Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Increased Number of Failed Samples/Tests

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

  • telly441
    replied
    I guess I am more critical at the moment about the failed test issue because I have three separate kits that are less the 2 years old fail on Y-DNA tests and upgrades. They are not the same batch and they are different Y-DNA tests. One is a 37 to 67 marker upgrade, one is a new 67 marker test, and the last is a 111 marker upgrade. All three have failed QC.

    Leave a comment:


  • Petra
    replied
    Originally posted by dna View Post
    Thank you for your feedback, I will try to reduce my forum presence.

    W. (Mr.)
    I enjoy reading your posts, BECAUSE they are not overwhelming negative and keep the other side into account.

    Understanding clients anger for delays, lack of communication through FTDNA itself, I was sometimes fed up by all the grumbling and lack of a little patience of some clients. So I appreceated the Balance you tried to offer with your postings.

    When being a genealogy researcher (wheather per DNA or paper documents), passion and patience is necessary.

    There is no reason to draw back your opinions from the forum or playing the Leberwurst, the opposite is true. Thanks Mr. W. :-)
    Last edited by Petra; 28 May 2015, 04:36 PM. Reason: Klammer hat gefehlt, language

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Originally posted by telly441 View Post
    I do appreciate your reply but you always are in defense of FTDNA throughout this entire forum. I am just making a statement no other meaning intended.

    If you read through a lot of the threads that have to do with delay and postponed results you will notice a theme. First it is sorry for the delay, second we understand your frustrations, third it is results are being reviewed by QC and then either you get results or you receive the status message that you test has failed QC and we will be retesting a new sample.

    Since December the postings about people receiving the failed QC results have increase considerably and it is at the same time that they had to switch equipment because of primer supplier issues and R&D the new test procedure.
    I took your question without any second meaning, as QC problems would be of concern to me too.

    See also Sarmat's response.

    And I had thought that I am not one-sided in my opinions on Family Tree DNA

    Glass can be half-full or half-empty, I am trying to provide a balanced view. E.g. I am trying to point out that we all are missing communications from FTDNA. Am I only writing about mere plausible possibilities? Sure I am, but the same applies to most of the original questions. We are only guessing what is going behind the scenes, while I (and probably many others) feel that the company should do a better job in CR. Especially when taking into account that they do process thousands of samples and many with multiple tests.

    Am I overly optimistic? I do not think so , I just try to lighten up my answers, but if you take a look how I respond to some optimistic posts about result interpretation, you should notice that they are often pessimistic in nature (i.e. I am saying that something cannot be done or is not what it seems...).

    Thank you for your feedback, I will try to reduce my forum presence.

    W. (Mr.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Sarmat
    replied
    I think the failed test excuse has always been just that - an excuse that Customer Service picks at random to justify processing delays.

    The reason it appears to have increased in frequency lately -- with no evidence that it actually has, of course -- is that they decided to add it as part of the automated status reports.

    I'm guessing the thinking behind it is that "your test failed QC" sounds better to the customer than "actually, we haven't even started running your test yet".

    Leave a comment:


  • telly441
    replied
    I do appreciate your reply but you always are in defense of FTDNA throughout this entire forum. I am just making a statement no other meaning intended.

    If you read through a lot of the threads that have to do with delay and postponed results you will notice a theme. First it is sorry for the delay, second we understand your frustrations, third it is results are being reviewed by QC and then either you get results or you receive the status message that you test has failed QC and we will be retesting a new sample.

    Since December the postings about people receiving the failed QC results have increase considerably and it is at the same time that they had to switch equipment because of primer supplier issues and R&D the new test procedure.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Originally posted by telly441 View Post
    Has anyone noticed the large number of failed samples being returned or complained about in the forums? Is FTDNA wasting our samples trying to refine their new equipment/primers/staff?

    If they are wasting our samples refining there testing process what does that do to kits who family members have passed away...wasting stored DNA.

    We used to never hear about so many issues with test QC and failing samples.
    No, I have not noticed that.

    On the other hand, there are many people whose kits were processed by the lab (completed), but they were not fully processed by the front-end system and the automated notification system slaps on a message about a failed QC.

    W. (Mr.)

    P.S.
    Just guessing...

    Leave a comment:


  • telly441
    started a topic Increased Number of Failed Samples/Tests

    Increased Number of Failed Samples/Tests

    Has anyone noticed the large number of failed samples being returned or complained about in the forums? Is FTDNA wasting our samples trying to refine their new equipment/primers/staff?

    If they are wasting our samples refining there testing process what does that do to kits who family members have passed away...wasting stored DNA.

    We used to never hear about so many issues with test QC and failing samples.
Working...
X