Very Disappointed in familytreedna

[dna]

Yes, 9 days

Thank you for providing the confirmation!

[263026]

9 days ? No typos ?

W. (Mr.)

Yes, 9 days

[dna]

In the good old days of FTDNA:

batch 520

Y-DNA12
Batched 06/12/2013
Completed 06/21/2013 [----]

9 days ? No typos ?

W. (Mr.)

[Sarmat]

^-- And that sort of timeframe should still be possible with proper lab management, staffing, and infrastructure.

[263026]

In the good old days of FTDNA:

batch 520

Y-DNA12
Batched 06/12/2013
Completed 06/21/2013

batch 538

Y-DNA25
Batched 10/16/2013
Completed 11/03/2013

batch 562

Y-DNA37
Batched 03/25/2014
Completed 05/07/2014

[mikechilds54]

Resultsdelayed again

DNA kits sent in late February and early March are delayed to July - this time.

I will recommend that people run from this company. Disappointment has turned to disgust.

[jbarry6899]

Personally, I think a big improvement would be if Familytreedna received half the payment when the kit is ordered, and the other half when the results are ready to be downloaded.

On YFull you don't pay until your results are complete. Not long ago a competing company gave a free upgrade to customers whose results were delayed (although that was a very small number of customers and probably not a big financial loss).

[mikechilds54]

A big improvement would be

Personally, I think a big improvement would be if Familytreedna received half the payment when the kit is ordered, and the other half when the results are ready to be downloaded.

[Darren]

Responded to in the other thread that brought this up.

-Darren

[gtc]

I can understand somewhat but it doesn't explain, for example, Batch 603 and 604 which were purchased at the tail end of the big sale in December being delayed while batches such as 607 and 608 getting their Y results already.

That's one for FTDNA. Darren, can you enlighten us?

[Tenn4ever]

Yes, a batch is an internal construct that FTDNA ought to keep to itself. It doesn't help the customer because a batch of orders can contain a wide variety of test types, each of which has different average processing times.

If it is going to provide ETAs at all, then yes those ETAs to be based on the individual orders, regardless of the order batching scheme.

FTDNA publishes estimated processing times here:

https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/testing-process/return-kit-long-will-results-take/

... but that table does not take account of the tsunami of orders it receives every time it runs special offers (and the associated logjams in the lab), or lab processing problems, or staff shortages, or whatever else.

I can understand somewhat but it doesn't explain, for example, Batch 603 and 604 which were purchased at the tail end of the big sale in December being delayed while batches such as 607 and 608 getting their Y results already.

[selah]

LMS. Clearly what the lab has (if anything) isn't working. Plus, I personally know several people whose FMS took 20 weeks. FTDNA needs new lab management.

[gtc]

The estimated dates should be correct from the beginning and not assign the same date to the different tests in the batch.

Yes, a batch is an internal construct that FTDNA ought to keep to itself. It doesn't help the customer because a batch of orders can contain a wide variety of test types, each of which has different average processing times.

If it is going to provide ETAs at all, then yes those ETAs to be based on the individual orders, regardless of the order batching scheme.

FTDNA publishes estimated processing times here:

https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/testing-process/return-kit-long-will-results-take/

... but that table does not take account of the tsunami of orders it receives every time it runs special offers (and the associated logjams in the lab), or lab processing problems, or staff shortages, or whatever else.

[Valmac11]

I share your frustration my Mtdna was due 15 April to 29 April and lo and behold it is now 27 may to 10 june for Batch 612.

[selah]

The estimated dates should be correct from the beginning and not assign the same date to the different tests in the batch. That is misleading and is the root cause of everyone's agitation. My FMS should have had the correct estimated results date from the beginning, not the same date as a FF in the same batch and then bumped out. These dates are changing weekly and it's ridiculous. I want to purchase two Y tests, but will probably purchase from yseq.