595. No results on Feb 19 with a (third round?) prediction of 02/04/2015 - 02/18/2015. Sigh.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ellen S M View Post
      Continuing to update yDNA 12/25/37 batch 595. No results on Feb 19 with a (third round?) prediction of 02/04/2015 - 02/18/2015. Sigh.
      Same here Ellen...no results as of this morning, and no updated estimate...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ellen S M View Post
        Continuing to update yDNA 12/25/37 batch 595. No results on Feb 19 with a (third round?) prediction of 02/04/2015 - 02/18/2015. Sigh.
        Not sure I understand your post Ellen. You indicate your batch is 595 batch 12/25 for a Y37 test? How is that possible? The batches run one after the other in sequence. My batch for a Y37 test is 596 and was batched 11/13.

        Comment


        • Two of the four outstanding panels for me still say 2/18 (yesterday) the other two now say 3/4. I'm in batch 593.

          I have written my complaint that I plan of filing with the AG here in Texas. I'm going to let my Son-in-law, who is a lawyer look it over.

          I have two main complaints/concerns. The first is paying for a service that is not being completed. The second is I am concerned about the security of the results. I will be asking for a determination on the DNA records as to their status as a medical record. If they are medical records, I want to be sure that FTDNA is in compliance both from a process view and a system view.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by crhfish View Post
            Two of the four outstanding panels for me still say 2/18 (yesterday) the other two now say 3/4. I'm in batch 593.

            I have written my complaint that I plan of filing with the AG here in Texas. I'm going to let my Son-in-law, who is a lawyer look it over.

            I have two main complaints/concerns. The first is paying for a service that is not being completed. The second is I am concerned about the security of the results. I will be asking for a determination on the DNA records as to their status as a medical record. If they are medical records, I want to be sure that FTDNA is in compliance both from a process view and a system view.
            That is why FTDNA is not testing anything medical And that is precisely why FTDNA Support has no access whatsoever. Catch-22 ?

            W. (Mr.)

            P.S.
            By now you know that the problem is with the severe lack of clear communication. As any panel that fails needs to be rerun, until the good (QC) results are obtained, how are you going to complain about that, since the main dependency is the on biological material you had personally supplied... Yes, there are variations, and that is why there is QC and there are re-runs. (And I know what I am writing about, since one of the tests I am waiting for is now in the third iteration - of course my guess only; by my count two more iterations and new vials would be sent out... Consequently, I am considering additionally testing somebody else to get results months sooner.)

            Comment


            • All afternoon and evening I've gotten "data load failed: 200 OK" when clicking on the y-/dna haplotype. Followed by a perpetual circling. Is this a precursor to getting some y-/dna results? Much as initial My origin results are a sign that FF is coming soon?
              Last edited by MikeP; 19 February 2015, 08:12 PM. Reason: correcting autofill

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MikeP View Post
                All afternoon and evening I've gotten "data load failed: 200 OK" when clicking on the y-/dna haplotype. Followed by a perpetual circling. Is this a precursor to getting some y-/dna results? Much as initial My origin results are a sign that FF is coming soon?
                Hopefully that is a positive sign for you! My Y37 from Batch 595 estimate was updated to 2/18 to 3/4 this evening

                Comment


                • I'm sure that FTDNA has an opinion as to wether or not the dna results they have on hand are medical records. The thing is their internal opinion does not mean a thing. Nothing. An external opinion from a regulatory body will/would decide that.

                  Comment


                  • I think the samples from Batch 593 - 596 were lost, misplaced or all dropped on the floor and the vials broken

                    My big fear is if I have to ask my donor for another sample is that he will not give it.

                    edited to add: just checked another cousin's results I'm waiting on in batch 603 for a Y111 upgrade. The dates just changed from 2/12/ - 2/25 to 2/25 - 3/11. Not surprising but not quite as concerned as with batch 596 . However, I can't believe that the samples for both of these cousins are failing.
                    Last edited by Tenn4ever; 19 February 2015, 09:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by crhfish View Post
                      Two of the four outstanding panels for me still say 2/18 (yesterday) the other two now say 3/4. I'm in batch 593.

