Only 140,000 people in FTDNAs database?

[ewd76]

I've always assumed that the largest Y figure includes 12-marker tests.

Yes, I didn't notice that the 12 marker wasn't included in that. So the number would be however many Y-12 marker results there are plus whatever mtDNA results there are.

[Ann Turner]

Unless I am missing something, the most people we can infer from that information is 312,214 + 271,651 = 583,865 since higher markers already include the lower markers.

I've always assumed that the largest Y figure includes 12-marker tests.

[ewd76]

Carpathian, and there is a lot of sloppiness on all sides.

I had a dna match who had a PhD, and in her tree she had her great grandfather married to himself; and then he and himself had a child who was her grandparent. Wow!

It would appear many people throw up their trees and never go back to check them. Too many grandsons who marry their grandmothers and have a child.

I learned that lesson the hard way. I got one of the free two week trials from Ancestry and accepted every shaky leaf hint I found. Once I started to actually think about what I had done, and that I am not likely to be descended from God Kings from a million years ago, nor could an unbroken descendancy from Adam and Eve be confirmed, I deleted my whole tree and started over. I was somewhat disappointed at first, but knowing the truth is important and at least I don't sound like an idiot at family reunions.

[ewd76]

Here's additional information from the page - https://www.familytreedna.com/why-ftdna.aspx - you're quoting:

630,315 Y-DNA records in the database
312,214 25-marker records in the database
290,738 37-marker records in the database
150,951 67-marker records in the database
271,651 mtDNA records in the database

Adding the yDNA and mtDNA numbers (630,315 and 271,651) together gives a total of 901,966. And that's exactly the number you quoted for their entire database.

I don't think this is a coincidence. The total they give is for yDNA and mtDNA results and doesn't include Family Finder autosomal results. This is why ISOGG only has an estimate for the size of FTDNA's autosomal database. The company has never issued a public count for that part of their database.

I wish that your and Frank Kelch's estimate that FTDNA has 1 million people in their autosomal database is correct. I've been a customer of FTDNA since 2005 and an administrator of two large projects, so I want to FTDNA to grow. But all the information that's public says to me that FTDNA doesn't have 1 million people in its autosomal database.

Unless I am missing something, the most people we can infer from that information is 312,214 + 271,651 = 583,865 since higher markers already include the lower markers.

[Biblioteque]

Carpathian, and there is a lot of sloppiness on all sides.

I had a dna match who had a PhD, and in her tree she had her great grandfather married to himself; and then he and himself had a child who was her grandparent. Wow!

It would appear many people throw up their trees and never go back to check them. Too many grandsons who marry their grandmothers and have a child.

[Carpathian]

I've pointed out the impossibility of the relationship to the tree owner, and am waiting to see what the reply, if any, will be.

Most people don't like to be corrected if they become embarrassed or defensive. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. You will only end up irritating the pig."

I'm also convinced that most people who don't respond are lacking in education and in basic social skills. Most people who are our DNA relatives are of average intelligence - if even that.

[Tenn4ever]

And just a caveat to all adoptees who test at Ancestry.

Just because you have a close dna match with someone who has a big tree, please do not get excited and run with that without first confirming the tree is actually representative of the dna.

E.g., I recently had a 525 cMs match and her big tree had nothing to do with my well-documented tree, so I knew something was wrong somewhere. I messaged the administator and she said the tree was hers, but the dna was that of her son-in-law.

What!

Yes, when you get a match on Ancestry click on the user name at the top of the page. This will take you to their profile page. If you match to them it will show that. If they have tested someone else it will show that down below.

[Biblioteque]

And just a caveat to all adoptees who test at Ancestry.

Just because you have a close dna match with someone who has a big tree, please do not get excited and run with that without first confirming the tree is actually representative of the dna.

E.g., I recently had a 525 cMs match and her big tree had nothing to do with my well-documented tree, so I knew something was wrong somewhere. I messaged the administator and she said the tree was hers, but the dna was that of her son-in-law.

What!

[KATM]

I will rephrase it in that most who subscribe to Ancestry have no prior experience in genealogy. It isn't that they are uninterested, it is that they lack any research skills. So they subscribe, then post "their" tree with one or two names and expect others on the site to provide them with information which they can't find or do not know. Then the tree information of others gets 'cut and pasted', as many other trees have that, but nothing more than that. The information found, posted and re-posted becomes a dead end.

There's a tree at Ancestry which has my father's paternal grandparents and their children on it. The information is very obviously taken from the 1920 U.S. Census, which had several of the family members' first names recorded incorrectly (other details for that census entry are correct, and I know it is the right family, except for the names). On top of that, the only way the family is connected to the tree is by showing my great grandmother (born in the 1860s) as being married to a man in the tree who was born in the 1600s.

