Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comparison

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

  • Comparison

    Would someone care to explain the differences, and similarities, between Ancestry's autosomal test and Nat Geo's 2.0. ?

    Which is the best choice, and why ?

    Thank you,

    Wills

  • #2
    Look how long the NG has been around.
    Try and beat 1/2 million happy customers.

    Comment


    • #3
      There won't be any way to find "cousins" or other close relatives on Nat Geo 2.0.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm wondering how the $99.00 Ancestry test stacks up against the $199.00 Nat Geo 2 test.

        Is the Nat Geo 2 test ($199) far superior to Ancestry's ($99) ?

        Wills
        Last edited by Wills; 20 September 2012, 09:09 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          The two tests are completely different. AncestryDNA is similar to FTDNA Family Finder. NG2 is a test for deep ancestry similar to the first NG test. They produce completely different reports. Sounds like you either didn't do your homework or just don't want to.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thank you for so rudely pointing that out, stud.

            Comment


            • #7
              As R. Walker posted above, Geno 2.0 will not have the capability to find cousins to you in its database. As mkdexter posted, Geno 2.0 is oriented to deep ancestry, not in a genealogical timeframe, by testing yDNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA.

              Here are links where you can do some homework and get more details about what Geno 2.0 will give you:

              https://genographic.nationalgeograph...about-project/

              http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com...nces-geno-2-0/

              http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.co...-tree-dna.html

              http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.co...-wells-on.html

              Comment


              • #8
                The two tests are completely different. AncestryDNA is similar to FTDNA Family Finder. NG2 is a test for deep ancestry similar to the first NG test. They produce completely different reports. Sounds like you either didn't do your homework or just don't want to.
                __________________
                Matt Dexter.
                yDNA - M222+
                mtDNA - H1
                http://findingdnafamily.com/

                As a newbie on here and not familiar with "genetic geek" jargon, it would be nice for people to not always use abbreviations for terms, etc. It doesn't help new people undertand what is being referred to, couldn't you put the explanation in parenthesis next to the abbreviation you like to use? Plus be a little more patient with newbies, OK? Thanks.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by southjerseygeni View Post
                  As a newbie on here and not familiar with "genetic geek" jargon, it would be nice for people to not always use abbreviations for terms, etc. It doesn't help new people undertand what is being referred to, couldn't you put the explanation in parenthesis next to the abbreviation you like to use? Plus be a little more patient with newbies, OK? Thanks.
                  Oh good. I have been looking for a good opening to say the same thing!

                  I'm not stupid, trust me; but I am not a science geek and I am brand new to this whole thing. Reading posts that appear to consist of nothing but acronyms strung together with random words is not helping me get from zero to anywhere in this business.

                  I just read a post here all about "NPE"s in family history. Well, fortunately, I'd read something else in the last couple of days about "non-paternal events" -- itself a buzz-phrase, I understand for situations where the actual biological father is not the person who was believed to be, or who acted as, or who was treated as, the father. (But really, who would know that was what "non-paternal event" meant, even, coming at it cold?) If I had not already picked up on that, the entire post would have looked to me like that old joke about English tourists and WCs.

                  In other cases, even though I have hunted around and found what something stands for -- the example that comes to mind is SNP -- I don't remember what it was when I see it in a post a couple of days later. Understanding the discussion is going to be a whole nother matter, but I feel like I can't even get off the ground as long as all I'm doing is puzzling over shorthand.

                  Just once in a while -- once in a thread -- could people spell out the thing that an acronym stands for? They don't have to try to make every discussion intelligible to total ignoramuses like moi, just give us half a fighting chance to know what it's about!

                  And as far as not doing homework: consider that in a case like this, it really could have taken somebody like me a month's study to know the answer to this kind of question ... actually, to know what the question should be ... and that a discussion forum just might be the place to get opinions from people who already know what they're talking about. Not knowing what the question should be is maybe the real issue, in fact, and the reason the person is asking in the first place.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Wills View Post
                    Thank you for so rudely pointing that out, stud.
                    This is the Internet. Don't let the rudeness get to you, just take what you deem useful.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Wills View Post
                      Thank you for so rudely pointing that out, stud.
                      Ok you got me there... I'll apologize. By now I think you can find some answers in the posts that followed..

                      Matt.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        In addition to the information included in the links that Mike posted, if you take the GENO2.0 test you will be able to upload your SNP results to your existing FTDNA account. What I need to find out is how they're going to work that out for someone like me who first tested y & mt separately at NatGeo, resulting in two different accounts here. (I wish FTDNA would combine them!) Also, the last time I spoke to the office a few weeks ago, it was still unclear if the other results will be added to FF or not. The GENO 2.0 will be especially useful for both male and female first-time testers, men who haven't tested their mtDNA yet, men and women who have only HVR1 or HVR1 & 2 results, and for men who haven't done deepclade (SNP) testing yet. However, even for men like me who have done extensive SNP testing, this test could possibly identify new SNPs, so I've ordered a test because it's a lot cheaper than the Walk Through the Y (WTY).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                          What I need to find out is how they're going to work that out for someone like me who first tested y & mt separately at NatGeo, resulting in two different accounts here.
                          The transfer page will ask for your FTDNA kit number if you have one -- so you'll be able to provide the kit number that has your Y results already.

                          Elise

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Wills View Post
                            Would someone care to explain the differences, and similarities, between Ancestry's autosomal test and Nat Geo's 2.0. ?

                            Which is the best choice, and why ?

                            Thank you,

                            Wills
                            It would be helpful for those trying to advise you if you told us what your goal is in DNA testing. What sort of information are you trying to find out?

                            Based on that, we can tell you what's the best choice, since I and other posters have already pointed out that comparing Ancestry's autosomal test and Geno 2.0 is like comparing apples and oranges. The results from each of the two tests give you different information and one may be more useful to you than the other, based on your goals.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thanks for the responses.

                              I'm quite new to genealogical DNA testing. Thus far, I have only Y-tested to 37 markers.

                              I'm R1b1a2 M-269. My closest matches (14 total) are at 25 markers. All are at a genetic distance of 2. Only one of these matches share my surname, and he is only tested to 25 markers. We mismatch at 464b and 464c. I have no matches at 37 markers.

                              I'm interested in both deep ancestry and more recent relations. I imagine that I'm in this for the long haul and will take multiple types of tests.

                              I suppose a more accurate question would have been a comparison of Ancestry's test to Family Finder, and Nat Geo's 2.0 to deep clade.

                              I'm still learning.

                              Wills

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X