                      I have written my complaint that I plan of filing with the AG here in Texas. I'm going to let my Son-in-law, who is a lawyer look it over.

                      I have two main complaints/concerns. The first is paying for a service that is not being completed. The second is I am concerned about the security of the results. I will be asking for a determination on the DNA records as to their status as a medical record. If they are medical records, I want to be sure that FTDNA is in compliance both from a process view and a system view.
                      You've had to wait way too long; there's no doubt about that. I experienced the same joy several years ago waiting for my deep clade test results, which took over 5 months. The problem that you are likely to run into, however, is that (and I'm not 100% sure about this so others can correct me if I'm wrong) FTDNA is one of the few - if not the only - company that still provides the str panel testing as opposed to snp testing for haplogroup determination. In such cases, where the issue is essentially lack of notice about potential delays, the issue usually ends up being settled by "industry standards" in terms of what is reasonable, reasonableness being a legal standard. Since there really aren't other companies offering this particular test, there isn't really an industry standard, per se, concerning wait times. As far as the company providing the service, they do provide it. All customers eventually will get results. The question is whether the results are being processed and given to the customer in a timely manner (as well as whether the company has a duty to give notice of potential delays). Best of luck in getting your results. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I doubt that it will really amount to anything, but you are certainly justified in pursuing an alternative course of action given the repeated delays, revised completion dates, and so on. As I said, I had to wait about 5 1/2 months for my deep clade test results and had actually forgotten that I had ordered the test, when I got the email notifying me that the results were finally ready.
                      Last edited by ekc123; 19 February 2015, 11:28 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tenn4ever View Post
                        I think the samples from Batch 593 - 596 were lost, misplaced or all dropped on the floor and the vials broken
                        There is an IT equivalent to this hypothesis: That some ongoing but incomplete results were mistakenly erased without backup, and thus those tests had to be restarted from scratch.

                        Only a hypothesis, of course--but with some fragmentary supporting evidence.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
                          Originally posted by Tenn4ever View Post
                          I think the samples from Batch 593 - 596 were lost, misplaced or all dropped on the floor and the vials broken
                          There is an IT equivalent to this hypothesis: That some ongoing but incomplete results were mistakenly erased without backup, and thus those tests had to be restarted from scratch.

                          Only a hypothesis, of course--but with some fragmentary supporting evidence.
                          The hypothesis looks quite credible (and I do not like the outcome, since I am also waiting for 596).

                          Similarly, if the UPS (I hope the lab equipment is connected to a UPS and not directly to grid power) has had a catastrophic failure, then all the tests would need to be re-run too.

                          W. (Mr.)

                          Comment


                          • A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO FRUSTRATION.

                            W. (Mr.)[/QUOTE]

                            [QUOTE=dna;402582]The hypothesis looks quite credible (and I do not like the outcome, since I am also waiting for 596).Similarly, if the UPS (I hope the lab equipment is connected to a UPS and not directly to grid power) has had a catastrophic failure, then all the tests would need to be re-run too.

                            Tenn4ever Tenn4ever
                            FTDNA Customer


                            I think the samples from Batch 593 - 596 were lost, misplaced or all dropped on the floor and the vials broken [/QUOTE]


                            Gosh that sounds drastic Teen4ever: My Long winded contribution to this discussion below:

                            For the project I administer (almost 500 members) we have large numbers of batches awaiting finalization. One that is very problematic and the key to the Haplotype of several Scottish Clans whereby the ongoing research regarding these cannot continue until a result is obtained for a member in BATCH 591 9th of October 2014. 4.5 months in the offing!

                            =Advanced SNP DF27...he also ordered 4 further Advanced SNP's in November- still awaiting all. Batch is 591 all. DF27 from October was the important one...still waiting.

                            Then the member/customer ordered Big Y on top of all these (cost $700+ total) after waiting until 16 December for the others to return to no avail; he was frustrated and confused. I would have advised him not to do that.

                            The amount of DNA needed for these accumulating tests especially BIG Y meant the Lab needed to access the 2nd vial in storage. Further delays obviously occurred.