Supposedly she had 4 children with him, and one with my great-grandfather. What a time traveler! Who knew? But in the actual profile page for my great-grandmother, it shows the opposite: 1 child with Mr. 1600s, and 4 with her real husband. I've pointed out the impossibility of the relationship to the tree owner, and am waiting to see what the reply, if any, will be.

[Carpathian]

[QU

OTE=Tenn4ever;447369]

One reason Ancestry sells so many kits is they are a by-word for ancestry research. When someone decides to be tested who hasn't been involved with much genealogy research they will automatically think of Ancestry. Think of it like this. When someone first wants to buy auto insurance where do their thoughts first go to? Allstate, Geico, State Farm?

Where does an elephant sit? Anywhere it wants to. Ancestry dominates the field due to their business plan.

However, your remark that Ancestry is for those who have a passing interest in genealogy at best is quite ridiculous. I don't think their huge base of people paying almost $400 a year for many years would be people with a passing interest or curiosity.

I will rephrase it in that most who subscribe to Ancestry have no prior experience in genealogy. It isn't that they are uninterested, it is that they lack any research skills. So they subscribe, then post "their" tree with one or two names and expect others on the site to provide them with information which they can't find or do not know. Then the tree information of others gets 'cut and pasted', as many other trees have that, but nothing more than that. The information found, posted and re-posted becomes a dead end.

I love FTDNA but sad to say if Ancestry had a chromosome browser they would probably leave FT in the dust.

Why should they do that? Ancestry is highly profitable enterprise without it. Desire and longing are the basis of marketing. When and if the longing becomes satisfied, the income stream evaporates. Instilling and promoting hopes and dreams is a very profitable business.

[KATM]

However, your remark that Ancestry is for those who have a passing interest in genealogy at best is quite ridiculous. I don't think their huge base of people paying almost $400 a year for many years would be people with a passing interest or curiosity.

But not all of Ancestry's DNA testers have subscriptions. Newbies who are non-subscribers, see the ads that tell them they can find out their ethnicities, and do the test. I would bet that a majority of Ancestry's DNA testers are not subscribers, or if they initially do subscribe, they cancel their subscriptions at the end of the subscribed period, after trying it. Who counts on needing an ongoing subscription, just to make good use of DNA matches? You don't need to do that at 23andMe and FTDNA, at least. Here's one user's experience.

Although, I could be wrong, because it is tough to make use of your DNA match list at Ancestry, without having a subscription so you could view their trees. I have heard that customers can call and ask for a limited subscription (called Ancestry Insights, I believe), that would allow viewing the trees of, and communicating with, their DNA matches, seeing the hints and circles, for a yearly cost of $49 - but missing the ability to search Ancestry's record databases. Apparently this is available as a one time deal; to get it again, you may have to have a gap in service, and re-subscribe after a time. So Ancestry's model for DNA is a continual drip drip drip of subscribing costs, or suffer crippled functionality for DNA matches (unless your match is one of the rare ones who puts an email address so you can contact them outside of Ancestry's very unreliable message system).

I have a lot of matches at Ancestry who show as having not logged in for a long time (which could be because they no longer subscribe, or just that they never log out), many who do not have trees (either public, or otherwise shown in their profiles), and many who do not reply to messages, even when apparently active.

23andMe is also not great for matches; again, they only offer their messaging system for contact, not email addresses, and the New Experience has been disappointing, removing features users liked and depended on. Many of the matches never respond, or fill out useful profiles, and since 23andMe discontinued trees a few years ago (other than teaming up with MyHeritage for trees), overall it's less than optimal.

I think we have to realize that many of our matches just are not into genealogy, but perhaps might be one fine day. It's still worth trying to contact them.

Also, I have several kits on FT and they all have code names

I love FTDNA but sad to say if Ancestry had a chromosome browser they would probably leave FT in the dust.

I've tested at 23andMe, transferred to FTDNA, and most recently gave in and tested at Ancestry, where, yes, I have subscribed for 6 months, but will cancel and not go beyond that - I can use the library or a Family History Center to get access to their records, as I've done in the past. Ancestry does not have a lot of databases for a good portion of my ancestry. Cancelling will hobble my DNA match use, unfortunately.

For all of the above companies, I have matches with code names. I use aliases for the accounts I manage that I've uploaded to GEdmatch, but for most of the kits I manage at FTDNA, the testers themselves chose to use their real names, or a first initial and last name.

Sadly, you might be right about Ancestry if they ever relent and get a chromosome browser. We can hope that FTDNA is working on some features and improvements that will keep them competitive in this field. And I have to think that the subscription costs of Ancestry eventually would discourage and turn off people who can't afford it, just to deal with their DNA matches. If Ancestry did add a chromosome browser and other helpful tools for DNA matches, what do you bet they would only be available with a subscription? FTDNA does have an advantage there.

