YDNA - New SNP Restrictions ??

[AngeliaR]

A recent posting in a FB group suggested that FTDNA will only be adding new snps for testing if they believe there will be x hundred of orders for it during a given time period. The specfics were not spelled out, but this move seems pretty short-sighted. What this means is that new snps discovered by the BigY will be left hanging and customers wanting to confirm lines will have no choice (at FTDNA) but to order a panel or BigY. Cost prohibitive for many, and unnecessary in many cases.

I suspect this restrictive practice will begin driving customers to the competitors even faster. There seems to be no issue with adding new snps there. On the other hand, it may have a positive effect on the testing backlog.

It would be nice if this kind of administrative decision was actually announced or communicated somewhere officially rather than finding out from other users through the grapevine.

If true, this seems like yet another ill-conceived change that doesn't really consider the true impact.

[dna]

A new product Bigger Y 2.0 to be announced in November and rolled out next year ? ? ?

W. (Mr.)

[Peter MacDonald]

A new product Bigger Y 2.0 to be announced in November and rolled out next year ? ? ?

W. (Mr.)

I have ordered the Big Y when it first rolled out. Whlie the raw data received is great, FTDNA's interpretation of the Big Y data is the pits. Prior to testing for the Big Y I tested positive for both L1335 and L1065 through individual SNP tests.

The results from the the Big Y test on my Haplogroup Tree only has me positive for CTS6838 (equal to L1335) and originally had me listed for presumed positive for CTS11722 (which is equal to L1065) and S7030. This presumed positive however was recently changed to tests available for CTS6838 and S7030.

So in a sense I have paid a fair bit of money to have FTDNA to confirm less than it already had in the past with regard to my Haplogroup and to further have them suggest that I spend additional money on further SNP testing.

With the current level of Big Y data interpretation by FTDNA, I would imagine that a "Bigger Y 2.0" would involve reformatting their Halogroup Tree to encourage further SNP testing beyond the "Bigger Y 2.0". No thanks.

This said I did have another DNA company provide analysis of my Big Y results for $40.00 (US) which brought me to a terminal SNP downstream of S756.

So like I said I cannot complain about the actual raw data from the Big Y test, but………

[T E Peterman]

I think the sensible approach is to have Big Y determine the raw data & then let a combo of project administrators & yfull determine what this actually means.

Timothy Peterman

[telly441]

It would be nice if this kind of administrative decision was actually announced or communicated somewhere officially rather than finding out from other users through the grapevine.

FTDNA has become a very non-communicative company in the past year. They only have one or two people answering questions publicly and in different places. The FTDNA facebook page is growing in that FTDNA actually is answering some questions but other they just ignore. Here in the FTDNA forum Darren attempts to do his best but he is just one person trying to answer a ton of questions. If you belong to one of the closed Facebook groups that J Cloud posts to then you may get some insight but again you have to be a member of one of those groups.

It has become almost laughable at all the posts here that never get read by anyone at FTDNA who cares or can do something about it. No offence to Darren but he has no power to make changes, he can only forward stuff up the chain.

As for the issue with FTDNA only creating SNP tests for SNPs that will be ordered in the hundreds, it just shows how much they don't care about their customers and that is all about the money.

[Earl Davis]

FTDNA had a problem.

In it's first year alone BigY discovered thousands of new snips. In years to come that may turn out to be millions of new snips. It takes time and money to develop individual SNP tests.

Some project managers were unreasonable and requested large volumes of new single SNP tests discovered in very small numbers of people to be developed and FTDNA provided them at expense. I suspect many of these have seen zero orders after the tests were developed.

FTDNA has IMO over-reacted to this situation. I doubt there will be more than a tiny handful of BigY discovered snips that will ever see hundreds of orders a year. There are however plenty that could see 100+ orders over a period of years.

For example in DF27 there are more than 1,000 current members but 25% of them have done BigY anyway. The biggest group where a stand alone SNP test does not currently exist perhaps makes up 20% of DF27 but beyond that all other groups without a stand alone SNP to test are less than 10% of DF27 so less than 100 people, and that's in a large project of more than 1,000 members. So few or no snips will pass the requirement for hundreds of orders a year.

IMHO the important snips to provide individual tests for would be...

1) Those included in BigY but with low coverage.
2) Those snips discovered outside BigY that fall outside BigY coverage.

Those would allow BigY testers to validate ambiguous results and fill in the blanks.

Instead FTDNA has at the request of project admins developed over 2,000 BY.SNP stand alone tests for snips that were already well covered by BigY and many of which will only be of interest to a tiny handful of testers.

So it seems we are at a place where we need to go to three testing companies to get the fullest picture and even then not a fullest picture possible.