                            The bottom line is that the BIG Y ordered on December (16th) returned promptly- however it was minus DF27 & and some of the other advanced SNP results ordered previously that are usually included in all Big Y results. So the member is STILL P312* after 4.5 months, considerable out of pocket expenses, and still none the wiser. Rarely do I complain about delays etc, as it is the nature of these biological laboratory controlled tests whereby results can be vague necessitating a re-run, often more than once. Perfectly understood.

                            However in this case I tried to stop the more recent orders from being run when I found the customer had ordered Big Y. Because of the massive delay in the message reaching the help desk, all tests were run anyway. Hence... some weird confusion regarding DF27. Haplogroup Admins have been given the BAM however DF27 is still not reported (?) .
                            How strange ! Big Y always reports DF27 to my knowledge.

                            Help desk have advised (thank goodness) that DF27 advanced SNP is about to finalize. So if this week, or next- it will be 4.5+ (22 weeks) so approx 5 months since batched.

                            My feeling is that the DNA in storage may not be keeping as well as was intended as was mentioned previously. I will advise our members to order a new Kit for elder family members accordingly, to be kept at FTDNA- or at home (?) Therefore- perhaps the results are flawed, necessitating a re-run as others have mentioned here. It is highly doubtful that vials were smashed on the floor by accident,although anything may be possible.

                            What is needed for members is an interactive web based learning centre which is regularly updated with FAQ relevant to current situations.

                            And on a day to day basis.
                            A 'PROBLEMS?' page where customers can have their query filtered through a process of elimination and directly relevant to their current 'problem' situation.

                            If answers resulting from their click through queries don't directly or sufficiently 'answer' their question then a 'CONTACT US form' is available at the end of the line that goes directly through to a specialist with expertise in the handling of queries pertaining to that specific area.

                            ie : Haplogroup SNP Big Y testing;

                            another co-ordinator for 'Technical Problems- Web- Profile Pages- Gedcoms- etc; to filter to IT staff with follow up procedures.

                            Another for YDNA or mtDNAresults , perhaps another for Autosomal etc or something similar.

                            At the moment it seems like all queries go to everyone and anyone. A tiny team comprising a very small contingent of staff crushed under an unprecedented burden of customer email whereby they then finally access these queries accumulated in a long line sometimes for months, prior to filtering them off to their respective areas of expertise.

                            Hence the complaints; the frustration, when all the while this could arguably have all be avoided.

                            Letting the WEB do your filtering for you, and getting the customer's email or form query to the relevant person pronto saves huge amounts of time and frustration in the long run. The typical Microsoft (did this answer your question?) command helps the customer to interact thereby easing frustration, and further helps to collect very valuable feedback information for the organization.

                            Instead of enhancing our project pages with mainly unnecessary Facebook like activity feeds that disappear off into the ether within days...rarely to be ever seen again or recovered even after a week of posting--(if not sooner--) the IT staff would be better advised to think creatively as to how to address the growing concern of their 750,000+ memberships' problematic communication issues. (Correct me regarding the numbers) These are substantial..and growing at an unprecedented rate; they will become much worse unless addressed immediately !

                            One of the very best resources that FTDNA has at hand at no cost whatsoever to them is their Project Administrator base.
                            A think tank could be put together to help manage this communication problem. After all , these folk were often highly paid executives and managers in past lives, and their time and expertise is given freely. Isn't that a 'win-win situation?'
                            Last edited by Alexandrina; 20 February 2015, 08:00 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by dna View Post
                              As any panel that fails needs to be rerun, until the good (QC) results are obtained, how are you going to complain about that, since the main dependency is the on biological material you had personally supplied...
                              You still believe that BS?

                              That's just a way to deflect blame for FTDNA's poor business practices onto the customer. It's shameful.

                              Comment


                              • Again, I'll point out that in the case of my 6+ month Big Y wait, I was repeatedly told by Customer Service that my results had failed QC, and I was even told at one point that they were mailing me a new kit.

                                I later found out directly from Bennett Greenspan that none of it was true and that they had not even started testing my sample for several months after the supposed "batch date".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X