[Tenn4ever]

Ancestry has a very clever and profitable marketing strategy. The separation of the DNA testing section and their perpetual subscription fees for access to the section containing records lures people in and provides an endless income stream. Actually I dislike Ancestry most, because it is geared toward attracting those for whom genealogy is a passing curiosity at best. The use of code names to protect a member's "privacy" and provide anonymity at any of these sites doesn't promote communication or mutual trust, either.

I tested with Ancestry, FTDNA and 23&Me. When I tested with Ancestry it was Beta and offered to long-time members for $10 to build their data base . It was only ethnicity at that point, I think. That was many years ago


One reason Ancestry sells so many kits is they are a by-word for ancestry research. When someone decides to be tested who hasn't been involved with much genealogy research they will automatically think of Ancestry. Think of it like this. When someone first wants to buy auto insurance where do their thoughts first go to? Allstate, Geico, State Farm?

Another reason they sell so many kits goes along with what you said...their very large research base and those who have paid for subscriptions on Ancestry for years. They want the matching there first and then they will transfer to FTDNA and upload to Gedmatch. It's a no brainer.

However, your remark that Ancestry is for those who have a passing interest in genealogy at best is quite ridiculous. I don't think their huge base of people paying almost $400 a year for many years would be people with a passing interest or curiosity.

Also, I have several kits on FT and they all have code names

I love FTDNA but sad to say if Ancestry had a chromosome browser they would probably leave FT in the dust.

[Carpathian]

I abandoned 23andMe totally after they introduced the new experience, or whatever it was called, but I went back to it several months ago and decided I like it. I get more responses there than I do here. A few years ago almost everyone who tested here would reply to my email. Now the response rate here is almost zero, as bad or worse than Ancestry.com. And few people list surnames or have trees, but that's the case everywhere now.

The "new experience" was a disaster, but to their credit they finally got things working, although it took several years to rectify the problems. As for the response rate here being low, I suspect it is due to the recent influx of free transfers. Few list any surnames and locations, and that shows a lack of interest in genealogy and determining how you are related to your matches.

But the worst thing (and it's not FTDNA's fault) is that it seems like if anyone is anywhere near closely related to me, they test anywhere but here. I get pages and pages of 5th to remote cousins! And I have to wait weeks to get 2 or 3 new ones.

With such a relatively small base of customers at FTDNA, who can blame them? I have tested my family members, first at 23 then some at Ancestry, then did the free transfer here. I too get pages of remote cousins, and there is no way to ever determine how we are related - especially if they have no interest in genealogy. It is a sad reality that FTDNA is trying to play catch-up to the other sites. Even the offer of free transfers isn't attracting those who are primarily interested in genealogy.

If Ancestry had a chromosome browser, it would be the best company of all. Some brick walls might have come down by now if Ancestry had a chromosome browser.

Ancestry has a very clever and profitable marketing strategy. The separation of the DNA testing section and their perpetual subscription fees for access to the section containing records lures people in and provides an endless income stream. Actually I dislike Ancestry most, because it is geared toward attracting those for whom genealogy is a passing curiosity at best. The use of code names to protect a member's "privacy" and provide anonymity at any of these sites doesn't promote communication or mutual trust, either.

[MoberlyDrake]

Do you know how to find your "Anonymous" matches at FTDNA using the advanced matching tool? What can you do with them? You can't even attempt to contact them. You can at 23andMe. And you can also see what matches you have in common with them. Here you might see their last name and haplogroup.

I abandoned 23andMe totally after they introduced the new experience, or whatever it was called, but I went back to it several months ago and decided I like it. I get more responses there than I do here. A few years ago almost everyone who tested here would reply to my email. Now the response rate here is almost zero, as bad or worse than Ancestry.com. And few people list surnames or have trees, but that's the case everywhere now.

But the worst thing (and it's not FTDNA's fault) is that it seems like if anyone is anywhere near closely related to me, they test anywhere but here. I get pages and pages of 5th to remote cousins! And I have to wait weeks to get 2 or 3 new ones.

I tested my mother at all 3 companies and she now has 13 matches descended from her great-grandfather, but only 2 of them tested here, and I paid for the test for one of them. The other I persuaded to test in 2011. 3 are at 23andMe, the rest at Ancestry. Dozens of Harprings at Ancestry, one here, etc.

If Ancestry had a chromosome browser, it would be the best company of all. Some brick walls might have come down by now if Ancestry had a chromosome browser.

[Tenn4ever]

The point is that if people on 23andMe won't share their data, you can't compare them in the chromosome browser. And in my experience, many people on 23andMe don't share, and it's very hard to get a response from matches. Very frustrating!

I totally agree. Their website is also difficult to work with. If you want health info upload your DNA to Promethease.