Earl.

[Earl Davis]

So in summary we seem to have gone from a situation where hundreds of tests were being developed for a small to non existent audience to a situation where almost no new tests will get developed at all.

Not good either way.

Earl.

[dna]

So in summary we seem to have gone from a situation where hundreds of tests were being developed for a small to non existent audience to a situation where almost no new tests will get developed at all. [----]

Somebody analyzed ROI ?

W. (Mr.)

[BBA64]

I've read in one of my projects that FTDNA were more keen on offering panels, rather than individual SNPS. The panels would update to reflect ongoing BigY results. This seems a more cost effective method, to me anyway,

[lgmayka]

Perhaps individual SNP tests were never very profitable, and at this point FTDNA is happy to leave that very specific segment of the market to Yseq.

At the same time, FTDNA is very slowly rolling out its more generally useful SNP panels.

[Peter MacDonald]

It appears to me that FTDNA is dragging its heels on interpreting the results from Big Y Testing in order to allow persons who have taken the Big Y Test (and might not be fully aware of the Y DNA data it contains) to encourage them to take further testing suggested on the customer's Haplotrees to "confirm" SNPs by further testing for those individual SNPs.

I understand that customers need to be aware of what they are purchasing, however I feel that FTDNA is muddying the waters to a significant level by providing suggestions on further testing on the Haplotrees of customers who have purchased the Big Y (alone with a lack of fidelity on Big Y customer's terminal SNP).

[Peter MacDonald]

I've read in one of my projects that FTDNA were more keen on offering panels, rather than individual SNPS. The panels would update to reflect ongoing BigY results. This seems a more cost effective method, to me anyway,

I agree. It would be fantastic if FTDA could develop more SNP panels.

[John]

SNP panels and Big Y

I am seriously concerned about how these new panels are being trolled out by FTDNA. While I've always been reluctant to jump on the gloom and doom conspiracy bus that finds fault with FTDNA's every move {IMHO to date they've been the best operator in their field}, with the release of these panels I think a case can be made that FTDNA is crossing ethical lines.

All of the panels that I am aware of, and admittedly I am sure I do not know of them all, have been put together without, or with very little, input from the haplogroup project administrators. Had they sought out and listened to those administrators the panels would have served both FTDNA, the projects and the customers much better.

FTDNA is actively advertising the panels to those who have taken the Big Y, despite the fact that the Big Y covers all of the SNPs on the panel and the test taker's status as either positive or negative for those SNPs is already known. FTDNA has not updated the haplotrees of the Big Y takers to reflect those statuses. Selling the panels in this manner without revealing to the Big Y takers of these facts is very close to, or is straight out, fraudulent.

All project administrators, despite being volunteers, have a duty to their project members to advise them of what is going on with the Big Y results, the construction of and usefulness of the panels, and what tests are or are not in their best interest to purchase. Unless FTDNA resolves the issues I've noted, I can not recommend any further SNP testing . . . be it the panels, individual SNPs or even the Big Y itself. Granted my project is very small as compared to some, but I would hope that the administrators of the larger/largest projects would agree and take the same stance.

[dna]

I am seriously concerned about how these new panels are being trolled out by FTDNA. While I've always been reluctant to jump on the gloom and doom conspiracy bus that finds fault with FTDNA's every move {IMHO to date they've been the best operator in their field}, with the release of these panels I think a case can be made that FTDNA is crossing ethical lines.

All of the panels that I am aware of, and admittedly I am sure I do not know of them all, have been put together without, or with very little, input from the haplogroup project administrators. Had they sought out and listened to those administrators the panels would have served both FTDNA, the projects and the customers much better.

FTDNA is actively advertising the panels to those who have taken the Big Y, despite the fact that the Big Y covers all of the SNPs on the panel and the test taker's status as either positive or negative for those SNPs is already known. FTDNA has not updated the haplotrees of the Big Y takers to reflect those statuses. Selling the panels in this manner without revealing to the Big Y takers of these facts is very close to, or is straight out, fraudulent.

All project administrators, despite being volunteers, have a duty to their project members to advise them of what is going on with the Big Y results, the construction of and usefulness of the panels, and what tests are or are not in their best interest to purchase. Unless FTDNA resolves the issues I've noted, I can not recommend any further SNP testing . . . be it the panels, individual SNPs or even the Big Y itself. Granted my project is very small as compared to some, but I would hope that the administrators of the larger/largest projects would agree and take the same stance.

For a different view on this very topic and some clarification of the real issues behind panels please see the following posts by user lgmayka

• http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...893#post412121
• http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...893#post412133

W. (Mr.)

[Peter MacDonald]

A very weak alternate point of view. Sorry but it is.